There being 6:30 on uh July 9th, I'm going to start the zoning board of the appeals office. Come on, please. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all. In accordance with Mass General Law, chapter 38, section 20F, this is being recorded. The first hearing is 28 Kahun Lane continued hearing on application of
Brandon Lord applicant and Quinton D. Lord and Brendan Lord owners for variance from the frontage requirement as the subject property lacks frontage on a street or way for purposes of maintaining the property as agricultural use as well as constructing a single family dwelling as mandated by zoning
bylaw article 7 section 71. Subic property is lo located located at 28 Gahun Lane, Westport, Mass and is shown as assessors map 2 lot 13. Um voting on this will be Jerry Coutino, myself, Raja
Manard, Ray Elias, Janice Day, and Cynthia Kazeowitz. And um uh first of all, I'm going to start off with uh what brought this about is a letter from Ralph Souza, the zoning enforcement officer. Dear Mr.
Lord, after review of assessor's records of for lot 13, assessor's map 2, it has been determined that the lot in question contains 14.25 acres of land but lacks frontage on a street away as required by the zoning
bylaws. Article 7.1 minimum residential lot and frontage. Therefore, the lot in question is considered unbuildable. You may appeal this determination as allowed by Mass General Law Chapter 48. Okay. The way I'm going to we run the hearing is I'll have the petitioner come up or
positions represented come up to the table and provide whatever information is pertinent. The the board will then ask questions of the petitioner. Once the board has uh asked all the questions, I'll then open it up to the
general public. So, will the petitioner come up um and uh name and address? Certainly. Uh good evening, members of the board. My name is Peter Solino. I am a lawyer and my address is 550 Locust Street in Fall River. I represent
the applicant Brendan Lord and obviously here tonight to argue the application or petition on his behalf. Uh start my presentation this evening with what the proposal is. So to the extent you're unfamiliar with the site, uh the proposal is to erect a single
family dwelling on the currently used uh or on the lot that is currently used for agrica uh agricultural purposes. The property is accessed via a deed right ofway. Uh and as noted by Mr. Manard, there is no frontage on Kahoon's Lane.
Uh Mr. Giosa, who is the engineer on the project, has previously submitted and stamped a letter uh relative to the title to the property. And so I'd like to start my legal presentation there. Uh, I did some research in preparation for the meeting on the town's website
and I'd like to submit into the record um March 19, 1957 which was the town's adoption of zoning. If I may pass it to your clerk, I've made sufficient copies I think to circulate around. So, based on my reading of the
attachment and I've for the ease of the use of the board, I've highlighted the pertinent sections. I'll wait till it comes around the table so I can call your attention to the necessary sections. Make a copy for I do. Do you have an extra one? I'm going to I'm going to read from it
for the moment. I can Yeah, certainly. I can pass this one in. Uh so what's before you is uh printed from the town's website. This is the enactment of zoning at the March 19th, 1957 town meeting. And calling your attention specifically
to article 36 on the town warrant and subsection 5-B um which I've highlighted again, it's towards the bottom of the page. So, for the board's uh understanding, it looks like pursuant to this article 36,
the town of Westport adopted zoning and/or minimum dimensional requirements uh which were approved by the Massachusetts attorney general on April 18th of 1957. And similar to many town bylaws, there was an exception that in pertinent part
and highlighted at the bottom of the page read, forgoing section shall not prohibit the erection of a dwelling in any district upon a vacant lot having less than such minimum requirements as to area, frontage, or width. on to the
next page. Uh if the owner of such lot on the effective date of this bylaw owned no adjoining land available for the use in connection with such lot. I think that's a very important component to the argument in the petition before
you. As Mr. Giosa's research indicates, this lot should be considered a pre-existing non-conforming lot. The title research indicates that it has existed as a lot in these dimensions since the early 1900s. Moreover, that no
abuing property owner has owned this lot in conjunction with a lot that shares a lot line with this lot. So, for all those reasons, I start my presentation to submit to you that I certainly respect Mr. Soua, but I respectfully disagree with his characterization that
this is not a buildable lot because I think it is a lot of record and it is a pre-existing non-conforming lot. But obviously um he disagreed. So now I'll address the variance component of the petition. As the board knows, 4A section 10 allows the board the authority to
grant a zoning variance provided that the applicant or petitioner can demonstrate certain statutory elements. First, we have to be able to demonstrate to you that the soil condition, shape, or topography of the land is unique. And that uniqueness is not generally affecting the zoning district, but
rather is unique to this parcel. Next, we have to show you that a literal enforcement of the ordinance or the bylaw would involve a substantial hardship, whether financial or otherwise, to the applicant. Third, we need to show that it is desirable that the relief be granted without detriment to the abodding
parcels. And finally, we seek the relief in a manner that will not nullify or deriggate from the intention of the bylaw. And so for purposes of my presentation on the variance component of the application, I submit to you the following. First, the site uh which is
depicted on this easel here is somewhat of a unique shape. It's a quadrilateral uh piece of property that has no frontage on the lane. I'd submit to you that that characteristic is certainly not a general characteristic that
affects the whole zoning district, but rather is unique to this parcel, which again based on the title research in the record, uh, indicates that the parcel has existed for many years. Next, I'd submit to you that there is a hardship here. Uh, my client is a farmer. The
property is currently operated as a farm. He has seven acres of corn. He has five cows. Currently, he lives less than a mile from this site. The house that he lives in is located at 343 Old Bedford Road in Westport. That house is currently for sale and his endgame is to
build a house on the parcel before you. So, to the extent he can't do that, and let's just say for sake of example, he has to live in Dartmouth instead of Westport, operationally, there's a significant hardship to the farm there. Uh, again, animals and crops. Next, I
would submit to you on prong three that desirable relief could be granted here without substantial detriment to the abodding parcels. And here's why. My understanding is there's opposition, and I'm sure we're going to hear from Mr. Fineel relative to that opposition. And it will come out that there was a prior
case involving this parcel in which my client uh erected structures and operated businesses without permits. And that is a fact. But key to the analysis on whether or not the proposed relief is detrimental, is that in that agreement
for judgment, which I'm sure attorney Blake was involved in, it says that my client can crush rock incident to farming. And so when I look at substantial hardships and balancing the equities here, I would suggest to the board that crushing of rock is a much more noxious use than a single family
home, cows, and corn. So I think that you could find it within your power uh that the proposal is substantially less detrimental that what could otherwise be done there pursuant to the current agreement for judgment. And then finally certainly you can't grant relief unless
it is um consistent and does not deriggate with uh the intent of your bylaw. So, calling your attention to the intent, section one of your bylaw says that the purpose of the bylaw is A to encourage the most appropriate use of land, skipping to C to conserve natural
resources, and skipping to H to encourage housing for all income levels. So addressing those in sequence, I'd submit to you that it is in the best interest of the lane, the neighborhood, and my client that the use of the land be a residential agricultural use
consisting of his dwelling and a farm. Next, I think that the proposal would serve to conserve natural resources in as much as you have about 13 acres of land here with one house and therefore those natural resources inclusive of livestock uh crops would be maintained.
And then finally, when you look at encouraging housing for all income levels, we know farmers don't make a lot of money, but I think this gentleman's entitled to have a house on a pre-existing non-conforming lot. And so for those uh four arguments, I'd submit to you that we can meet the burden of
4DA section 10 relative to the grant of a variance if the board can't make a finding that it's a pre-existing non-conforming lot of record. Be happy to answer any questions as would my client. Could I ask you uh certainly uh just to clarify one piece there about crushing
rocks? Yes. Is there a specific um approval someplace? Is that what we're reading? As a result of the settlement of the case with the town of Westport, there's an agreement for judgment which is entered in the superior court case and
uh there's an exhibit to that Jerry that says okay. It lays out the things that my client can and cannot do and it indicates in it that
is that is that document that you're reading from is that part of the packet that you presented? No, it's part of the opposition. Okay. Uh it's part of the opposition. It's in a court order. It's sub paragraph C. It lays out all the things
that Brendan cannot do. And then it says, "Provided, however, the defend ants may use the property for lawful farming activities, including the crushing removal of rocks and boulders for farming purposes." So in reality,
if we were to approve this, he could still do that. Certainly he could. Yeah. Well, they fall to fall under agricultural uses. Yeah. But the way you were reading it, it appeared as though this would be better than crushing rocks.
Um, still crush rocks. Well, I think you know still pick stone and and make sure he's got stone pile somewhere. Yeah, I was presenting an argument on behalf of my client. Attorney Blake, can you comment on this um article 36?
Sure. I I And this has to do with the grandfathering. I mean, it does appear that at some point you adopted zoning. I I don't know if the lot was if that particular lot was actually in existence at the time this
was adopted. It is typically what happens is when you make that kind of argument, you provide us with a memorandum with exhibits and we're able to go over them. Um I saw a memorandum but it really just said that
this was never held in common common ownership. It didn't walk through and provide us with this document. Moreover, um if you look at uh 4A uh 48 section 6 paragraph 4, it talks about and you were
right was not held in common ownership with any adjoining law land. Right? This is for the grandfathering conform to the thenexisting requirements. And I think that's what you're saying here. Although uh there was there's there's not this talked about dimensional. It I mean our
our biggest problem is the is no frontage and had less than the proposed requirement but at least 5,000 square feet of of area which you guys absolutely have and 50 feet of frontage. Do you have 50 feet? Do you have
No, there's no frontage. But even that that strip is a is a deed. It's a right of way. So, what does that mean? I mean, is it heated? It's an easement. Yes. So, he does have an easement to use that and that. How wide is that?
Um, can I pull in Mr. Giosa? Uh, two points in response before I was involved in the petition. Yep. Steve submitted title research and then I submitted a supplemental piece of title research because there was one
piece he left out. So, Steve, can you address the title piece? Yeah. from the title. Uh for the record, Steve Giosa, uh Scitec Engineering Office at 966 Kemp Street, New Bedford. Name Steven Giosa. Um so yes, when I first started working
with Brendan, we did a title search on the property. Uh and we did submit to the town a complete listing of the title information for the subject property going back to the early 1900s, so well before 1957. And then we looked at each of the
adjacent properties and traced the title back on those. And we did submit all the book and page references, all the ownership names for each of the adjacent properties as well as for the subject property. Um, and as attorney Seleno indicated, I did miss in typing one of
the uh parcels that we researched and so we added that into a supplemental document and we have looked at all of the adjacent properties. There's been no common ownership going back to the early 1900s, like 1920s, I think we were back to, and we still did not see any common
ownership going back that far. So, you have an isolated parcel. It existed prior to 57 um as an isolated parcel and in fact going back to the early 1900s. That doesn't answer the question of the easement on the
So there is an existing if we can look at the other exhibit and I'll go back to the microphone and this plan is 1 in= 30 ft. So, there is an existing gravel uh access that originates on Kahoon's Lane and leads up
to Brendan's property. Um, that's a gravel road. It's variable width. It probably averages around 10 to 12 feet wide. Um, but it's a single access to the farm property as it exists now. It serves that purpose for a farm. And when
you look at a typical home, a nine to 10 foot driveway is is not uncommon. 10 foot wide driveway. So it's adequate to serve the intended use, which is continue to use and function for the farm, but also to um serve for the
proposed house. The house is proposed to be located in the corner closest to where that rightway enters the property. And I can point that out on the aerial maybe a little clearer. it would be down in this corner here. So, we're avoiding interfering with a
major portion of the farming operation. And we intentionally kept the proposed dwelling in that um southeast corner to minimize the disturbance of the farm operation uh for the site.
What is the east? Where's Kahoon's lane on that? So we have a better idea. So Kahun's lane is here. Okay. The access that's shown on the other drawing comes in at kind of a diagonal here and then comes down to Kahun's lane here. Thank you.
What does the easement say regarding the dimensions of the easement? There is no set width to the easement. It is basically uh just a deed right to pass and repass to enter uh Brendan's property.
How how often do you use that right away? Daily multiple times a day. I would think so. Farming with the amount of times going using the easement would be less if you lived on the property.
Absolutely. Can I ask a question? Uh based on the court case. Okay. Um there were a lot of things that were supposed to be done. Uh I I've been to the site as a vice the vice chair of the ad commission.
I've uh seen everything that's there. Is everything that was supposed to be taken care of taken care of? Took care of? I've received a letter from the engineer SBS SSB engineering March 8th, 2023 that uh I've just taken
a piece of it off. This structure does comply with the current building code, but it's got a lengthy leather and he stamped it. And that's what I that's what I needed to make sure that building because it's a metal structure and there's a lot of stuff. I couldn't really see what I wanted to see. So
that's when I asked the laws to to get an engineer to look at the building, give me a report. They looked at the building, did a report, and the deficiencies that were noted were fixed, and that's when I got the final order that it's meets building.
Like I said, I've been on the site. Um I saw where the house is supposed to be. clearly uphill and up was there. As far as the farm went, if I was there to inspect the farm, I'd say that it was
a clean farm. Okay, attorney Blake, I'm still confused about this grandfather. This is this I mean this is the uh essentially the first set of bylaws zoning bylaws that the town had in 1957.
This I mean this this seems to be really open-ended to me. It it it does to me as well. Right. Vacant lot having less than such minimum requirements as area frontage or width. So does that mean zero any that
was a was a registered lot in 1957 that someone could have built on in 1956 before their thing is eligible for bu being built after 1957. It it it would appear that the literal
interpretation of that is correct. However, I I think less than such minimum requirements as area, frontage, or width. Frontage being it's 100 ft. This has zero.
There was no ability to access it. Right. So, I don't I don't know how that could have been a buildable lot with no ability to access it. But there is an ability. But now there is an ability. Um, I don't know if they had that ability. The was
the easement in place. Yeah. Prior to I'll let Steve I did not um I did not research that part of the uh the title. I was really looking for ownership overlaps and seeing if there was an ownership overlap and I did I did see you listed everything out to to you know common
ownership. Correct. Um I assume the easements in his deed and does it refer to a deed that's before 1957? Well, it was owned by his par or by his father. So, let me just pull that up in front of me.
I thought they gave us I think it's in the package, too. But let me look. So, his deed refers to said premises are conveyed together with a right of way to the grantee across the premises conveyed by Quinton D. Lord and Donna M. Soua Lord to Quinton Lord by deed dated
September 21st, 2017. Um, and then it refers back to a further deed. So I I think ultimately to answer that question, we'd have to chain it back, right? It was So, Mr. chair, to get back to your question, I I I I think that there are
there are some open questions here and I don't know if council would be willing to put together a memorandum to try to walk us through these open questions. Certainly just need to know what they are because of of well you know I I think
what you need to show is that there was at least some type of access to that lot back there in in 1956 because the bylaw changed in 57. Um this is the first I've seen of this of this document. I had I never I'd
never seen it before and I've done a lot with these guys. I don't think I've ever seen this. It's on the website. Um All right. That's fun. Um, but I I think I would be more comfortable if you were able to provide me.
Sorry, just confirm with the client to make sure. Okay. Yeah. So yes, we'd be willing to table or continue whatever the right nomenclature is to provide you with whatever memorandum you want. Can you trace the um ownership back to
to prior to 1957? Yes, we took every abuing parcel back well before 1957. I think the the the the lot that probably we didn't chase back further than I think 1940 is
probably where we stopped on some of the parcels, but we got most of them back either some of them to the 1800s, some back to the early 1920s. Uh but yes, we we went for all of the abuing properties, we went back before 1956. Well, what I'm interested in is is this
property what, you know, what's the history of this property so that we can determine where it fits in with zoning. Yeah. I mean, we have deeds on this particular property we looked at going
back to Margaret Souza owned it back in 1926. And has it changed since since then? I mean, has it just been passed on or has it been um parcled out? No, it has not been parcled out. It's been it's been the same parcel going
back in time land. Yes. Okay. Now, did uh the research that you did uh did you just look up and page or uh were each of the deeds read? What I'm looking
at is were any of the deeds potentially showing any kind of rights of way access legal access to this property even from an abiding property. I I think there was in the deeds, but I would didn't want to say that. I think that's what the
attorneys were just talking about that that's something that the board sounds like you're going to look for that information. We can provide that information to you. The other question I would have for our attorney, uh, is it likely or possible
that, uh, that subsequent to the 57 town meeting in which we adopted, uh, zoning, is it possible that there could have been some subsequent uh, changes, restrictions, uh, whatever that might
affect that? The only the only thing that it would affect would be it would make it more beneficial to them because in the grandfathering you look at immediately but if it if it was a buildable lot and
I I think we're going to need to look at the access issue. If it was a buildable lot in 1956 and it became unbuildable based on the dimensional requirements here when you adopted zoning then it's a pre-existing non-conforming use. And I think that, you know, moving forward, it's it's not
likely that it got less stringent. It's likely got more stringent, but it was it's been pro it's protected at this point. So, I don't think that we necessarily will have to do the analysis going forward, forward, forward. he's at
least um pinpointed the the date at which it it uh the the zoning was adopted and probably became I don't want to say nonconforming. Um well, pre-existing non-conforming. I don't know if it was lawful. That that's that's the issue. Was it was it a lawful
buildable lot prior to zoning even though it didn't necessarily have uh sufficient access? I I'd like to see this the the easement because that may that very well may provide him with sufficient access and it may very well based on the plain language of this of
this amendment. He very well may have a have a have an argument. He very well may. I'd be interested to see what the opposition has to say, but I just have one. It's more of an administrative thing than whatever. But
your um your petition actually identifies two owners. Isn't the current deed just a single owner? It was changed. So interesting nuance here. His his name is spelled B R E N D O N. There was an error in the prior
deed spelling his name D an. As a result of that error which was discovered, he had an attorney in New Bedford do a new deed so that just his name is on it spelled D O N. Right. But the application showed two owners and that was correct at the time of application.
That was correct at the time of application. Correct. Yes. Okay. And then I made matters worse because I submitted an appearance saying I represented Lord Farms and Maria had to email me and ask me why. Yes. And then we spun around for a little while. Yes.
Now that that uh transfer uh from two to one Yes. Uh uh did that take place in April of this year? No. The date April. Yeah. It should be in opposition deed.
Broke it all apart. Well, while you while you're looking, let me also mention Yes. April 11th. Yes. And uh the application to the zoning board was uh in May, right? So before or after
the application was filed after the deed. So apparently when you filled out the thing, you still thought it was owned by two people. Well, the property record card to so it might have been a just to try to
I would have say they may have done it to be consistent with the property record card on file with this town and I don't think it really matters. Yeah, just trying to get the facts. And just for our attorney's sake, the the original right the original right of
way was conveyed in 1919, except obviously I can't find that deed online because it only goes down to 46. So they'd have to go to the registry of deeds to see what that said. I mean, I'd be curious to see if there
was any spec specificity right away. The one thing I'm still having difficulty with here is I'm reading this and it says, okay, you know, the vacant lot having less than the minimum requirements for area frontage. of width. I still have a problem with zero
being an allowable. I mean, I can see if 10 ft, if it's 50 ft, it was 35 ft. But zero still have a problem with there's a rightway from 1919.
So there was frontage. No, the rightway is frontage. No, right is I guess my my lot is on. I mean, I don't have I'm on a right my frontage is on a right ofway. There's plenty of them in Westport. It's an easement, not a right away. You
have an easement for for something different. And there's plenty of there's everything. Yeah. Which is different than a I mean I I I think it's worth getting a memorandum from you to to to straighten that out. But but I I I understand your
question, Mr. chair and I I thought the the same thing is less than such minimum requirements as area, frontage or width. I mean zero is less than 100. But I I would I think we need to go back
and see if at the time of creation it actually did have or at the time of the bylaw it did have some type of access and then I guess we'll have to assess whether or not that was sufficient. But I think he's going to provide us with yes the language.
So for the subject my homework it sounds like I just want to clarify uh provision of a copy of the original right of way along with all the deeds for this property from 1900 to the present day. Would that be sufficient? Anytime before 57. And then uh would it before 57? It's fine. Would it also
provide the board clarity, Steve, not to give you extra work, but if Steve could then take the legal description of in each deed and map it out? So, we gave you a picture and a deed on each transfer. I think the the illustration would probably be helpful. Mhm. Can you do that?
To the Sure. Is there anything else that the board wants titlewise? And I just by the quick look that one of the original uh deeds to your dad was from uh Souza
uh Lord. So I actually want to make sure that there's even though their last names are different, they're truly not common ownership because they weren't related by marriage. Okay. Who's Soua Lord? Susa Lord was my father's wife.
Right. And I think that was I there might be other property. I think uh the title search gentleman said something about I think there was some other properties owned by suses around the property. That's I just make sure
there's no that there's I just want to make sure when you go and look at who owned the property when that there really wasn't a relationship that was there that is not evident by the fact that their names are different. Okay. And I suppose while we're at it, you'd
also have to show that that it never that that from it never became in common ownership with anything. Okay? Right. Even even even though the date it wasn't in common ownership, 10 years later it could have become in common ownership and then an issue.
Okay. Any other questions from the uh board before I open it up to the public? I have a a very quick question on the um on the variance. Okay. So, it's soil, shape, or topography. So,
you're just the only one of those three is you're using is the shape. All I have is shape. You know, I know you know that, but yes, that's what we've got. Yep. No other questions. We'll open it up to the public. Would he need a one more thing? Would he need a variance if this No, probably not.
So then it wouldn't matter about Probably not. That's why I argued it in the alternative because if we start with the premise that it's a grandfather law, we don't even get to the variance discussion. Anybody name and address? Good evening. I represent a Butters um
Joshua and Katherine Sedic. And your name, please. Oh, Robert Fineold. I'm an attorney in New Bedford. Robert Fineold. I'm an attorney in New Bedford. Um I represent Joshua and Katherine
Sedek, who are abutters at 40 uh Kahun's Lane. and Joshua's dad and mom Richard and Coral who live at 46. Um, I have a lot to say. The zoning law is not focused on one thing. There are a
lot of requirements before you can get a variance. And they have not satisfied all of the requirements. There's nothing about the shape, the soil, or the um or the topography of this lot that's in any way creating a problem. It's not unique.
um what what my brother had to say was not persuasive at all. That's number one. Um number two, all he could say about hardship is that his land his current house is for sale
and what would what it would be a hardship if he lived in Dartmouth. I think there's a lot of people in Dartmouth who would object to that, but but um that's speculative. That's speculative. Um he can take the house off the market if the variance is
denied. It's not under agreement. So there's no particular hardship there. Um the research I did sir um was that under Westport bylaw 7.6 even if the lot is grandfathered it has
to have a minimum of 100 ft of frontage not 50. So, uh, zero doesn't work either. Um, we we're going to take another look at the easement. We don't think it goes all the way through to his land.
He's in violation. He has been in violation of the uh litigation settlement because it only allows for the crushing and removal of rocks on the property. He has been bringing rocks into the property to process them.
That's a violation. And all the violations that he was guilty of that created a massive litigation proves to me and I think it should prove to you that the man if you give him an inch he'll take a mile. He's not to be
trusted. 10 ft for a width of an easement is not enough for emergency vehicles. I think everybody would agree to that. Um, I have I I submitted a a detailed memorandum for the first meeting and I
would appreciate seeing um my brother's memorandum and having an opportunity to respond to it. Thank you, Nicholas Radcliffe. I don't know what address you want me to use because I was 59 Cahounes Lane. I am now currently 48
Coahouns Lane, 7 years after my dwelling was built. So, that's the circus I'm going through. Second of all, the lawyer that is defending his client just spoke about Mr. Lord bringing in
rocks. That is totally false. Okay, I've been there. I witnessed it. I grew up there for 35 years. I grew up with Brendan. Okay, we all grew up on the lane. I grew up there. There was seven houses on that road. Okay. Prior to
that, me speaking, something got passed along the way and now there's about 14 houses on the road. Okay. Yes, they might have the frontage. They might have that, but the lanes changed.
Brendan always had his rightway up there. We've always went up there. We grew up there. raise a nine-year-old and a seven-year-old that are here tonight that play with he his three children and to destroy
Brendan's dream of building a house to raise his family in that his house is for sale that you're saying oh they can take his house off the market I think that's absurd right so I don't understand the the fight Yeah,
Brendan makes noise up there. He farms. If you don't like it, shut your windows. Turn up your AC. I don't understand. Everyone that's here to fight it. It's all family down that lane. I built a house across the street from my father. I purchased the lot, built a
house. The people that are fighting this are the people that were gifted the land that Connie Cahoun owned, and they're raising their beautiful family on the land. All Brendan's asking to do is to raise
his family, farm his land. Not he's not disturbing anybody. Yeah, I get it. There's laws, this, that, and the other thing, but it's not much of a hassle for Brendan to drive through. It's an easement up to his property.
So, I hope the board would take that into consideration and let Kahoon's Lane keep that the ownership of the the old family
history and let the kids just frolic and play because we all get along. Everyone gets along down there and there's no reason for people to fight this and argue this and spend money and waste
everybody's time because someone's upset about Brendan crushing rocks out back. All them rocks he crushed. I've been up there countless hours with him watching him dig it out of the field. So when he's harrowing the fields, he's not messing up his machinery. I've seen the
piles of rocks he's dragged up. They're not bringing rocks in. So that's what I have to say and thank you for your time. Appreciate it. Anyone else?
Not my family. I own a lot and I have family members and company been great. Before you say anything, sorry. Yeah. My name is Fred Magaz. I go by Fernando. I go by Fred. My name is Fernando Magaz. I owned a lot. I Brandon
been there a few times. I have no no problem with them. Good families. Um I I I got to I got to say though, what is your address, please? Uh 22 uh Kahun, which is the law, which has the Eastman. Um you know, when I bought that land, I
bought to build my retirement home. I bought it so that it'd be nice and quiet. I have no problem with farming. I love farming. That's part of the reason I bought it cuz the farming was going to be behind there. This crushing stones cuz I don't live there. I didn't even know that was crushing stones, but that would bother me going for forward cuz if
I'm retired at home, I don't want to hear crushing stones. Now, I got to believe that a farm there's only so many stones that can get crushed. So, I I got to believe that eventually that'll stop. I don't know if that's true or not. Um, but I did buy that because it was an
easement. Uh, I was told that that easement was only for farming and only farming equipment would be going by there. So, that's what I expect. I don't live in the land yet, so I don't see a lot of the activities, but
certainly as soon as I start building, I would like to have less traffic than more traffic. If you build a house, I again, Brandon, I don't know if there's going to be more traffic or less traffic. I prefer less traffic because it's dust, you know, you have your windows open, right? If there's a lot of traffic farm-wise, I love the farm. Love
the the that's why I bought it there. Um, what I'm hearing today with the with with the crushing that would bother me of the stone. So, I just want to share that with you because I will be building a house there soon. Uh, and I bought it because it was a nice quiet road and I
want to keep it that way. Again, I have no problem. They've been good to me. I I you know I want to be good with my neighbors, but at the same time I don't want to be taken advantage because I bought it because it was going to be a quiet place to live. Thank you. Thank you. Hi. Good evening. Katherine Sadic on 40
Kahun Lane. Our attorney already spoke, but I I do just want to address some of the comments that were made. Um especially on Mr. Ratcliffe. We witnessed rocks being taken from Mr. to Ratcliffe's property to be brought onto Mr. Lord's property and those are some
of the rocks that were crushed. So for him to say that rocks were only used from the property and not brought from outside is just not supported by the record and he should know that. Now look, my husband's family has lived on this lane their whole lives. We support
farming. We have no issue with that. But for years there was commercial activity going on in that property that was not farming that was extremely disruptive. Okay. All I want to do is raise my family in peace. And we
couldn't because month after month, day after day, there's commercial activity going on in that property that was not supposed to be happening that was disrupting our lives and our ability to enjoy our property. I don't care what someone else does in their property if
it doesn't impact me. But when someone's doing things on their property that they're not supposed to be doing and then claiming it's farming repeatedly, that's a problem. And that went on for months. Mr. Lord resisted the town's
efforts to investigate it and claimed that everything was just farming. And eventually the town had to invest I don't know how many thousands of dollars in resources to bring a lawsuit over it. And in the course of the lawsuit, finally Mr. Lord admitted that there was
all this non-farming commercial activity happening on the property. And that's part of the concern here with this variance that if there's a variance, there's a history of conduct that's not supposed to happen taking place and there's a history of saying it's one thing when
it's actually something else. And that puts the burden on the rest of us. And I'd be very interested to know if Mr. the Lord would swear under oath that there's no commercial activity going on in that property. Now, that he's not repairing vehicles for other people on
that property right now. Also, as our attorney referenced, I think there are issues with the easement that need serious review. There was an easement and then it was relinquished and now there's a new easement and at least as best I can tell, I don't think
it even reaches the property. And so I think that's another serious concern to raise. We're trying to be good neighbors here. We're not trying to create a controversy. We're just trying to protect ourselves. And we have concerns based on this
pattern of past conduct. And we have concerns that it could lead to more of what's been happening and more of the uses of that property that disrupt our ability to enjoy our property. Thank you. Anyone
else? I would like to ask a question please uh to the applicant. Uh are you do uh actively doing commercial activity on that property?
What is your definition of commercial? I'm sorry. What what is your definition of commercial? Is is farming um not a commercial? Farming is allowed and you know that. Okay. Okay. I am about commercial property uh uh activity
that is not um um farming. No, I by the way crushing a stone bringing stone in and crushing it is not necessarily a farming activity. This board has has actually shut down some
operations in this town on Main Road. uh that was bringing stone in, crushing it and processing it and it wasn't stone from that property. So I'm asking you again, are you doing any uh non farming
commercial activities? I am not I am not doing any type of commercial activity aside from being engaged in commercial agriculture. During that commercial agriculture, do you have to repair equipment?
I do. You have to use welders. I do. You have to use grinders. I do. Those are all things that that simulate. I mean, I do it on my farm. I have to do the same things. But is it for you or is it for somebody else? For me. I mean, if I have a commercial
just like he does and if my bor breaks down today and it's parts that need to get in there and it snaps in half, I'm welding it back together. No problem with that. But that's not that's commercial farming. As long as he's not doing it for somebody else. Correct. Right.
As long as he's not repairing your right hay beller. Long as he's not repairing your hay beller on his property. I might have to have him come and weld mine. We know Brendan's a respected diesel mechanic. Uh, and so I could see where
that could happen, but that's not what we're talking. And that's not directly related to what what this hearing is about either. That will come later if you're allowed and if you start doing all these other things.
And and again, have you inspected this place recently? Recently. And there are no violations from this court. That's why the report was done back in 23. The building was met the building code. the corrections were made and the
engineer signed off on it. As a matter of fact, I think when Ralph had come up to do the inspection, I was over with the cows and Ralph went in the building or opened the door of the building. And what's going on in the building, Ralph? Not a thing.
Like storage. A lot of storage in it. I just want to um advise the uh the audience that um we talked an awful lot about grandfathering. If if in fact the petitioner can prove that that his
property uh falls under the grandfathering clause of our zoning bylaws, then he doesn't need a variant. So there's two separate things here. If he can't, then he's required to then then the variance part of this comes in and he will have to talk about all the
things that the the other lawyer had uh had mentioned as far as the hardship and and all that. But if um if the attorney for the petitioner can prove that in fact this land is grandfathered in as a buildable lot, then he doesn't need a
variance. That correct? I I think you're right. If I may bylaw, as we put in our original brief that we filed a couple months ago, I law 7.6 says if it's grandfathered,
even if it's grandfathered, it needs frontage 100 ft. Well, that's and that's where the lawyer we're going to have to investigate that that much further. So, uh, are you, um, are you going to request a continuance so you can provide
additional information? Yes, we have, we have the form set up for that. What name do you want me to put on? Attorney Blake, uh, can you look into um the current bylaw and how it how it impact it?
I I can see it right here. It's um it does say the current version of section 7 intensity regulations pertaining to frontage indoor area requirement shall not apply to a law for a single family residential use which at the effective date 1982 of this bylaw amendment was
not held in common common ownership with any adjoining land and had less than the current requirements but at least 20,000 square feet and 100. But that that that doesn't mean that he couldn't have been grandfathered in the very beginning
beginning. Okay. All right. And it doesn't matter. The lawyers are going to have to It has not changed. I I think a grandfather property can change hands. Okay. As long as it doesn't change configurations or become owned in common with another. Okay.
That's when you lose your grandfatherness if it merges with something else. It could. It could. for purposes of the request. Uh what is the date that we're looking to continue to I schedu something August 6.
Okay. Um, is that acceptable to It's fine with me. Uh, is that sufficient time? I think so. Bob, how uh much in advance do you want me to send you the title work? Is like a week okay or Okay. All right. I
uh before we do that, I'm sorry. August 6th. I'm available then. You're available then? But but but I also want to say that we we have 100 days to act unless there's a written extension to act and then 14 days after that to issue
an opinion. Y so I would ask that you give us the extension to August 20th. We'll hold the hearing on the 6th and that way to the extent that there's any decision that needs to be made, we still have adequate time to do it. No problem.
Do we know what the uh what the current 100 day date is from the beginning of the petition? Um it was filed on April 17. Yeah, we'd be past it. And are there fees due for the additional continuences? There is.
Okay. Just so you you do Yeah, that should be sent up to the town clerk, too. So, sorry. How much money does he go? $100. 100 bucks. All right. So, you got to pay 100 bucks. Jeff, what language do you want relative to the 100 days? I I just
need uh you you agreed to a continuence um of the hearing on the variance and um on uh on the uh pre-existing non-conforming use use no use I guess it
would be um till August 20th is that for the actual no your hearing your hearing will be on the 6th But just in case we we need time to issue a decision, right? So we don't want any
Yeah. But if if the 100 days expired on the 6th, I think close. Yeah. Is it your standard language saying you're also agreeing to extend the deadline at Yeah. to to August 20?
Yeah. Yeah. I think it's standard that it's extended. So I wrote applicant agrees to a continuence on the variance of the pre-existing non-conforming use to August 20th, 2025. Yeah, that will that should work. Just give us what we need. Okay. So,
you pay her 100 bucks tomorrow. He has to pay tomorrow, right? Yeah. Okay. You have to actually ask the board for the continuence and then we vote on it. Yes, certainly. And I'm sorry if I was out of order. I thought that I made a motion earlier to continue, but I'll
make a motion to you that the applicant would ask to continue this petition until August 6th, 2025 for a re-haring. Furthermore, that the applicant consents to an extension of the 100 day period to August 20th, 2025 on the pre-existing non-conforming lot issue as it relates to a variance.
We have we have request you have a motion. Yes. So I I will uh move to continue this hearing till uh August 6th uh at 6:30 here in the town hall.
You want at 6:30? We already have the uh oh the log one. We still put 6:30. All right. I'll second that. Any discussion? All in favor say I. I. All oppose? No. That's granted. Thank you.
Uh do you do you understand then what um what Yes. what your marching orders are? I do. And if I don't, I'll email attorney Blake and I'm sure he'll indulge my Okay, attorney Blake. Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. Yeah. What we need I mean, you know, we need to know enough to be able to
identify whether this can be grandfathered under the the zoning bylaw. In other words, you know, what is the easement? When was it in? you know, uh, is that, you know, who owned the property at all those times and all that stuff that's going to convince us that in fact, uh, uh, that this that this
property could be grandfathered. You're you're going to want to have to going to convince. Yeah, I was going to say I will do my best to convince you. Thank you. Have a good night. See you in the morning. Thank you. Okay. Uh I'll wait till everybody uh files out.
Yeah. Okay. The second hearing tonight. Um let me see where's the where's my Here we are. 12 Old John Reed Road application of Patricia Ellis and Glenn
Ellis for variance from the frontage requirement and to increase the height requirement from 40 to 45 ft of the lookout tower as mandated zoning bylaws article section 7 uh section 7.1 7.2 2. The property is located at 12 Old John
Reed Road, Westport Mass, as shown on Ces Map, lot 76, lot uh 107 A. Uh voting on this will be is everybody Oh, okay. Jerry Coutino,
Ray Elias, myself, Raj Manard, Cynthia Kazekawitz, and Janice Day. Uh again uh the process will be the same as before. We'll have the petition to come up, provide what information is pertinent. Uh the board will ask questions at which case then we will
open it up to the to the public. So come on up here and uh identify yourself. Um before before we get too far, I am going to um read a letter from Ralph's. Oops. It's not me.
Not you. It wasn't you. Oh, this was Randy was acting out from the from Randy Bet. The building permit application for the proposed new 44T 3 in height three-story structure at 12 Old John Road is denied for the
following reason. Uh seven uh the town of Westwood bylaw's maximum 7.2 maximum height. A dwelling uh hereafter erect or replaced in the residential district or in the business district shall not exceed either two and a half stories or 40 ft in height. In order for you to proceed with the
project, the variance required from the zoning board of appeals. So that that's what brought us all here. So you're up. All right. Uh first name and address. Oh, sorry. Glenn Ellis and Patty Ellis, 41 Oxford Road, Charlton, Massachusetts.
We are also a butters to 12 old John Reed Road at 101 Old John Reed Road. Um I can I assume you're familiar with the property? I know. Above all road. Yep. Right down by the beach.
Yep. It's um the lot is pre-existing non-conforming. There's a house on it now. Uh was deed at 100 ft wide. when we had it surveyed, it came out at 94.
So, we're going with the 94 because you know that whole area is all the property lines are all over the place. So, we'll leave the 6 ft that's allowed and keep it at 94. So, it's short frontage.
And the second part when we so it was originally dated for 100 ft. Correct. It just when they and when we had it surveyed surveyed it wasn't quite 100 didn't turn out to be 100 ft. I mean that's happens like everywhere in Yeah. Westport
all over. Right. So we're willing to say okay. Oh you're willing to say okay. But if you're willing to say also will the ones that have to we're not protesting the deed. I was saying it's,
you know, it is what it is. And the other issue is and when we went applied for the the building permit, the it was both the main structure and the tower that were tall. Um, we have since reduced the main structure height, which
are plans to have to 40 ft. And then there's a tower that we would like to bring up to 45 feet so we can have a a third floor um with a with a lookout. Right. And neither of those meet the requirements of the zoning.
You can't have a third floor and you can't have above 40 ft. Correct. It's is it's not a habitable space. It's part of the house. Got it. It could be a half a floor. There is an elevator that requires going up above the second floor, but because this the
mechanism for the elevator will be above it. Um, so we will have to bump into that space. So whether it's attic or half a floor, it's it's required by the elevator. Is is the flood the same on these beach
as it is? The flood zone is a V19. What does that mean? The elevation the flood elevation means V19. So they're all on stilts. I think they're all on correct. So is the third floor just because of the stilts? No. No. Okay.
Oh, it's really almost four. So there's the reason for the extra five. Okay. So if we allow house meets you know 40 from 40 to 45 ft. We would up a can of worms in the foot zone area because everybody's on still. what you would actually
and that that's part of the hardship is you have to start at 16 ft and go up that's part of the I I beg to differ though because according to your plans the house is fine at 40 ft
right on the stilts right so it's not a hardship for the house the 40t is not a hardship to build your two two and a half story house correct right it's affects the extra tower you want to build,
right? Okay. Which includes an elevator. Well, okay. Whether includes an elevator. And one one of the things we're trying to do also is make a structure that is appealing and not just put a box on
stilts. So that the tower is an architectural feature that is part of the the look of the house. It's also functional because it has stairs and the elevator, but and it's the only piece that goes down to the
ground with breakaway walls. So, we most of the house still boxes on legs. We're trying to avoid that. Should I go through the plans? Sure. Okay. I I'm Cindy Saxs. I I'm uh 1301
Horsene Neck Road and then also uh 18 Morland Avenue, Newton, Mass. Um so what I thought I'd do is walk you through the different plans with same as you have. Um I've also included the survey plan in this. Um and I think I'll I'll primarily
address the height because the 94 ft may be less of an issue. Um so as you can see it's a very large lot. It's over 2 acres and um the abuters have signed off
on this and said it's acceptable. So there there wouldn't be any um and and it the the house will not block anybody's view. In other words, um across the street are the campgrounds and it's it's a pretty empty area and
they work presently. This presently there are a number of structures all over the site in a small cottage. We would be removing that removing the asphalt driveway and basically building a box with a tower
next to it and a number of decks. like your thing with setbacks, you know, at least plus or minus 565. Yeah, kind of. I I assume it's just way back there. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's right. Right. Right. Plus, he does go back to the way.
I take my measurements very seriously. Seriously. Well, I wasn't quite sure what the plus or minus was, but Well, I like doing that every once in a while. Right. In other words, it's roughly 565 ft. Yeah. It could be an eighth of an inch more, an eighth of an inch less. Or another uh surveyor could say that their
property line doesn't go as far as they think it does. 555. Does that make it the other direction? Go ahead. Um so the the ground floor will um have a number of peers and then it'll have a
16x 16 ft structure that will have a stair, an elevator, and a little storage basically an entry. Um it'll all have knockout panels so that it'll be acceptable in the flood zone.
The um first floor uh will have bedrooms, two bedrooms, utilities, and one bathroom. And again, the tower with the elevator and um stair. And and part of this is as as the Ellis's age, I I
think they're they're they're planning on living here full-time and they really do want the elevator is that's the purpose of the house. We're planning to retire at this point, right? And they've been coming here for 60 years. I don't know. I don't want to know.
It's been since the 70s. It's pretty it's pretty standard in houses on stills. So they put elevators in because Yes, there's hard to get up 25 stairs. Yeah. Um and and and of course it'll have decks which will take advantage of views
of the let the next floor would be a living space again with decks and the elevator would go there and also a stair. Um the top floor which is in question the deck
floor would be is it a is it two and a half stories or three. So that's a very good point. Um will be access to the small deck here and the stair would go up to that level. So, the elevation here, the west
elevation is what you would see from the front of the house. And I'm really trying hard not to give them a box because all the ones coming up going up are basically a box with,
you know, sitting on stilts. Um, so it would have a small deck and then this is the entry for the house. Parking underneath. Again, the side elevation, the south elevation would be hip roofs and windows
for the tower room. Excuse me. While you're while you're on that Yes. that one. I don't have any dimensions. Uh, what dimensions would you like here? Uh, so what I'm trying to figure out is where is this extra height? Uh,
oh, go to the section. Give me like two more boards if that's okay and I'll bring you to it. Okay, you can stand that board for a second or any actually any of these. So, if you lowered if you lowered your outlook by five feet, then this wouldn't
be a problem for anybody. Well, wait. If I lowered the what? If you lowered your outlook, your Yes. But you wouldn't have headroom to You couldn't lower it by 5t. Why? Why?
There's nothing else. What's the Oh, I see. You're saying just But then they wouldn't have the tower and then it would be a box. Well, no. It'd still not be a box. You still have that. It just It would just be flying. Understood. I Yes, you are absolutely correct. Yes. It would just be a piece
on the side of it. Yes. Yes. It would be in which case then it wouldn't be a lookout. Yes, it would still be a lookout. It just wouldn't be as high a lookout. That's right. That's exactly it. And you wouldn't really look out there because you would be looking at We played around with this. It's not out of the question.
So, when you bring it down here, there's nothing really you're looking out on much. It's the same as everything else. Can you still access the the the deck on top if you go down 5T door? But a var but a variance for a better
view is not really a reason a var I for architecture I see the purpose of trying not to make it to a box but that's not a rationale for a variance yeah but understood understood um
see in order to in order to grant a variance you need to identify a hardship and according to your documentation your hardship is because you're going to puts the thing on stilts. Well, that and that raises it. So, we could put it on stilts, but if we didn't have to start at 6 ft,
but your 2 and 1/2 story house matches the 40 foot requirement for our zoning. So, so it's hard to say that you have a hardship because you want to add an outlook. Yes. Understood. Yeah. Um and the the last one which will
answer your question is the all the heights. So basically what we're looking at is we're starting the first You should have that as your last page. It's also listed in the front, but Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So the the finished floor of the first floor is at 16 ft
above grade. Mhm. So as and doing that it just squishes everything down. We we went to a lot of work to keep the angles of the roof as as best we could sort of a New England style and trying to
so from grade of the first floor to the top of the finished floor is 16 ft but but from there to the top of the peak of the look so it's still within it's 40t to the to the top of the house. No, I'm talking about to the top of the
I'm saying for if you just say Yeah. Oh, it's 26 + 5 31 closed, right? But - 16 that's 45, right? I'm still trying to figure out what's
where the five feet that you're looking for. Right there. They're right here. So, it it starts somewhere right about there. And it's basically most of it's roof. Um there's a chance we can start the first
uh floor a little bit lower or higher because I use six foot as an elevation. It's plus or minus a little more than six feet. It's maybe closer to seven in some spots, but I was trying to be very conservative. Um but yes, so you go across. Actually,
the way you could tell is go straight across here and that's where you'd end up. The ridge line of the main house is at 45. Exactly at 45. Yeah. Ralph, have you looked at this? Uh, this is the first I've seen of it because again, it was spoken to me before I went out,
right? Yeah. When I went out, it went to Randy Bet, right? Randy Bet generated the letter. My question is, what's that? Did you apply or did you ask for an opinion? Did you apply for a building permit and get denied the building permit or did you ask for an opinion? We um we went to Randy and he said,
"Apply for a permit and I will fail you." Yeah. So that's what you did. I will deny it. Yes. That's what promise you. And then he said and then ask for a variance. Right. Could you make the shape of the roof of the tower to m mimic the shape of the roof of the house where you sort of
flatten it up a little bit? So I said if they dropped it by five feet, then it would all be right. It would be a flat roof if they dropped it by straight five. Well, no. It would just be You would, but you wouldn't you would only be I'm short, but it would only like be four feet. I tried because I considered doing a totally flat roof
there. Well, no. You've got a lot of room underneath it. Mean here. No, down below it. Oh, you mean drop it here? This is because of the elevator. This floor right here is because of the elevator overrun. But you're right. You could bring it down slightly. I mean, if you
can give us two feet or three feet, I may be able to do something here. Um, but it's tough. It really is to make something, you know, the expense in doing it, which I know is not a hardship. um to do it. If you're barely making it
work, there's no point. But is this Yes. I'm still having a hard time figuring out. Uh is this uh solely for an elevator shaft or is it because you want
to have room up there to sit there or have deck? That's it. It's more to sit there. The elevator shaft because it's an overrun and it goes up to 9. It needs 9 ft. So if this is a 8 foot, these are rough numbers, finished ceiling, then it it it
pops up. So we can bring this down one foot, but then we have this bump up here. Yeah. The purpose for that is an outlet. Yes, it is an outlet. So that you get a nice view of Westport Beach. Right. Right. And you can probably even see Bayside
from here. It's It's the And the sun sets because you can't really see State Beach. The dunes are pretty high on Oh, the other way. Yeah. Yeah. If the house wasn't on stilts, how high would it be at its highest? 31
ft. How's that one for you? Except for it probably. So, you're within 40 feet, but you're only Oh, totally. Right. And the only reason you're at 45 is because of a state requirement that you have to put it on stilts. Yes. Yes, that's exactly correct.
But they meet the requirement for the house on the stilts and that would end up all the way up and down east beach. Nope. All the way. Oh, I mean other building
East Beach, but I don't think anything on East Beach. They're not buildable lots because that's they're all going to they're going to have to apply for the flood zone. Yes. Right. And the the elevation for the state starts at sea level, I think,
or elevation. So if you're at zero, right? So 21 ft starts there. The 40 ft starts from the ground. So it's wherever your earth is. Raise the earth up. We could now one of when they when you I mean you've done this. You take like a
mean a mean area, right? Or right averages out. You get the average that land is that land's pretty flat, right? Right. So the mean is six. Same everywhere. You do the four corners of the house or
the or the lot the build of the lot. Oh, you do lot here. Not the lot or just the buildable part of the lot. You go all the way back to the let. So we go all the way down to the let. So maybe that gets that. Is that right? in order to calculate the height,
calculate where the grade is. But then they also got a two foot buffer zone. The bottom of floor joist is going to be 2 ft higher. That's why I asked her when they applied. So there's six months to act on this permit. So I'm assuming they applied at
the time it went out. So they've applied, right? So under my determination, if I'm issuing that permit, I could issue that under the ninth edition. If I issue it under the 10th edition, they've got a problem with an extra foot because I just came out of the seminar today and
it's three feet now in the 10th edition. We started the 10th edition. The 10th edition is solely in operation right now. The ninth edition has gone away. And so one of the reasons we did not reapply, we talked about it because we
had applied and because we were waiting for zoning, we're allowed to continue the right. you're allowed to continue cuz you're in the zoning board of appeals right now appealing it because you when you talked to me back when I said you got to get it in here because
I knew the 10th edition was coming on. Yes. And it had to be so that you get the time and I'm not restricted by the code to to issue you something. That's exactly right. So it's it's going to go under the ninth
edition depending how far this goes. Right. If it goes to the 10th edition, it's an extra foot 10. Then we're asking for six feet, not five. So, so every permit that comes in front of you gets treated the same with this 45 ft on
going forward. Now, going forward, every permit that comes before me in a flood in a in a let me correct that in a in a VE zone. Whatever the VE is, if it's V V19, then the bottom floor joist is under the ninth edition, it's going to
be at 21 ft. It's two foot higher. But under the 10th edition, it's going to be at 22 ft. It's an extra foot. It's 3 ft buffer. Oh, they they changed the They'd have to move it up higher. They'd have to move it up higher if it was going under. That's why I asked her,
did she apply for a permit? Cuz at that point, I didn't see this anymore. I was out for what I had to have done. Y and Randy took it up. Right. Randy I wanted to know if Randy took an application in. He took an application and he denied the application. That's that that's better.
So that started the clock. That was that started the clock right there. Right. Right. So they go under that set of rules. If if they have to reapply, they have to go under the new set of rules. Right. If they if if they didn't apply, if they that's why I asked if they asked for a determination only determination.
Okay. council didn't click it. But if they did that, Yes. then to be asking for six feet, they didn't apply for it. They applied for it denied. Yes. Yes. Yeah. I got you. Is there a different type of elevator you can put in there without going up to
5? We looked and I couldn't find one. I I'm not an expert on elevators, but I tried really hard to find something that didn't have the overruns. I called a number of companies and I think it's just the way these go. You want the mechanics up above because of the
potential for flooding. Mechanics have to be up, right? Um, is there anything else? We have talk to all of our neighbors and none of them have any issues. Uh Ralph the um I mean the first part of
this was the 100 versus 100 feet versus 94 feet. Is there any issue with I mean they had a deed that said they had 100 foot frontage and JS still says it's 100 and right when they surveyed it it turns out that I mean is that
well that it's it's a lot that had a house on I mean it's got a house on it. House on it now. We're going to knock that house down build a new house right so that's pre-existing anyway. Pre-existing anyway. So you might need to do a finding it may lead to a finding or we can just decide to give them a variance that's
be you know because they actually had 100 foot. Yeah deep and on the you know and the property and the town assumed it was 100T. Yeah. And the property next door actually has less frontage. It's something you know every every house on my street
the if you if you surveyed them wouldn't be what the deed says. Yeah. Yeah, I had the same problem on First Street. Did Did the building commissioner deny it based on the 94 feet? Because, you know, he didn't say that in the letter because
we never raised the I don't know if Ralph, you're going to they've got a deed that says 100 ft. He didn't deny it on that. He denied it on basically it's height. That's what he did. The only reason I'm going this way is is because as you know a variance is
uh shape soil or topography and it sounds to me like there's a question as to whether there could very well be 100 ft survey might be off right you you got two different surveyors saying two different things and one of them assists you. So if Ralph is not
going to if he's going to issue the permit because it's got sufficient frontage based on at least AD that he looked at. My determination of that is a pre-existing lot. They got a house on it. But if it is then you would need to say that the new house is not more detrimental to the neighbor.
Yes. Which would cover you. Part of the detrimental you would need to do a finding. That's a finding, right? But we can because that's a less severe than a variance. We can we can we can attack that at this petition.
I I think you can because it's Yeah, I I I I do think you can you know we've they've identified the issue in their petition. So whether it's a variance or a finding since a finding is a lot less restrictive than a variance. I think that we can act on a finding rather than a variance. I I
think you can I mean the only people there somebody may try to challenge it because it wasn't properly noticed but as these folks say I mean look the last one was full and now we've got nobody just this so it's unlikely to be challenged. Um so I
I I think that it would probably be easier and better just to make the finding that it's a pre-existing non-conforming use and the proposed use is use and structure is not more detrimental to the neighborhood. Right. Now, we noticed it as a variance. I know. That's what I was saying.
We didn't say finding or as we sometimes do. Uh, but that wouldn't be an issue. Well, I was just that that's what we were that's what we were talking about. Step down, right? I mean, if they ask for a finding related to variance, that be a different thing. But we're bringing down,
right? They asked for more than they needed. Is it is it ironclad? No. But the fact simple fact of the matter is we're here. Um why there's no opposition. I think it's probably the way to go and after the
facts made themselves aware you were you're now um kind of changing the relief. Could it be challenged? Maybe. And I and I don't know. And like I say, right, very few people in here. And you know, it's it's um as you guys say, a
variant is much more um stringent stringent and detrimental possibly to a neighbor than simply just making this finding. What's the difference between a finding and a variance? But a finding we Sorry, I'm not. That's all right. That's all right.
Go ahead. Did you want to um a finding is if you have a pre-existing non-conforming structure on the lot and the the issue is because of frontage um the the you don't need a variance. What you would need is you'd come to the zoning board
and they would make a determination and to expand it or to alter it, which you guys are doing. They just make a determination that it's not more detrimental to the neighborhood, right? versus a variance which requires it has to be uh owing to the shape, soil
or topography of the lot that's different in kind than everybody else in the neighborhood. Much more stringent criteria. Much more stringent. And a finding is a majority vote rather than a a variance requires four four affirmative affirmative votes.
Okay. But that isn't the main issue anyway. The main issue is right is the uh is the heights. the heights, right? U any other I mean I Well, I'm I'm going to say again uh I I
want to be clear. I I thought from your initial presentation that the issue was you need the extra for the elevator. This is the elevator. But when you uh you showed this and again it doesn't
show it on here, but you said you said this one shows. Yes. Okay. I I don't really see much there. Uh it says elevator over. Uh okay. How much of that is is the elevators?
So it's more than just the elevator. No, it is more. It's it's a lookout tower as well, but the elevator adds an extra foot to it. So, if you look there, there's a dimension of 9 ft. And normally a ceiling would be 8 feet, but in this case, I've got it at nine. So,
it won't bump up into that little room, which isn't much of a room really because it's basically a stair um in there. Uh and and most of the part that does come above the 40 ft, it's not it's not
a lot of roof. I I there is some not trying to pretend about anything else. But um that's it. So you could if you just went with the elevator. Yes.
You didn't have that little room on top of it. Uh you wouldn't be here talking about 45 basically. Like Ray, I'm concerned about proliferation. Guess we might as well change the bylaw.
Understood. And and I it's it's really a question for Westport because I mean when I built my house 20 years ago, um you know, the elev the the rules were all different. I just had to bring it up to basically 30 in above grade. And now I from my own
place, I have to bring it up 12 or 15 feet. So I get it. And as it's going to change in the the next edition, it's going to change again. So I don't know I don't know how the town's going to deal with it. And I Yeah. Is there any way of adding ADA
compliance to this to make it? I if if in the future there's there's a problem, you're going to need that elevator for accessibility, right? Any cap accessibility, it's that handicap. But they could have it without the 5 ft.
Gets a gets a pass in some some some situation. That's actually why we're adding the elevator. Frankly, if you're going to talk, you have to go to But but you can you can you can still put the elevator in without the 5T. That's exactly
the five feet is just an architectural right design and preference. That's it. But you could have easily just have if you really still wanted to look at that could just be a roof deck up there. So here's a question. If you had a roof
deck and you had railings above the 40 ft, is that allowed? People asked this already. I don't mean to nitpick. I'm just trying to understand what one's constraints are. Answering that question. If you're going to turn a roof into a roof deck, yeah, by code, you're going to need rails.
Yes. It's going to be three feet. And is the three feet have to go with the 40T? Correct. You know what I'm saying? I'm saying no only because it's a railing that's required. You've turned the roof into a roof deck. It's not a in my opinion, it's not a
structure. It's not part of it. It's a safety feature, not a structure. Understood. Okay. Okay. I think it's been done before. It's been done. But you still have to bring it down lower because your roof would if you take out you take out the roof of this
over thing. I was thinking of more of putting it here, right? The roof like making going straight across straight across or actually maybe lower for architectural. Right. So you have the that's the Sorry, I'm missing like like I'm thinking that
if you lower that to the to the to the roof. Yes. Right. That you make this roof the same as this and then put a roof deck on it. You still get the extra room for the elevator and you also get a lookout. It's just it's the access to it. We wouldn't you have to difficulty is is you'd be
walking up another flight of stairs outside and for safety I I'm not crazy about doing a lot of exterior stairs outside as we all age. But you actually or a hatch, right?
I've seen a hatch. There is a linkage make me crazy as an architect. If you did that Yeah. and an engineer, of course, you wouldn't have a room up there. No, we would not have a room up. So, you'd have to give that up. Yes, that's exactly correct.
There is a deck on top of the screen room. I don't know if you saw that. And the access to that deck was from that room at the top of the tower. Okay. So, I'm going to give you your options so that you can decide how to proceed. Okay.
Okay. Um, one, we can we can close the hearing and vote on it. Okay. Okay. If we vote on it and obviously if we grant it, all fine and good. Go ahead and build it and you're, you know, in good shape. Unless somebody protests it. Obviously, nobody protests.
If we deny it, you can't do anything for two years. What? Oh, wait. We can't just You can't do anything for two years. You can't submit submit applications. Similar application. You can't submit build your house without the 45 build.
Right. Oh, okay. Got it. Never mind. Right. You can't come back. You couldn't do anything. No, no, no. As long as you meet the code, you don't come to us, right? You can't come back to us for two years with anything similar, right? Okay. Um, you can withdraw without prejudice, which means you could reapply
tomorrow if you Okay. Uh, uh, you could after a continuence to change your plans. These are all of the your options. Um, you know, because there's nobody here otherwise. So, it opening it up to the public is is
already done. We're at the point of closing the hearing. If I close the hearing, right, then we're going to vote on something. So, we So, again, this is something that uh you need to be aware of is if we were to vote on this and vote it down, then
you you then you couldn't build anything similar to this. You would have to conform to all the building requirements. We just do normal building code. A normal building code. Yeah. Yeah, that's fine. And on the ninth edition, right, on the ninth edition, but the frontage issue and the frontage issue that we'll talk about. That's a
different thing. Uh we can we can vote on the finding. We we they're separate votes. They're totally separate issues. And I think I just want to make sure that we're not and I I think it's appropriate to vote on the the finding part of it because it
has nothing to do with the tower. That's a good idea. And no matter what you do, there's probably going to be that same issue. Yes. So we can certainly vote on that part of it, you know. Um I don't know. Can we do that? Can we
if this if this has two aspects of it, can we vote on one and continue and and and this is for you to decide? Well, the application was just for the variance for the height. Um, no, I'm just a tool. It actually showed both. No,
the um so I think you says frontage requirement. I think you could bifrocate it. Excuse me. I think you could if it if there were if you're here for two varian um Yeah. Yeah. It it was there were variance for the frontage requirement and to increase the height.
So there are two parts. Yeah. And I I think you could they could withdraw their application for the for the or they could continue or what whatever for the um height and but I think you could vote on the finding for the frontage.
Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Because they are separate. They were listed separately. Yes. Right. They're not linked in any in any way. Yeah. I'm just Well, you wouldn't you wouldn't get you withdraw, you can't go.
So, if you if they decline it, they can't go up the same and then you're most likely looking at a six feet variance. Absolutely. Okay, that's true. That's right. If not more, but but there is one
there is one there's there going to be one issue because of the change in the in the um the flood plane. If if if we decline this and you have to go back and reapply,
then it's the new B then it it becomes a if if they turn in a new application, then it's the 10th edition, right? Yeah. So it will be a 6T variance that they'll be asking for that or more. Now if they came in and just said they want to make a modification, does it still make a modification? Right now they the
way I understand it, they've applied. Right. Okay. And Randy was here. Randy denied them on what he denied them on. If myself, I would work with that. uh if they pull out not doing we're going to
regroup the application you you can't let that application go past 6 months it becomes null and void okay then I need then I need a letter from them saying due to whatever I we need our application extended
if it's coming too close to the six months I need them to send me that letter so me as the commission I can say okay I'm letting you have extra time because it's in here to to work with your application. So to keep it under the
So they would not necessarily have to go under the new rules. That's right. If they let it if they let it go, right? If they let they let it go, it's gone. But you're saying you could authorize I could authorize it to be it, but I need to let it because if they're going to go back to the planning board, you
know, the planning stages of it and redo it and replant it, they need to submit me a letter. Okay. Ry's letters dated February 22nd. But when your application your application when was that submitted to Randy? February before. Yeah, it was before that. I
don't remember the spec specific date. You better do it ASAP. You're going to do it ASAP. It's got to be done. Yeah. So, we have to immediately send you a letter because it's going to take a while to do new. You immediately send me that letter and Thank you. email because if you
get rid of the tower, you're still going to have to get a variance of a foot because everything's going up. Right. Right. That's it. And going to change all the stairs. Okay. So, how do you want to proceed? So, if if we move forward with the vote
and gets doesn't get approved and then we change the design and keep everything at 40, then you don't come back to us, right? And as long as Ralph can get it in under the new and we write Ralph a letter and said please. Yeah.
But we could act on the frontage issue tonight. Yes. The finding and then we don't have to come back. Right. So let's let's Yeah, let's act on both of them tonight. I don't want to delay this because we're just going to get into further trouble
with addition time. No, that's that's that's got to get the design wrapped up. Perfectly made because whether if we if we can afford it, if we it turns out to be the same except like you said, it adds time. If we reject it, you change your plans, you submit it
back to him as an amendment that meets the 40 ft and you're golden. If you went back and change your plans and come back to us, I mean, all you all that was doing was moving time out, right? I mean, if we bring it to 42, we would try to negot the longer this takes, the longer I
can't retire. So, so they say that, but we're eager to Okay, I'm going to play desal advocate because I I I want to protect these people as much as I can. Thank you. which we appreciate the okay so we re let's just say and again
this is just what if what if we reject it today which means they cannot reapply for two years with with with a similar design for the height for the height and they come back to you but they don't meet the 40t they meet 41 ft you're
going to deny it it's going to come back to us but it can't come back to us because it's not three years right right so you have to make sure you can do it in 40 ft. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Yeah. And you got to understand that because that's right. No. Or you could withdraw your petition
without prejudice for the still do the frontage and they can still do the frontage and then if you need to come back and for your front for your variance, you're not prevented from coming back. That's actually the
cleanest way because that allows you then if two weeks from now you decide you really want 41 feet and you think maybe we'll approve 41 feet because of whatever then you could do that you can do that tomorrow or next week but you can't do that if we reject it.
Understood. Have you ever approved anything over 40 ft? We haven't had we we've never had any come above 40 ft that I can remember and we're talking in a sensitive area to do it on the other side of town. It's actually it's actually more beneficial
for everybody to withdraw that portion of it because it really protects both of us. It's the same of us. The only difference is if if we vote to reject it, you can't do anything for two years. If you if you withdraw, then it's like you were never here.
But we want to know are you going to vote for it or not? That's gambling. And we're in Foxwoods right now. So anyway, nice. Excuse me. What's the vote to pass the variance? What
it it it you have to have four votes out of five in order to to grant. So let's take a poll. Let's see. Uh just so you know the way this works. So the standard is specifically finding that owing owing owing to circumstances
related to soil condition, shape, topography of the land. So the topography of the land is what was what we were using as a hard shape that is different in kind that uh especially affecting such lander structures but not affecting generally
the zoning district in which it is located. Right. It's a tough standard. Very tough standard. I understand. Um, it's again you guys decide it. You guys with we will withdraw it and just
have the finding for the front. Okay. Okay. And so, um, you write out a thing for him to sign. And so, what you're going to do then is you're going to ask to withdraw with without prejudice if that then allows
you to come back anytime you want. Okay. Go for it. We'll then vote on it. And um, I have to close the hearing first to do No. Uh, not for him to um, he can He can ask now, then you can close it. Then I close. And either way, it doesn't we we still
write you a letter. A you still write me a letter because it looks it sounds like it's real close. It's real close. Yeah, it is. Understood. All right. Another question. Should you put on there as it pertains to the height of
Yes. I should put that on here. Yeah. As regarding the height variance or request for a height height variance. That way we can still act on the frontage tonight. Spell that wrong. Good.
All right. So, I just read this and we're good. I Glenn Ellis petitioner requests to withdraw the petition regarding the height variance of property located 12 John Reed Road currently pending before the zoning board of appeals without prejudice Ellis
sign date nine sign okay is there any other uh any other discussion before we close the hearing I'll entertain a motion to close the hearing make a motion to close the hearing I Second it. All in favor say I.
I. I. All post. No. It's unanimous. Okay. Um we have a uh a request to withdraw the variance on the uh in particular for the for the height. Any uh discussion?
I move that the uh applicant be allowed to uh withdraw the um uh height variance request uh without second. Any discussion? No. All in favor say I. I.
I. All oppose. No. That's granted. There's a second is a finding that the um the um that the requirement for the frontage uh
okay which oh here it is right here. uh that the requirement for the frontage which is required to be 100 ft uh according uh is is actually 94 feet
uh and the the finding is that this that the there's it has been a there has been a house on that property. It has so it has been a non-conforming property. It hasn't changed. it doesn't affect the neighborhood. And and as far as uh
uh how it's detrimental um what we use for that is not the that it's the architecture is is is detrimental. It's safety and things like that. It's it's something tangible. Uh, and I don't see
that that uh that there's any impact of of the 94 foot versus the 100 foot, especially since it's already deeded at 100 foot and the town has identified it on the on their on their card as it being 100 foot. So, so I make a motion to grant a a
uh finding that the u uh that the 94 ft frontage does not impact the uh is not detrimental to the neighborhood. I'll second that. Discussion. All in favor say I. I. I. So now you don't have to worry about
the frontage. No, you take care of you can take with with Ralph you can take care of how you're going to uh manage the height 5T. Do we have to put the word substantially in there? You you can substantially more detrimental.
More more it's not more detrimental. Yeah. More detrimental. I mean I think I think the That's why that's Yeah, the the that's what the rules um it's a 20-day uh don't do anything for 20 days because it's a 20-day appeal process.
Okay. You can still work with them, but don't go building issue it until I get Got it. I I would submit it sooner than later and it's online now.
I don't handwrite permits anymore. It buds. Oh, you're on that new system, right? Yeah. All right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Thank you. We appreciate your time. Thank you. I hope it all works. I hope it all works out for you. I'm sure it will.
It will. Okay. Um, no. He's on the He doesn't do permit. What are business? Oh, you mean Oh, I just need Yep. Okay. Sure.
Not tomorrow cuz I got to do CI inspection. Come see me Friday morning. I wish I would have known that. I would have come right at 8:00. Yeah. No, I didn't shoved in that other big stack of
that we have. I know. I could look in there, but I didn't Cool. That one opens up. Oh, no. It's a mess. Yes. Yes. I don't chair cuz in the home office I
just have a stationary 3,800 yard. I worked from home since co and I retired in May. So you still I got I got something going on.
I got a gig. I got a gig going on. Oh, but you're not But I'm I'm tech. I am technically retired, baby. I am unemployed. I have no income. Um you 61
still running a meeting. Okay. Uh next door is meeting. Okay. Um we have meeting minutes from May 21st. Yes. Uh, everybody has looked at this. Everybody put this together. Everybody
has commented on it. So, I'll make a motion to to approve the meeting minutes for May 21st, 2025. I'll second. All in favor say I. I. I. Oppose. No. I'll sign this. Is there any other business? Our next meeting is
July 30th. Woohoo. Okay. Oh, I make a motion to adjourn the meeting. Second. All in favor? I I post. No.