All righty. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. This is the zoning board of appeals. It is Thursday, June 18th, 2026. It is 7:30. Uh we're here at the Newbury Municipal Offices, 12 K10th Wayfield. Uh we're in the second floor hearing room. Uh I am
the chair, Eric Spawn. We have our administrative assistant Chrissy Bri. Uh we have uh member Jack Carvali. >> We have oh I'm sorry Mario Carvali. We have member Jack Kelly. And we have
our liaison to the planning board Larry Murphy. Um let's open the first one. Business. >> Okay. Um yeah, this public hearing Peter Nicolapa Coat 129 Northern Boulevard um
was a continuation from 5:21 uh continuation request receive from applicants representative Seo Nolan to the next regular scheduled meeting which will be 7:16 26 here at town hall 12 Kentway second floor hearing room 7:30 p.m. to allow time for the board to
review the revised submitt. So that has been >> submitted a brand new submitt last week. >> Okay. and reconsideration of the contract. >> And you said you said the 17th or the 16th. >> 16th. >> The 16th. >> 716th. Oh, 716.
>> It's Jack. >> That's all right. It's okay. I got it here. July. >> It's just double check. >> Yeah, it's 16th. >> Cool. >> Okay. Uh
yes. >> Okay. So is there um a motion to be had for a continuance? >> Motion to continue. >> Second. >> Okay. All those in favor? >> I I So we have a continuence to July 16th at 7:30 here at the second floor
hearing room. >> Great. >> Okay. Two. Uh Gerald Fanetti 15 Sunset Drive applicant finding for relief of sections 974D5C01 increase in footprint and 02 increase in
height of the Newberry zoning bylaws and any other perimeter plan as may be required under the town of Newberry zoning bylaws to allow the proposed use project for the raising of the existing single family dwelling on the property and the construction of a new single family dwelling on pilings with a garage
on the property located at 15 Sunset Drive, Plum Island, Newberry, Mass 01951, Sisters Map U02, lot 80. And this has been continued from 5:21. Okay. And as a administrative matter, we
have Jack Kelly who is a member who was not at the last meeting but is here tonight and has our one mulligan rule has watched the video of the previous meeting to understand what's transpired. And so
we'll um we'll be here as a voting member tonight. >> Correct. I did watch it and I do have a couple comments, but we'll get to them in time. >> Great. So, is the applicant here? >> Yes. Lo,
>> do you have anything new to present or um thank you members of the board? Uh we submitted uh revised documents and we submitted documents requested by the
board um and we can uh review those and uh get the board's comments on it. Okay. So we have a new F checklist. We have a uh looks like an F diagram of
the building and the the rooms and the areas. We have a lot coverage checklist. >> So Mario raised some questions yesterday about discrepancies in lots so effortlessly. >> Okay. So, we then have your study of the
neighborhood and listing. Um, it looks like houses and areas and square footages. And what Cissy just said is that we have an updated site plan because there were some revisions made to it >> on the lot coverage.
>> On the lock coverage >> on the lock coverage, >> clarification of the figures. >> Okay. Is is the site plan new? No, just sent from effort as an example of what was will be what is presented. >> Okay.
>> For a better understanding. >> Okay. I think I got that. I have that. Then we have it looks like a design package
with floor plans and elevations that are slightly rendered. And then we have a full scale site plan. I assume matches this small one. >> Yes. >> May I just add that there's one other
item that was sent via PDF, but because it's 6 ft long, um I'm sure you don't have printed copies. We have one printed copy to show. >> Okay. And and that represents what? >> It's a montage of the whole streetscape.
15. >> So we have a montage of the streetscape. You have a list of all the >> I gave you the 11 by7 sheet of all the uh comparison of all the addresses in the neighborhood. Okay. >> And I did not print the montage. >> I didn't expect you to because it's 6 feet long.
>> Yeah. Uh I can send them the email that you sent of the file, but >> Well, I assume they got all that. >> They did. They did. Actually, they did. >> Yep. And then also we received uh a letter >> from J Martell that came in today. >> Yes.
>> Okay. So we have a lot of new information for us and we ended the meeting with your presentation of the project. We had some discussion
about the the size of the pro project um some of the board members felt that was too large and we were looking for some means to understand what what that was in relation to
what could be comparable is the rest of the the neighborhood. You obviously have rights to redevelop something. And the question is what? And that's how we're trying to figure that out. That's where we stand right now. >> Right. Okay. So,
Jack, do you have any questions to get you up to se speed so to speak? Do you want to hold your questions for course of discussion? Um, I just have, you know, one simple question and then then we'll hold the question of discussion. I think it was
the architect who mentioned that. Um I'm asking about the the interior access for the guest quarter suite which is now storage. >> Mhm. >> Um and there's no door that I could find from the interior of the house.
>> Yeah. >> Just from the outside and you know obviously it's a set of stairs on the outside >> and and and that's still true. Frankly, we have not resolved this. it it I'm not sure that it particularly matters if the stair is at the bottom of the if the door is at the bottom of the stairs or
at the top of the stairs. Uh it's a storage facility, so it doesn't even I mean it doesn't particularly >> and and I think I think I heard Mr. Fendetti say we were going to store uh a lot of his wife's artwork up there and stuff. >> Yeah, >> that's correct. >> Well, how's she going to make it up the
stairs? >> I've seen she's been in the wheel going up there. >> Oh, she's not going up there. No, we have a lot. Well, I have um a collection of items I would be storing up there also. I mean, it's not just her stuff.
She has a lot of stuff that needs to be put away. >> Okay. >> She's got a lot of people that help her move stuff all the time. >> We have staff. Put it back. >> Okay. I was just confused about that. Thank you. All right. Um, but the only >> Yeah, for now.
>> Okay. And then with the new So, let's discuss the new information that that's been presented. Okay. Um, we have an updated site plan. We have
um Are there any revisions to point out? >> Yes. Actually, I think it's important that we point out that we we've gone from a twocar garage to a onecar garage. >> Okay. >> Um to try and reduce the size. So, it was 572 ft. As a twocar garage, we've
now gone down to one at 374 ft. That also means that the space above the garage has been reduced from 572 to 374 ft. Um we've also eliminated um one of the bathrooms uh one of the larger
bathrooms so that we've um so we've pulled one of the addition on the right hand side in by 9 ft. Um so that I actually don't know the square footage off hand that reduced it but by a few hundred square feet. So, that's what's brought the total square footage down
from the Oh, I thought I had that number handy, but I think it's 3988. 3988 down to 3075. >> Okay. >> Yeah, we reduced about 900 ft.
uh we I think in terms of what was submitted saw or at least I saw some difference of numbers and so that was one of the questions is to okay what what's changed
and why and where is it so that we can track it and understand it and what we're um what we're looking at. Uh well you can see by comparing the two F diagrams of the um that were included with the application.
>> Yep. While he's looking at that, I have a just a question on this sheet. >> The FAR sheet, the FAR checklist. Yeah. >> Yeah. Um, when I add all this this column here. >> Mhm. >> I don't get 2701.
>> What did you get? >> I got 3449. when you ran this up >> when I added that column up. Yeah. >> Well, if you don't mind, I'll just take a moment. Go ahead. Please do my calculator. >> Please do. >> 3449.
>> Yeah. Everything. Okay, it's too I just got >> Yeah. >> Right. The garage is puzzle. >> Just give me give me >> Is that right? Is is that you came up
with >> what what was the number that you got again? >> 3449. 34 >> 374 >> 3449 >> No, I'm getting an entirely different number. So, either I've got nerves or um Okay, >> for my calculator, >> take your time. Take your time.
>> You said you reduced the square footage by how much? Do you have that number? >> 3988 down to 3075. Now, we should be clear. There are so many different ways to count. I mean, there's there's living area, there's F,
there's um there's counting the garage, not counting the garage. There's so many different ways to count this. >> I I just based it just from what you have here. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I have a total floor. Yeah. Let me let me continue to take
that time. I have 3075, which is 2701 plus the 374 for the second floor. What do you have? >> 3075. >> Yeah, but you you carry on with the meeting and not me. Okay. Cuz I got that number when I took out one of the 374s.
I got that number. When I added both of them, which are in here, I got the 3499. >> Okay. It's not It's not 2701. >> Yeah. Yep.
Um Yep. Okay. If you take the 3 49 and you minus 271, you you come up with 748 minus. >> I'm just saying that when you add all this up, >> right? >> That comes down to that, right?
>> Right. And then you minus this, it's a difference. >> Yeah. So if you take that number five, it's 374 374
equals that number, >> right? But do we counting these in here? >> Well, there's there's storage closet and garage is here. >> Do they they take that out? Well, >> cuz they add it back here.
True. So if it's a garage and it's conditioned or it's not conditioned, it's it's a it's a garage. It's not counted and it's habitable space. But then it's >> the bottom part. >> Yeah. But if it's storage space and it's
heated and it's it's finished and it's heated, you know, we've had that question about where the door is, then it's then it's in. >> Yeah. So it's the question of these two, >> right? is the is the difference between this
>> but that number should be different >> right just by adding them up take them out >> yeah and so we're what we're saying is that this is out this is in >> and then you get um 3075
>> if you look at the um which is here. >> But then they added here. This is the second floor they add. >> Yeah. So, okay. So, this number up here, >> right, >> is what we're going to say is is 3 44 9
take away 347 is going to be 3057. >> Right? >> So, this down this is a repeat. This is everything measured. It comes up with a number. Then we just ask them to take that number and divide it between first floor and second floor and then
retoal it. This number, this number and that number should all be the same number. >> Okay. >> This seems to be correct. >> That this seems to be correct. >> This this should be different. >> Yeah. >> Proposed, right? >> Yeah. >> This this number should match that.
>> Okay. So, I think that you added the storage closet above the carport at 374, which is correct. >> Yeah. >> I think you added the garage carport at 374, which is not correct. >> That could be I
>> So, if you take 3 3 4 9 and you minus 374, you come up with 3,75. >> Yes. So >> the proposed square footage number of 2701
should actually be >> 3075. >> And then that number matches your breakout of the first floor and the second floor which equals 375. >> You have total floor area as 3,075
at the top. You divided that number into the lot size and you came up with a floor area ratio of 17. >> That's correct. >> Okay. So, uh, we just everyone's got to take a line through the carport and just cross it off and then cross off 2701
and write 3075. >> Yes. So, this that number I took as the total of the first floor, not counting the carport. And then I and then it says total second floor. That's on the line below. >> Yeah. >> So, this totals to a number. This number
just gets broken between first and second. So this number and this number should match. >> Yep. >> This number, this number, and the number you put up here are all the same number. >> So it's really just this one one. Take that out. >> Yeah. Cross this. Cross the carport off.
>> Divides that number. And then everything else is correct. >> So does that mean the 2701 goes away? >> The 270 2701 goes away and gets replaced with 3075. >> Yeah. I I had that as the first floor total and then at the bottom I added it
to >> Yep. >> the second floor. >> I had a question regarding the difference in the square footage from 1498 to the now 17,000. What what happened on the lot size?
Jerry, do you want to speak to Watson? >> Yeah, that's I think the difference was when we add they you didn't add the new section that was put in. >> Okay. >> The triangular piece that we all approve, you approve. >> Okay. I mean, that's
>> Did you look at that? >> Um, no. Still >> okay. >> Still thinking Okay. So, let's go to that right now. What is >> What were you saying, Mar? The original square footage and the uh last document
they submitted was 1498 I think something around there. And now the new document from the lot size is 17 1771 >> and 17719 square ft is listed as existing and
stamped on every Chandler's survey. >> That was today. Did that come today? >> This is new. >> That's new. Okay. Eric sent out Eric sent it for clarification to support the board. >> Okay. So,
um everything in this chart needs to match everything in the application. So, if if we're questioning the 17719, then the 17719 is here. Okay. I assume if we take what we previously had as a
line and we add that >> back in that is the that is the difference of what's going on here. >> Okay. >> That make sense? >> Yep. >> Okay. >> All right. So, that was a question on
lot size. So taking um making the building a little smaller um seeing that the lot size was adjusted
takes the F down from just under 0.25 now to 17 because 0.25 25 to 17. Uh I mean that's8 seems like a big move, but there's two things that are affecting that. It's
it's you cut some of the building by reducing the garage and the bathroom and the the lot is actually bigger than what was previously stated. >> Okay. So, do we have um
>> I guess my question is does the lot size match the lot size and the decisions that were written for the two pieces of property? >> That would be on the ANR plan that was approved for the two planning which is
also included in the packet. If not full size, it's a 11 by 17 in that one. It's fairly fourth plane under that. >> Well, this one here. >> Thank you.
Okay. So this in our um in our plan states uh in the upper right hand corner of the actual lot that the area parcel one is 17718.
So we've got a you got a foot larger that's going to put smaller or pretty close. See that right >> right there? Okay. >> So, you're you're looking at this is the new survey.
>> I'm looking at that. >> Yep. This smaller 11 by 17 >> was what was filed during the decision when the when the lot were revised. >> All right. So, they're a square foot off. That's >> Yeah. So we're we're double-checking that what we
>> previous decision and what's being currently stated are in fact the same. Okay. Think you can overlook the foot that's being a rounding decision.
Um, were there any other Did you come up with any other comments in terms of looking at the application? And >> I did not >> I didn't I didn't either. I think that was just the >> understanding of what what changed.
>> I just want to confirm that after going through all this math, the existing FAR is 4% and we're going to 17%. Is that the proposed? So that's where those numbers we got 4 to 17. Is that correct? >> Sounds about right.
>> Okay. Thank you. In in looking at the site I drove up there, there's an existing house. So when you pull up, there's like seems to be apparently a foundation in front of you. Um,
was that um that's not on any of the plans. Is it a foundation? I mean, it looked like two strips. >> I think it's a combination of foundation and slab. Um, it's it's it's about 4 and 1/2 ft high
and it's where there's a boiler. Do you mean like when you drive here? So park your car here and it slopes uphill. This is the existing building. >> Yep.
>> There's seemingly two something. >> Oh, that's what you're talking about. Some concret concrete structure. >> It's something. I mean, I wasn't >> Yeah. >> Wasn't going to kick it too hard. um and wasn't going to dig around, but it just seems just it was enough of something
existing that wasn't on this plan. That's all. And was just usually surveyors are uh overly helpful to show everything and anything that confuses us to what's on the going on. So, and I'm
just trying to see if there was another structure there at one time. That's all >> could have been. >> It's a It's a I I I believe on the assessor's page it says the house was original 1880. >> Okay. >> There's a lot of history.
>> Yeah. And there's uh some concrete buried under some of the sand. So, we're not sure the extent of that. That may be why the surveyor did not put that. >> Is that what's labeled on the new plan? is I assume concrete co
in three or four places. >> Yeah. >> Kind of the driveway leads to the new house. >> Yeah. >> Been there a long time. >> Yep. Um, all right.
So, that's the F. >> Questions on that? >> Yeah, hang on a second. >> Um, I will take your comments in a second, but I just like to get to the lot coverage checklist. Any questions
with the lot coverage being at 19.1? So, it's got a primary dwelling. It's got decks. It's got some roof hangs which are greater than 20 in. Where are those roof hangs that are greater than 20 in? Are they
>> It's It's as you come to the the front entry. So if you look like for example the elevation of the front of the house >> there's a roof overhang um by the screen holding the screen porch back to the entry. >> It creates sort of a covered entrance
situation. >> Okay. >> It's an extension of a covered entrance. Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. Oh I Yeah, I get it. >> Okay. Usually we have to pick that out and most people
>> um 10. Okay. So we've got the basis of revised drawings that we had some questions on. We have walked through the application in terms of lot coverage and F.
Um we've heard that the building has been reduced by a bathroom and a half a garage and we are now >> and a half of a second floor storage unit >> and a half of the second floor storage goes with half of the garage. Okay. So
before we get to the information about the neighborhood and the size, I'm going to ask if there's anybody here that would like to speak either for or against. And please stand up, state your name, and >> well, they didn't stand and I'd rather not speak, but I'd be happy to say my
name is Margaret Thomas. I'm at 14 Columbia Way. I just need some clarification on things. It's my understanding at the last meeting it was determined that there in fact is only one bedroom in the existing square footage. And on this sheet, it says it's two stone. So, should that be taken away >> and made down to one um so that we keep
it consistent as we go forward? >> Um >> I'm happy to update that plan to say one bedroom as opposed to >> I mean I think it's on the record that we agreed that it was a one bedroom but >> existing just reflect the record. That's all.
>> Absolutely. I'm happy to do that. Yeah. >> So where sorry where does it state >> um the plan that I submitted after I measured the existing house? I labeled them as >> each the two rooms as bedroom. >> Y >> I'm happy to amend that and call one a bedroom and one a living area.
>> Got it. That's the previous drawing >> in the existing the storage closet above the carport. I didn't notice the carport there. The existing >> uh No, not in the existing. >> It says it's here at 150 ft.
>> Um can you can you tell me what? >> Sure. It's on the far list. No, I >> didn't create. So, um, >> carport. >> Oh, storage. >> It says carport. Storage closet. Carport. >> Carport.
>> 150. >> Um, right here. >> Oh, above carport. >> Yeah. >> I I I don't know why it says above carport there. >> Okay. >> That's for That's the storage area. >> Yeah, that's what I thought. I just thought we're going to correct it. Yep. Okay. I have a second question or
clarification. Um, bathrooms. I I just want to make sure I'm understanding that bathroom number one, which is 48 ft, is not going to exist in the proposed square footage. Is that correct? >> I'm sorry. Can you repeat the question?
>> The bathrooms. The way that I read this right now is I'm trying to decide whether there's two and a half baths or one and a half baths in this house. I don't I can't tell from >> there's one and a half baths. >> One and a half. So the 48 goes away. So if I were to look at proposed square footage and next to bathroom one, it should be NA cuz it's not going to be
there. That's that's all I was asking. So then there's going to be 100 square foot bathroom and then there's going to be a half bath of 31 square ft. So there's two one and a half baths in the house. >> Correct. >> Yes. Bathroom two. You can call them
bathroom one. It's just a question of which line I deleted or where that existing number happened to be at, >> right? What line it happened to be in. So yes, 106 for bathroom one or two. Call it number one. We can make that correction. >> And then the half bath is 31. That's
correct. >> So there's one and a half baths in the house. Okay, >> that's one. Um, and if you go back over to the lot coverage, the numbers don't foot out to the ones that we just talked about. But I just wanted to make that they should
all put out when you're done. >> So the the the lot coverage >> Uhhuh. >> is the to so the F is the habitable space with inside the walls. >> Got it. >> The F is So the lot coverage is going to be a bigger number because it's to the
outside walls. It includes any decks or stairs. >> Okay. >> It includes any overhangs that are over 22 in. >> Okay. And it includes anything that is is uh man-made like a shed or something else. >> Okay.
>> So, the reason the lock coverage is at 20% um is because it's it's the footprint of everything man-made and then the F gets a slightly greater percentage because it's usually including like a second
floor on top of the first floor. And so it's 25% as opposed to 20. >> Okay, great. Thank you. >> Yep. Um, and there's something weird about covered decks, but we're not going to get into that right now. >> I have a question on that same topic.
Paula Irving, 26 Columbia way. >> Yep. >> Just does when it's lot I'm sorry, 16. I have both actually, but um the uh primary dwelling, does that include the storage area? Cuz the garage isn't added
on to that lot coverage that that section. So, we have 3056 and the garage is not included >> the as part of the lot coverage. So, I'm just wondering if it's included
in the 3056 number somehow or if it's left out entirely. That would have been in I mean, I didn't I didn't prepare the lot coverage, but that would have been because there's a second floor that number is included because the second floor counts as lot
coverage >> in there. The primary as well. So, >> I think yes. Okay. And you can't quite take the numbers off the F and see that they slide directly over to the lock coverage because the numbers on the lock coverage are
different. And we do um we have a surveyed drawing which says the um the lot coverage is at 19.1
>> which matches the application sheet. And this drawing was prepared by an engineer who stamped and signed this drawing to to to say that he validated his his work. So um
um sometimes we a little bit of judgment call if an owner says it's blue and we don't think quite so. But when it's on a stamp drawing by a professional engineer who put a stamp of his license on it, we take um um it is believable and he's putting his name behind it. So we tend
to try to say the right thing here. You know, we take what he has given us. >> Okay. Yeah. I just thought since it was a separate line item and it wasn't included that maybe, >> you know, the forms might be a little better sometimes. Sometimes it's a little bit of who's just filling it out
and how much they do. And other times they they just take the whole thing and plop it on there. >> Okay. >> Okay. One more question. >> Yep. I have another question about um driveways are not included under the um lot coverage. >> Correct. >> Okay. And so, but it's assumed that the
driveways are going to be permeable. >> Um that's up to Com if they have a a decision regarding that. >> Yeah, we're all not allowed to have it. So, never assume he's not going to be allowed to have it. >> And it's our purview is that they're create they're providing enough parking
and parking spaces as required by the bylaw. the actual construction of of the driveway is really not in our purview. So, >> no, I understand it's not. So, it goes to the conservation commission to talk about that. >> Yes,
>> absolutely. I understand that one. >> That is correct. And certainly everybody on Plum Island, as you said, the direction is for less impervious, more pvious, better drainage, and things that don't affect drainage or affect the island to the detriment.
>> Right. That's a pretty big too. >> All right. So, um >> it will be it will be a per pvious perable. It will be permeable, I guess. >> However, however, however, there are
many very uh imperial driveways in the neighborhood. Just want to make that. >> No, there aren't many. There are a few. Yes, I agree with you. Mine is not. Paul's is not. >> And then this will not >> My neighbors is not. >> Yeah. No, ours will not be because it's the current code. Right. Exactly. >> There are previous ones that we were
done. >> I understand the mailman did it somehow. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. He gets all over the island, doesn't he? Um, okay. Do you have any questions, sir? >> I appreciate it. Um, I appreciate the board's diligence. You have my comments
from tonight. My only comment would be I believe that with all the questions that have come up tonight, the application is still very um incomplete with the numbers and I would request that a continuence would be in order to clarify the application to correct it.
>> Okay. We still have a big piece to go through. >> Understood. Understood. That's my comment. >> Okay. But thank you. >> But yeah, we appreciate you speaking up. So then now we can move to that. And before we do um we do have um your letter that was submitted this
afternoon. >> I appreciate it does not need to be read. >> It you got you submitted it. I think we'd like just to if I could paraphrase it. >> Paraphrase would be excellent. Thank you. >> Okay. So uh written today June 18th. Um there's a supplemental uh submission.
This is by Mr. J. Martell. This is um it says to submit the letter to the board for consideration but not for the it doesn't have to be read into the record. Uh I think anything that comes before us, anything that hits the table, we'd like to make up for public record
for everybody's benefit. Um and so that's the first part. Two, you have a question about the McGovern design neighborhood data report and survey shows 44 properties. Um, and you're making a statement about the
accuracy of what we're about to discuss uh in terms of of the information provided. Uh, and you use your own house as an example of finished living area on um the applicants report and on the
assessor's card uh in which there's a difference. And so we'll we'll get to the validity and what or how things were put together and how we understand that. Um, and you're I think you're you you have a couple
paragraphs to make that um to state all that information. And then there there's a comment about the garage has been reclassified to include space uh to separately listed space. The second floor above the garage shrank from uh
574 to 3 572 to 374. So, as we said, the garage was cut from a 2 to one and the space above was cut in half and there was some reduction in the bath. So, that is your letter. Do
you have a copy of this by chance? >> We just got the copy. >> We got this. >> Does anybody out there need a copy? >> Okay. Thank you. So, we paraphrase the the um the letter
if you would use that word. say that it was submitted and I was paraphrased. Okay. So the board and some members of the board had felt that the project proposed structure was very large on the
site and in the process of the two lots requesting a a um a new lot line between the two lots. There was great discussion
about how that should come about and and the reasoning being is that the Dartmouth way is not an improved way. You can't even see it. Like it's not even it's not even a dirt road a kid would drive his bike on. It's just bushes or something, right?
So, >> the the full intent was to try to give you enough street access to um create a legitimate lot. And in that process, the lot line was moved around a little bit
and what we had asked was an overview of the neighborhood so that we could understand what was being created. And as a result of that, the discussion then said, "Look, you really have to try to make these two lots equal. You can't make a super lot and a tiny lot because
then you would be favoring one and put a big structure on it and you'd have a smaller one which obviously would have a smaller one. So that's how the lots got divided. So now the lot has a square footage. both lots have a square footage and of that square footage there is lot
coverage and F uh guidance in the bylaws and now we're we're at the point of understanding that um you're within those um dimensional criteria of the bylaw and that there is still a question
about size in terms of its relationship to the neighborhood as being as to be not more detrimental. um to the surrounding neighborhood. So, I'd ask you to
explain the map and the listing of how this came about, and we appreciate the the leg work to help make make the point one way or the other. And so, this when was this issue? When when did you get this?
>> Monday. And then and then as per the request to the board, I added three properties. Um was that last night? >> Yes, I think that was just last night. >> I know she didn't even add 15 and 11. So it was just >> Yeah, >> I did add
>> I know. I added one more. I added 14 because you requested 12, but I had already done 12. So I thought maybe you meant 14. So >> Okay. >> No, thank you. Appreciate it. You made a request. >> I just clarify what what property what three of those were. I'm sorry. Oh. Um
14 Annapolis Way, 25 Columbia Way, and 11 and 15 Sunset, which um >> the two properties. >> Yeah. And then you asked about 22, but 22 was combined with um well, I'm not
sure which one, but 20 or 24. >> Okay. So, we have a color-coded map and on the colorcoded map, uh, we there's a radius drawn around the property and there's
red colored ones that are on the butter's list and then there's yellow ones that are not on the butters list and that's listing of all the properties. Okay. >> Is every colored property been listed on here? Yes. Everything that's colored at
all is on that list. >> Is there any property that's not colored that's on this list? >> No. >> Not quite. >> Yes. I included um down Sunset Drive because I felt like um that was a neighborhood
also that was important for the streetscape. Um and and to that point, I do have a copy of the montage. I don't know if you want to want me to unroll this at this point or not, but >> yeah, let's let's get through these two pieces and then let's let's see where
that fits in to this. Um, so have have you looked at this? >> I did. >> And have you looked at this? >> Well, I just got it tonight, so >> Okay. So, you are looking at it? >> Yes. >> Um,
okay. >> And so, why don't you walk us through what you put together here and >> what this means, >> right? >> Okay. So, let me just say I do not know Plum Island all that well. So, I was
indiscriminate initially in in picking my properties. Um, and I I I will suggest I mean I I it's interesting. I I've been very sympathetic to the neighbors and I'm not
accustomed to designing oversized houses. It's I I'm I I really take a lot of pride in being contextual and appropriate. Um and when I when I started this exercise, I was not expecting it to to reveal what
it revealed to me, which is that um there's a lot of different kinds of properties on Plum Island. Um and it it's kind of crazy. In general, I would say what I've learned from doing this is that um there's a good amount of the
properties that are well over the F. There are good amount of properties that are well over um the open space or lot coverage um percentage. Our house fits uh it does comply. The
proposed house does comply. It's um less well less than the average number of houses that are um that are over the square footage. Um it is much less than the um F than the average F that is out there.
Um I will say that that um when I was calculating the FS and I understand that you may find issue with this is that um and I tried to be really clear in in the notes is that I did include basement um
and you can see you can see that I've I've given the exact square footage of every basement that I've included and I did that to point out um a couple things. Not only do we not by not having a basement, we don't have the detrimental effects on the environment by having a basement like these other
existing properties do, but also we don't have the benefit of putting stuff storage down in the basement. Now, there's it's very hard for me to know which basement is is being used as living area and which basements aren't. I will say that in my survey, I looked
at every picture and I looked at every assessor's um page on for each property and many of the properties clearly have windows in their basement and they have uh garages in their basement. So, some of them are definitely being used and
some of them probably aren't and that's probably a margin of error in the notes. Um so, I freely admit to that. Nevertheless, I think the percentages um are are if if you take it if you take all the basements and include them, then the number of houses that are over the F
is is pretty significant. Um and you know, I the other thing that I learned from doing this exercise is I got the general picture of what I call the neighborhood, which is both Sunset Drive and the immediate um of Butters and a little bit beyond the immediate of
Butters. um is that what we're proposing seems to fit squarely on the modest side in some cases. Um and it it does not seem like an aberration and does not seem detrimental to the overall feel of the neighborhood. Um I also want to
critically point out that it's from mean grade to mean roof height. Uh we're only we we've even come down from last time because we've made the garage smaller. Now we're down to 23 foot8. Um, many of these properties I looked at, I didn't include it in the spreadsheet, but are
are, you know, arguably three stories high, maxing out on the 35 ft. Anyway, I don't know. I I didn't give a very good uh walkthrough of of um of of the spreadsheet and um I would
hesitate to get into the minutiae of particular properties because I did say there is a margin of error, but the conclusion for me is still the same. Um, I I find what we're proposing not at all detrimental relative to uh a lot of the
properties that are out there. >> I'd like to say also that the issue of many of these older houses having basements, although they're not counted technically in the F, they are usable spaces.
And that and when we build this new house, we don't have that advantage of having a usable space under the house. We just don't have it. And in this case, we can't even park our car under the house because of the slope of the of the
topography of the of the the the land. So in our case, we don't have the use of the basement. we don't have use of storage under the house, whether it's open storage or parking storage, we don't have that benefit. And now that
we're having a we've reduced our storage room upstairs, we have hardly any storage. So this this house is a very conservative house relative to the neighborhood and
it's much it's much lower in height than especially the house abudding our property which is extremely high even though the average height may be 35 ft. It roof its roof height that the peak is
at least 40 ft. So, we're very modest in comparison to the neighborhood. Very modest. That's my comment. >> And it you have some twostory spaces, but the only second level space is the
storage above the garage. >> Yes. >> And there's no outside roof deck on top of the building. >> No. >> Um, >> could I ask this question? Yeah, I was going to ask you the the the one question in your your letter about what
the the discrepancy um because and I'll go through um the comment in a second, but go ahead. >> I I'm just trying to one the POD is anybody aware when that was put into
into context? Early 2000s possibly. >> Um it was put in when the sewer was agreed to. But >> yeah, about 20 years ago. >> Yeah. >> So my only comment to that is I believe like Mr. Fiendetti is alluding to is six
Borl Way is a towering property in the area. I believe that was put in before the POD if I can remember correctly. I grew up there. That is what all of us abutterss are trying to prevent. >> And the pod pod was put into place to
prevent that from occurring again. So that's that's my own comment on that and I I agree with his with his statements that is a towering >> yes >> the pod was put in to control
the number of bedrooms to control the number of occupants to control the sewer flow. You you could have one bedroom and you could have four four bathrooms. It's not an argument against bathrooms. It's just you only have four people. you
only have one bedroom of people that are technically occupying the building that are using all those four bathrooms. So they they put this PIO POD in for two reasons. One is not to exacerbate the sewer. They went through and they
counted every single lot and they counted everything existing and then they they gave everybody an ad for the for their size. the commercial is is deemed detrimental only to the POD and the sewer but not to the essence and the
life of the of the island. I think most of us would agree on some statement like that but we're not going to debate that tonight. Um and it was to keep Newbury Port and Newbury together in what they would allow so that the island as a whole for two different communities was was being developed the same
>> and the pod is what implemented the FAR restriction or caps. Yeah, there's a way to if you can control the total area, then you can control the bedrooms and there are other line items in the bylaw that says if your existing has one, you
get plus one because that's how they made their their calculation. Um, and then there is the premise or the um purpose in the front of the um POD that talks about light and air and
exasperation of of um imperous surfaces. And so, and then also with the POD, it was recognized that nothing almost nothing on Plum Island meets the base cuz it's zoned
agricultural residential just like the whole town is. And that obviously doesn't work because it's a non-starter whatsoever. And you you can't have everyone going to get a variance and prove a variance with the hardship of the land because some properties don't apply. And so the POD with the sewer
kind of helps solve some of these super quirky things with people who have half their house on their neighbor's property and they they still have a residence and they want to improve it and people buying two lots. And so it's all we're trying to do is meet the intent and
interpretation of the bylaws and try to keep it fair for everybody so that um so that when one person develops a piece of property and other people don't like it, but they're also on a piece of property with a very small house, that property
does have rights. And we're trying to make the rights equal. And my only thing just going back to the PD and the FAR the anomaly that that she had mentioned that some of these FARs are are well over and and the anomaly that can be
contextualized to preo >> it it is and and we've >> you take it under adisement and it's understood and and it's it's >> so we've been told repeatedly and we've asked town council repeatedly uh the leeway that we have in making
decisions isions comes down to the opinion of not more detrimental to the neighborhood. If somebody had an older existing house and they want to rebuild and the F was over,
um it's not necessarily that they have the right to match the F that they had, but we understand that that's what they had. And if they're redeveloping new and they've actually taken their house off, the neighbor, they've met all the setbacks, they've met the height,
they've met the the front, uh, and they're improving the property with everything but an F that was over because of the previous structure and we look at the neighborhood and we do the squint test and we look at the size of the lots and we say, well, even though it's got a larger F, it is improving all
those other metrics and it is in keeping with the neighborhood, it is not more detrimental to the neighborhood even though the F is much greater than the POD. So we have made that judgment on properties and no one judgment that we
make like that is a blanket statement. Every single property is different and sits differently and has different neighbors. And so that's how that's how I and we the board we I advise the board. We we try to size up everything.
So, >> so if I if I might jump in on that, Mr. Chairman, uh, uh, >> yes, >> it's not purely dimensional criteria. All right. There's a judgment that part of it. You just can't come in here, not that you are, Mr. Fed, you just can't come in here and stamp your feet and
say, "I'm complying with F on lot size. You need to give me this permit." That's not how it works. It's called a special permit for a reason. It's discretionary, and the board has that discretion. And the way that the that the Commonwealth or the town has instructed us to apply
it is through the phrase that he just used um substantially more detrimental or sometimes don't even use substantially. Sometimes they just say more detrimental. Um so that's where the where the leeway comes in. So you can
meet uh the dimensional criteria as you are in this case and still be asked to make some changes. >> What would you say? I'm just curious the number of properties that have come before the board that meet the
dimensional requirements but have been rejected because they didn't meet the neighborhood requirement the detrimental aspect is that does that happen often is what I'm saying >> I can I can think of a couple but no we
try to work with people for the for the if it's going forward like he said we we you made two lots. We didn't make a big and a small. We cut them in half. We made it better. Hopefully, >> we we have rejected a few
uh even someone that built a a structure and then tried to take that same structure and put it somewhere else. And we said, you know, that that structure may have worked there for the reasons that were prevented, but it it's not working over here, period. And most of
the time when we come to a head and a and a we're here to be helpful. You know, you're a resident, you own a property in town, we want to be helpful to everybody. And so we we try to work things out as best we can. >> Right. >> It's it's an interesting question, though, isn't it? Because this is a um a
structure that supposedly was built in 1880. It's it's a it it it's not a whole lot more than a small shack. I mean, it it's quite rundown. um it's not up to any standards that any of us would want
to live in at in this day and age. So, it's an interesting question. Is which is more detrimental? Is it more detrimental to have a new house that has been compromised and is already made smaller than what it could be if it were to follow the the um you know the the
the percentages exactly? Um you know, we have compromised. We've made it smaller. Um, are we bettering is it more detrimental to the community to have a new house as opposed to a shack that no doubt will become animal infested over
time if it remains as it is. Um, you could argue it a lot of different ways. >> There are and people make the statements and make the case that they are uh increasing property values for everybody by having a new house. They've designed the house thoughtfully so it fits within
the neighborhood. So, it's benefiting the neighborhood. There are statements like that. And although we want to hear everything that you have to say and we want to hear everything that the neighbors have to say positively or negatively, uh there are certain things that we hear that we
just we put over there. Like we don't have any design guidelines and we even if I didn't like the color of your house, it's not like I can tell you that I'm going to reject it because it's brown, right? We just don't have the right to do that. Um this isn't like Nucket or Marcus Vineyard or something.
So, we want to put it all together. We want to understand what what you're going to do. Um, and and that's that's I don't know subliminally part of thinking through this, but it's not something in terms of
a line item that we can state and and make a rejection on. So, in looking at this list, I guess the my one question and thought is that Um, I think we can agree that the lot
sizes are fairly accurate that are listed on here. >> Um, you've done the the F two ways here. Um, and when you've done the F, >> well, the F is only done one way.
There's the living area, which is >> the lock. Okay. So I'm looking like >> right. So out of this list there's 16 um 16 of these are over the lot. Um yeah I think 16 of these are over the
lot coverage and I think 28 of these are over the F. And then my question is in and trying to read through this and think through it. If there was a calculation that took the lot size and then
>> took a calculation of 20% um how many how many of these would be in would be allowed to be increased or not because we're looking at an existing condition to the neighborhood. And I'm
also thinking that everybody has the same rights and as soon as we get through this, the person, the adjacent neighbor could come in and propose a bigger house on their lot only because they had a smaller house and their lot size for a bigger lot, a bigger house. So, um
I still don't have that that answer in front of me in trying to size up how many of these um properties are are at and over per existing or have the right to increase
what they have in in in understanding that um I don't know half these lots could actually have bigger structures on Um, that's one way to to to to look at the neighborhood. If
if most of these properties are at their max, then that is then we are looking at the existing neighborhood. And again, I'm just trying to think of someone else's rights and your rights and put the two together. Um, and that's that is typically what we
ask people when they have an argument and they're they're just saying it's too big and my house is very small. Well, you also have an equal lot size and you have the right to do the same thing should you ever want to. So it's it's you can't take away someone else's right for a right that you reserve for
yourself. >> Okay, that was a lot. >> I I just Margaret Thomas on 14 Columbia way. Um to your point about the FS and the percentages here, I can tell you that for my house I do not have a 200 foot covered porch. I'd like to but I
don't have that. So I know that my F is wrong on this dial and I can absolutely guarantee you my father would never have allowed it. >> I would take that up with the assessor's office then. >> Yeah. >> Because all that data is from the assessor's page. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> So can I ask a question? I thought I was
going to have to go back and do all the math and I was depressed. Uh but but you're saying the finished living area would would be equal to the ZBA's definition of FAR. No, not at all.
>> So then I have to go back to your definition of fire and subtract out the >> I'm I'm not trying to define F. I'm just saying if you were to include basement, that's what the F that's what the F would be. That's what the floor. >> Well, it also has basements and it also has covered and enclosed pores.
>> That is that is standard for counting F. >> I thought it was just living space. >> Yeah. >> No, it's covered. >> All covered porches. >> Porches are included in F. I thought it was heated space. No, I'm not mistaken. >> No, I was
>> um definitely a covered porch that's stacked on top of a porch is counts as a double space for >> any anything that has a solid cover is considered as count. That's why I also would point that out. >> So, it's just the basement that we're not clear on here.
>> The basement that's the only thing disputable. >> Okay. >> Is that language that says outside the condition envelope within the park? No, that's not F is is covered porches and covered living space up to the exterior walls.
>> That's what F is included. >> Yeah. This is total floor area over lot size. I mean, the living area of the the living area equivalent um that you see
listed on there for for the proposed house. I think ours is 276 for a living area. That's the heated space. >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean our our definition is floor area ratio f shall be construed
as a mathematical expression determined by dividing the gross floor area of the of a building by the area of a of a lot on which it is located. And it says for example a lot with 12,000 square ft and a and a district with a maximum F of
0.25 contain no more than 3,000 square ft of gross floor area. So the de you know the the bylaw has been updated I think twice within the last five years in terms of updating definitions in
different sections of it. Um, the gross floor the floor area gross shall mean the total square footage of the floor area under a roof within the outside dimensions of a building, including each floor level without deduction for
hallway, stairs, closets, thickness of walls, columns, other features, unfinished attics, and suspended basements outside the thermal envelope shall not be counted as gross floor area. So the
the um the covered porches can be outside the thermal envelope and be counted. That's what you're saying. >> So that's what I was confused about, >> you know, on the application itself. >> Because it's not >> okay because it's covered that that has been not exactly clear, but that has
been the guidelines that we have used before because it's just adding increased >> you knowable space under the roof. So, this this on the special permit application, it even spells out it actually even says basement um can be
included if they're considered by the building code to be a story. And then it says it's excluded when basement qualified under the building code as a story. >> So, you could even argue that some of the um that it's it's legitimate to
count basement if they're by building code a story. Now, it's pretty hard to determine that. >> Yeah. And some are like, you know, five feet and some are six feet under the >> Right. I I remember when the town
added the suspended basement to help people get storage. And that was a situation where the the it wasn't classified as a story anymore. Was classified as a basement. So you still have the twotory requirement and you had
a small basement space so you could have storage. I forget what the percentage of >> it was a mechanical space that was controlled or limited to like 250 square ft. So >> put a few beach chairs and you could have >> was 2 ft above. Great mechanical connection. >> Yeah.
>> Um enclosure and obviously you need a stair once the building is raised. >> Okay. So for a recap, we have a a a building that was submitted. We have a building that uh
has been reduced in size by again the garage, the storage over the garage and a bathroom. And so what what was first submitted and what is now submitted is reduced in size. Um the project uh in terms of its
calculations meets the uh lot coverage, it meets the F, it meets the building height, it um it meets the bedrooms, uh it meets all the setback requirements.
Um and so it it meets the intent of the PIOD. And what what we're still discussing and trying to determine is if there's a sense that it's too large and detrimental to the neighborhood. >> And excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I'm so
sorry, but would you mind if I to that point um since I did this mont montage and had it printed? >> That's fine. Now's the time. it. I I I think to me this kind of clinches the deal, but it is not more detrimental to the neighborhood because
this is all of and I'm sorry it's hard to show it to everybody at the same time. This is all of Sunset. No, not all of Sunset Drive. This is Sunset Drive down to about maybe 47 um Sunset. >> Yeah. And when I look at this, I do not
see a a proposed house, and it is on there that is that is in any way appears detrimental to the neighborhood. Um, you can see I have >> We need an architect with more wings spin. >> Arms. >> And this was submitted in PDF.
>> It was Yes. >> form. So, we did have it. We did. We did see it. It looks tiny when you open it, but just expand it. >> Yep. >> Can I ask one clarification on that? >> Is that the scale? >> I took a camera and stayed
>> um on the on the um >> yellow line. >> Yellow line and took a picture of every house and then I put ours in there as best as I could to be I I have no reason to try and make it look larger. >> I'm sorry. I just You mean it's a legal document, so I'm just asking to scan. You can see the yellow line.
>> No, I'm sorry. bring it up. >> Yeah. >> But it's also representative of Sunset Drive, which is very different from Absolutely. from Columbia Way, Binmar, um, Dart, all of that. It's very different. >> Yep. >> Since we're the ones who are from an
area that is very different, >> that's why we're concerned. >> Yep. I just can't do a montage of your neighborhood. >> I I realize that. I'm just saying that that's why we have concerns. If you went down to 47 Sunset, you're right. You wouldn't have the same issues. >> 23.
Actually, I didn't know as far as 47. >> It's It's from here. >> Y >> Okay. Oh, I did go down to 47. >> Oh, here's here's >> I think I only I may have only made it this far. >> I think that might be this this
we didn't get the new proposed at the end. Not the condos at the end. >> Oh, they're going to be this whole thing. >> So, you can see this huge >> because I have here sunset like 17's
2,000 square ft. 19's 1900 square ft. 7 is 1,200 square ft. 23 is a thousand room. >> But if you're looking I don't know what number that is. Um if that's a living area living area >> then our living area is 207
something. >> So you just got to compare. >> Yeah. Yeah. No, I get it. I get it. This was I did this prior. >> Oh you did. >> This is when you were looking at when you were looking at the 3,400T house on the 14,000t lot. So these
three hours, >> we appreciate you guys, you know, slowing down. >> Yeah. Good. >> And the lot fattening up. >> Does anybody want to come up and see this? >> I can also um >> It's here. It's open.
Yeah. And as I was saying, if you go around the back side, that's the problem is our our houses are a lot smaller. But these houses are also hidden, too. And so what you're talking about may or may not do that. >> This is the proposed house. >> Yeah. So, it's not going to be hidden.
That's one of the big differences is that there's that one that sticks out. You don't have that one. The rest of them are hidden. >> And the one at the end is This one is not in yet. >> Yeah, that one's not in yet. >> Two condos. >> Yep, I know that one. >> That will be fairly large. >> Can I ask why the driveway is because
I'm the butter on this side where you've only got 12 ft and you have 20 ft over here. Why did you move your driveway so far over here? >> Because that's where we that's the access to sunset. >> The other the other part is >> and the board requested.
>> The board the board asked us to put it as far over to the side. No, I'm I'm happy that it is, but the problem is is your set back on this side is only uh 12 ft. Your set back over here is 20 ft. And I'm asking why did you make this on 12 and not 20? If you had made that 12
and this 20 that you wouldn't put your problem with the street >> Dartmouth is Dartmouth is the one that's the paper road. >> Yeah. Well, that's 30 ft wide. >> I don't understand what you're saying.
here. Look, who are you? >> I'm back here. I know where on this side. >> You can't see it. It's behind. >> It's over here. It's over here. >> No, it's not over there. >> It's over here.
>> Where are you? >> No, you're over here, aren't you? This is way >> down way. >> Yeah, I'm I'm here. >> This is where I'm at. You made this a rear. That's the back side. This is my property too. >> I think to answer your question maybe
that we wanted the garage at the highest part where the where the lot is the highest elevation so that um so that it it's easiest to make it so that Charlotte can get from the garage to the
house without um needing to go up any steps. That's why the that's what placed this garage here. >> Okay. >> Um does that help answer your question? >> Not really because you still can move it over by 8 ft. That's all I'm saying is that this is my land here. This undeveloped and the undeveloped and 14
are both mine. >> Oh, okay. >> And you've made your >> So, so but there's nothing there >> because maybe we get to the conservation commission. We'll have a big discussion about that. >> Perhaps the other reason is that there's so that there's a turnaround so that you can huge it's a huge thing. Oh, well
it's because >> we don't have any parking under the house and I have none and I have no storage. >> Let me clarify that. That's for new houses. >> Parking is generally under the house >> generally. >> We don't have that. >> Are you suggesting that you wish we had
had moved the house? >> Move the house just over a few feet. That's all I was asking. >> I was more asking the question. Not saying you have to do it. I'm just asking the question. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, you have you're over here somewhere. >> No, I'm right here. >> So, >> this is my house. That's my undeveloped land there. This is your house.
>> You have two lots, R. >> That's I have two lots. >> You have two lots. >> Is that a lot? >> What's the size of the two lots? >> Combined, it's about 14,000. >> Okay. So, this is What are we talking here? This is uh 17. You've got 14. >> Mhm.
>> Okay. And all I'm asking is why, you know, is there any possibility of moving it a few feet? But that's if it can't be done, it can't be done. >> So, >> that's not mine. That's belongs to somebody else. >> Okay. So, so is yours assesses? How do you get to this section? >> You're mine. You can't get to it.
>> Oh, yeah. >> I got I got two lots that are adjacent. So, one lot, >> right? But that's because the road was never built that it's inaccessible. So, you could build the road and I could still get it. >> Yes. doesn't have water sewage. So that's why it's
>> or you just have double the size lot because >> Oh yeah. No, no, I absolutely. >> Okay. >> Change it. >> We we are at the point of understanding that what is being proposed meets the POD requirements.
>> Um that the project has been slightly reduced. We still have some concerns from neighbors that maybe it could be shifted slightly to be a little bit more favorable to adjacent properties. Um,
and we have this this study. Does this study provide any conclusive one way or the other? >> I'm not sure I've had enough time to analyze it to be honest with you. I mean, uh,
well, I'm still trying to figure out it sound. So, my understanding now is that the definition of FAR that that you have is the same as the one that we have. Far is FAR. Correct. >> Yes. I I I included basement without
knowing that some may be useful basements and some may not. I'm confident that >> So, if it was off Okay. Okay. So, if it was off, it would be only off by the basement is what you're saying. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, if we were ultraconervative and you were kind enough to list all the
basements. If we were ultraconervative, we could subtract the basements and see how much >> I gave you all the material so that you could do that if you were so inclined. >> Right. Mar, what are your thoughts on what is presented? I mean, I I I'm just glad that the
project was reduced from the original because it was, in my opinion, way too big for the lot that you had. The lot actually grew. Um, but do you need one more time to to look at? >> If I'm the only one that does, uh, then you know, >> cuz I could take the basement out. I
mean, just run real quick. >> No, I just I don't know if we can do it right now, but I I would like to say one thing on the project at the end, the former Plum Island Grill that you referenced. One difference was uh I think pretty much every butter turned up
and every butter was in favor of the condo project as opposed to having a restaurant there. It was unanimous >> because a restaurant would be more detrimental with 125 seats versus six condos, right? >> Do the math. And that that was a super
super super unique property because they were also um they were also um willing to agree to improve town owned property for the benefit of the town. And we don't even
go there to ask for uh betterments in terms of development rights. But that was what was that was one of the items that was proposed there for that unique location and position and to give something even more back for what for
what they were asking. So um we should try to keep that over in its >> yeah unique circumstance. That's a good way to put it relative. >> The only thing I would say is I would be curious to see what the conservation commission comes up with what their
concerns are. >> Okay. They tried to call the concom. Have you been before them? Have you submitted to them? Have you >> we've had discussions with them and uh that's why the garage is the way it is
right now is because of conservation. >> So you presented it and they looked at it and they said it's kind of big and you >> Well, we we initially had the garage cut into the dune. >> Yep. uh to we're trying to get the garage level the same floor level same
level as the house level which is very difficult to do because you have to drive up or you could have a ramp up. If we did have a ramp then we had to cut it to the dune and that was not uh looked upon favorably. >> However, you could add material to the
dune that was looked on uh favorably. So that was the outcome to have a garage that >> Would you who' you speak to at Congress >> and and currently we're talking about um the the um we I forgot to mention we
also reduce square footage around the entry because we reduced the size of the mudroom um quite a bit by about 50 square feet. But anyway, we're we're now working on the idea of a a bridge and we're allowed to have um some entry area that touches the ground. And so that
we've made now a narrow connector instead of a larger mudroom to the main house. That's that's what we've been talking to Tom Hughes, the consultant about. >> And that's the second part of the discussion with Concom in order to touch less. >> Yeah. >> Exactly. >> Have the building have less of a
footprint. Even though it's got a coverage, you'll still have less footprint actually touching the doom. >> Yeah. >> Right. Right. >> Okay. So, there's some been some discussion with Com and certainly you they have to go through the Com process and get Comfort. >> Um,
>> and Com holds open meetings like this as well. >> Yep. >> All right. And will we be notified? >> They're on Zoom. >> Okay. >> Yeah, they they >> I did it on Zoom before. >> Yeah. They never got off Zoom. They could open the room for you if you felt more comfortable being here. Mason would do that, the conservation agent.
>> But will they send out notification to the abutters that there's a Comic Con meeting? >> Yes. Uh conservation does it a little different. Whereas I notify the abutters for zoning um the applicants responsible for conservation, but they still had to get a certified abutters list, but conservation's only 100 ft for abutters
from property lines, not 300 like zoning >> property lines. >> Property lines. >> Yeah. So fine there. >> Yeah. You'll be a director of butter. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Um >> they only have a two week review period
versus six weeks for here. So, >> so Jack, I'm hinging on your your thoughts in terms of uh being able to make a decision or think about one way or the other or whether something of of time or additional information is going to
>> Well, we spent a lot of time on it. I mean, is uh let me ask this. Are we talking about making a conditional approval based on concom? Everything is conditional to the final end as to what hits the building inspector for a building permit. And at
that point, all our decisions say that any changes whatsoever would need to come back before us by anybody, any entity in any entity period, whether it's a town or something else or the state, anybody
that makes or affects a change to something that is in the decision in a decision we make has to come back before us. So our our any decision we make is conditional on what gets submitted for the building permit that it's just a
matter of fact and because we also we like to see people that have thought out their project and want to do exactly what's in for us and we don't find favorable and we have a lot more uh concern for people that just try to feel us out as to we might want to do
this, we might want to do that because we know it's going to change and here we are trying to get you to some point of approval or denial, but we don't want to approve something that's sort of halfway there because you just got to come back before us and it's not fair to the neighbors to sort of present something
and keep changing it. So that's that's how that all works out. >> Fair enough. >> Somebody making a motion. >> Yeah. Um, so I I am inclined to draft a favorable motion based on the fact that the proposed project meets all the PIOD
requirements, that the project has been reduced. Um the project has had conversations with ComOcom which actually forced some of those changes which is what we we um understand that if if com has had a
first say then it is likely then they are on a path for approval as well. They wouldn't they wouldn't ask you to do some certain moves and then tell you that you couldn't do it. Um, so that um that's where I stand in in
saying it before any motion is made truthfully. And if if there's any information that that is needed one way or the other, speak now or we'll move forward. Okay. So then I I will make a motion to
draft the favorable decision for this current version that is before us as stated that it meets all the PIOD requirements that it's in keeping with the POD and in in keeping with those metrics do find
that it is not more detrimental to the existing neighborhood for the lot sizes. I do appreciate the reduction even though, you know, it wasn't on your behalf, but it was on concom, but it's still going in the right direction to make sure that it fits within the lot. We have our
standard um conditions. Again, if you're still not designing and something changes, then then the building inspector will flag it. We'll come before us. If Tomcom makes a change, then you will have to come
before us. We do have um the procedure for the um deciding whether any change is a minor change or a major change. And minor changes we would discuss uh before us um without
advertising for a public hearing. And if if it crosses that line and that line really isn't set to decide, you would have to revertise and come back before us and and notify all the abutters for a change that is deemed significant enough
to rewarrant um a whole new hearing. So that's that's where we're at. Is there a do you have all that Chris? >> Is there a second to that? A second. >> Okay. Uh all those in favor? I
>> I so it passes. We appreciate the public input. Um I would say it's it's the rights on your properties for meeting the intent of the PIOD is every right that you have.
Um and so if we have that right and there's a lot size then they're entitled should be entitled to a certain size. um >> understand that it's more the neighborliness of it and what's going to go on. So, it's a lot different
neighbors than what it is there. So, >> I I do and I know that we we did kind of set a path when we divided the lots and we did make a big effort to make this lot smaller >> um from what was originally posed and if we had allowed what was originally posed
the house would be even bigger. But all the all the issues faced by Mr. Pandetti are ones that all of us other than the one big tall house have had to face. My house had to be picked up and moved. So, and I don't have any underground storage and I can't park my car under my stink. I have no attic and
I have no basement. So, I've been very creative and also given away a lot of stuff in order to have storage. So, I think that there's some of those things that aren't quite being thought through that they need to realize that everybody's had those same issues
>> and the the issues that you face that maybe you can't overcome are maybe issues that your lot someone else could have the rights or have the means in which to to do something differently because of your lot size.
>> I can I can knock down my house right now and build something as big as what he's building. Absolutely. I understand that. >> Yep. >> Absolutely. But I would not do that. But that's >> No, I understand that. But we're we're trying to be fair for you and in the future. And also, um,
>> we strongly try not to allow somebody to do something that would be suspect or questionable in the future. >> Although we say we don't hold ourselves responsible for that. That's kind of how we look at the plan that we don't want to give away something that isn't
um isn't a right that you would have >> uh because it just becomes a problem down the road. >> So, we appreciate your attendance and speak up. >> Thank you very much for your time. Very appreciated.
>> I sent you an email. I'll send you an email. >> I do consider comments. I'd like to say when they meet the first day of every month we're teed up.
>> Yes. I started out if it's not in by Tuesday, two weeks prior to the meeting. I don't have time to get the legal back into April. So, he knows that. So, he can't be late in submitting. Okay. So, you're looking at July 7th, but it's too soon for that. That's because I'm
actually going surgery next week at this time and I will not be available until earliest August, not September. That's more of my concern to the order. And if you just concern just like
>> how's the planning board going to knock that house down on >> a lot of people were taking something out there service the house
can get demolished. >> Okay. story. Yes, that's another great thing. >> We had a long hearing last night on that because we wanted to >> Can we go to the second motion to uh close the meeting?
>> Yep. Second. >> Second. >> All in favor?