Okay, there being 6:30 on April 15th, I'm going to start the zoning board of appeals off with the pledge of allegiance. 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 Chapter 38, section 20, this meeting is being recorded. First order of business is Zero Horse Neck Road. It's a continued hearing on administrative appeal of uh
Robert Haynes III and uh Shauna Wackhouser from from a letter issued by the building commission zoning enforcement officer that subject property is undevelopable land subjects property located at zero horse neck road westport math that is shown on
assessor's map 45 lot A. So, the way we're going to do is I'm going to have the petitioner come up, provide whatever is uh information is pertinent. Board will then ask questions and after that I will then open it up to the public. So, the petitioner or the petitioner's representative.
>> Thank you. Um John Marky from Marky and Walsh in New Bedford, Massachusetts on behalf of Mr. Haynes and Miss Wacaser. Uh I believe last week if if uh the town has received it, a request for continuence was filed. Has that been
received? >> And it had an attached a letter >> was I was >> I have a cop I have a copy of a letter that was sent by email to you uh requesting the continuence. It was sent in last week. >> He did mention probably Okay,
>> you can you can do that tonight. >> I got it. No, I'm I'm here. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't trying to drop it on you that we had we weren't just showing up at the last minute with the continuous request. So, just to give the board a little bit of context, my associate attorney, Michael McVey, has been working with the Hannes family and Miss Wacaser for a couple of months on
this project. One of the issues and one of the reasons that the building inspector suggested we might need this relief was whether or not the way which has been shown on historical plans was a road which could allow for frontage. As a result, there's a parallel process going on with the planning board as to
the status of that way. A public hearing had already been occurred which we were hoping to get a vote from. They said that they wanted to hear further from the building commissioner and fire to to review it before they would make a decision. So, as a result of that, we
don't know whether we're going to need the relief that was originally requested. So, we think it's more prudent for us to go back to the planning board to try to get that resolved and clarified for you and then we either will see you in June or we will withdraw. >> Well, no matter how you're going to see us
>> because you can't withdraw without seeing us. >> Oh, no. I understand. I I'd love to be here and Michael would love to be here. He he has two little kids, so I'm giving him the night off so he doesn't have to drive from Attboro. But, um, we will see you either way, but I just I just wanted to note I didn't want to go into the
merits of it. I think most of the neighbors are all have all been supportive and in favor of the construction of a single family home for the family that's been here for many years. But for now, we'd ask that you grant us not in May just in case we're not ready yet, depending on planning, but a June date if that's possible.
>> So, you um want to give them the paperwork you need >> and I'll sign whatever extension paperwork you need. So, uh, we're going to have to come up with a a date certain. >> So, you're not looking at May, you're looking at June. Just >> whatever date you all pick. I don't >> Well, I I I'll I'll take a date certain,
but I don't know if you guys have chosen your date in June. >> We have We We don't have any dates assigned yet. >> Okay. >> So, do you prefer May or June? >> We prefer June. >> June. Okay. So, we'll come up with a date for June. Uh, we don't have anything yet.
>> Can you come up with a date? >> Anything other than the third? >> Anything other than the third? >> Okay. Um, >> it's a Sunday. >> April, May, June. How about 10th? Is the 10th okay with you,
>> sir? I'll do you guys decide. You got a lot more people than we do. when you be there when you need. >> Okay. >> Uh members of the board, uh how does uh June 10th fit with your schedules? >> It's fine for me. Fine.
>> Fine. >> Kevin, >> George, >> you going to nod? Okay, I'm good with it. So, uh so you can put in there, uh June 10th at 6:30 and then what you have to do is then you have to read it to the board and ask for a continuance.
>> Okay? And you realize it's a $100 fee. >> That is understood. Uh June 10th, 2026 at 6:30. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I, John Marky, request that the hearing on my client, Mr. Haynes, and Miss Waser's petition be continued until
June 10th, 2026 at 6:30. I understand that the deadline for making a decision will be extended accordingly. Sign a mark Jr. 41526. Asking that request. Okay, we have a request for continuance. Do we have a motion?
>> So moved. >> We have a motion to grant the uh the continuence. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Uh wait, first of all, I can't do this. I have to I have to assign voting members. Voting members will be Raj Mard, Cynthia Kekowit, Jerry uh Cino,
Constance Gi, and George Steldus. So we got uh Jerry has made a motion. All I'll second the motion uh of the voting members. All in favor of a continuence. >> I. >> All oppose? No. That's unanimous. So >> we'll see you June 10th. Let me put that
on my calendar so we forget. >> Thank you. >> Got you. >> Okay. The second uh hearing is uh 112 Reed Road hearing on application of John uh Franor. How do
you pronounce the last name? >> Frankor. Okay, that's okay. and uh Ronald Frankor and Adam Franor owners for a variance and/or special permit to construct in an accessory dwelling of of uh 1750 square ft for a handicapped
individual with attached oversized garage exceeding the size of the dwelling as mandated by zoning bylaw article 9 section 952 properties located at 112 Reed Road Westport Mass and shown on assessor's map 33 lot 76 was again uh
the same procedure I'll have the petitioner come up, provide whatever information is pertinent. The board will ask questions. After the board is done, then I'll open it up to the uh general public. I do want to read one thing though that uh
regarding this particular let's say uh it up until a couple of years ago uh detached accessing dwellings required a special permit. uh was it three years ago, two three
years ago, the state changed that to make it a by right. Uh so our bylaw had to change to account for that. Now part of the bylaw that uh that they're talking about um and let me go back into 95.
>> Roger. >> Excuse me. >> You want this? >> I got it here. >> Um >> okay. is there is so it is a by right to have an accessory apartment of 900 square f feet or
the smaller of a half of the size of the house. So if you had an uh a 2,000 foot house you could have a,000 foot but 900 would be smaller but if you only had a 1600 foot house of that would be 800. So 800 would be smaller than 900. So 800 would be the maximum you could have. We
do have a provision though and I'll read it. The zoning board of appeals may allow and grant reasonable and necessary accommodations relative to accessory dwelling units for persons with disabilities and limited mobility. And that is what the applicant now is is
requesting. Now, uh, and I've talked to our attorney about this. So, um, we're going to treat this as a special permit because it doesn't fall under the provisions of a variance. doesn't fall under the provisions of finding and it doesn't fall under the provisions of an
administrative appeal. So since this used to be a special permit, we're going to treat this as a special permit for allowing or granting a reasonable and necessary accommodation relative to the dwelling requirement due to uh a disability or somebody with limited
mobility. So that's the way we're going to handle this particular uh application. >> Roger. Excuse me. Uh Jeff, I just want to clarify the second the last sentence there. Uh
is that exactly the way the state law now reads? >> No. >> No. >> No. Okay. >> State wrote >> the state law does not address that. Correct. >> Does not address it. I I think what the town was trying to do here is >> that um under under the disabil
disability laws there is this concept of uh of a reasonable accommodation >> right >> and I think that what the what you guys are trying to do here was to keep that reasonable accommodation in there. So, no, that is not um in the state law, but
clearly it's it's giving you the authority to do this and and it if if it wasn't some type of of different than a variance, it you wouldn't need it, right? You could just ask for the variance. But I think what happens in the variance situation, as you probably
know, shape, size, and topography of the property, and I I don't think my my read of this is that the that the town did not want that to be a criteria for this, but rather authorized you to make reasonable accommodations. And the only
thing, as Rogers pointed out, the only thing it really fits into is some type of special permit. >> Right. And uh but you you're reasonably comfortable that that we're not violating the new 2025 uh uh state law
uh ability for us to do this or or requirement for us to do this. >> Yeah. I'm I'm I'm comfortable because even under the state law, it says that these have to be by right, but you can by special permit let them be bigger. Yeah. So I think you are in compliance
with the state law even with this. But the state law requires 900 square feet or half the gross floor that was added from the state law >> and it doesn't specifically say for um accommodation uh disability or anything like that. >> No, but it does allow a municipality to
be to make to to to allow a larger ADU by specialty. >> Correct. >> It it it's sort of left over from our previous zoning was was because we left it at 900. We didn't have the half of the size of the house. But let's say if because the the applicant needed because
they were maybe re retrofitting an existing building needed 925 ft because you know the hallways needed to be bigger. We weren't going to get so you know concerned about that. But it what but in my mind
I think it has to do there has to be some showing that if it's going to be over 900 square feet and how much is going to be over 900 feet is going to show me like why do you need that as much room as you're asking for? >> Um it seems to me I recall reading uh
the word net uh square footage. Do you recall whether that's accurate? It's gross now under >> I think it's gross square. Are they saying gross? Okay. Because uh I don't know that we have a definition of that
because as you know in the past we exclude things like non-heated areas, >> entryways so forth. >> Yeah. I think that what they're they're asking for the difference. I don't I don't think the the definition of gross or net is going to make a difference.
They're asking for >> You're talking about this? >> Yeah. This in this particular >> about this about the law. >> Yeah. I'm just Yeah. So >> there's no definition of of growth. >> But it is growth. We're not talking net. It's growth. >> Okay.
>> We've always used um livable space. So if you had a uh a stairwell, we didn't include that in the square footage. But on the gross, I think that would be included.
>> Right. Okay. >> Right. But then that's could be a reason for a special permit that their net is 900 but their gross is a thousand and then I think you know we could >> do something. >> Uh I'm going to read one I I do have
just one uh document uh from uh Roger Pon. Um, who is okay? Uh, in regards to the reference applicant, some of the residents of Primrose Lane have requested I review and request and provide comments based on Wesport's
regulations. Um, items be reviewed, the the rendering plan, the floor plan, the site plan, property card, and the existing property. As the board knows, the applicant is seeking a variance. Well, that was that one of the things you were
seeking of of uh by law article 9 section 952 per section 952 an ADU shall not exceed 900 square ft or half the gross gross floor area of the dwelling whichever is smaller. As such, since the net area of the principal property is
1,758 foot, the maximum ADU allowed under this regulation is 879 square ft. Not only is the applicant requesting that they be allowed to construct an ADU of 1750 square foot ba basically equal to the principal structure, they're also
looking to construct 1728 detached garage to the ADU. All told that is 3,528 foot structure being constructed under the guise of an ADU. Uh ADU is an accessory development dwelling unit. Uh
this is totally not in the intent of an ADU regulation uh that being protect stability, property values and residential character of the neighborhoods as the 700 1750 square foot exceeds the gross area of most of the abing homes in the in the addition
to those in the neighborhood. Not to mention the attached garage which doubles the square foot area. Besides, there is a major concern of the neighbors as to what will happen once the current proposed occupant leaves the dwelling. What will the three-bedroom home be used for? Based on this
information, there is no justification to allow such a size structure to be constructed under the guise of an ADU, especially when another legal alternative exists. The applicant could perceive receiving permission to building this structure by subdividing
the current 4.2 acre parcel and pursue acceptance of this un zoning bylaw section 8.5 and 8.6, Six, a subdivision of two lots of the same driveway portion of a common driveway will be less than 500 ft and would allow the new home and
property to stand on its own allowing the future sale of either property go forward unencumbered by the other structures respect refreshfully request a board deny the applicant's request based on variance article 9 uh section 952 that's I'm just written that into the record so Sean go ahead
>> okay uh Sean Lee for Northeast Engineers representing Ron and Frank who who are here. They're the owners of the property. This property is about a 4 and a half acre lot located on on the west side of Reed Road. It has a current single family home located to the rear.
What we're looking to do is build an AD unit for Mr. Frankor and Mr. Frankor. Mr. Frankor sister and daughter who is severely handicapped. And we need this extra space due to the fact that he is handicapped. You need wider hallways. You need wider around the kitchen. you
need wide on that. So, we're looking to build a one-story space. Now, we we're asking for 1750 that includes a covered porch, which I don't know if it falls under your living space. Uh, and I'm I'm think we're all a little confused now as square footage now, but we included that
as part of the application, the covered course that's in front of this for 1750 square ft. We realize it's 850 square feet above the current bylaw requirement. Uh but we also have a
restriction uh back in 1982. I believe >> this lot was granted >> a variance uh for >> well if you hang on a second I've got the the yeah so excuse me 1985 um Paul
and Marilyn fees receive a variance because of the lack of frontage for 54 of frontage on road and one of the provisions was you can't further subdivide this lot. We were going to go that route, but unfortunately that is inh >> the decision from 1985. >> Correct.
>> So, what we're looking for here is basically it has enough room area up frontage to be a separate lot, but we're looking to build an ADU. It's it's going to have two bedrooms, one for career for Mr. Frankor's daughter. And Adam Frankor lives in the house at the top of
the hill. What we're trying to do is just provide some independence for this particular individual and we just need a little extra space to do that. >> Who's going to be living there again? I thought it was a mother, a daughter, and a caretaker. >> It's Ron's daughter, Adam's sister.
>> Mother, father, and daughter. >> It It meets the requirements. >> Who's Who's going to be living primary residence? a son and his wife. >> Yeah. >> Okay. You can't switch it. >> Have the son and his wife live in a
one-bedroom ADU and the family with the disciple tile living in the larger house. >> It's a raised ranch. >> Well, I mean, what you actually have here is three bedrooms and excluding the porch is 1,800 square feet. Right.
>> The third bedroom and it's written in there on if you see it below. The third bedroom is is going to be excluded here. That's just a floor plan, a rough floor plan that >> it's still it still could be utilized as a bedroom, >> but I think it's not going to be closed in. >> It's going to be a room.
>> It's going to be what? >> Therapy room. >> Still could be used as a bedroom. So exactly what parts of this I I mean I mean I understand you need you need wider access. You need uh the bathrooms probably need to be bigger. You need
bigger I mean you know we all understand that handicap requires some you know some you know like I said larger doorways, larger bathroom to accommodate. What aspects of this are you looking at that uh that are required
because of the handicap uh issue. >> Meaning like it's for the resize of the doorways and the alley. >> I mean what what is driving the 800 1,800 square ft from 900 square foot that I mean we have a requirement that says you can't matter of fact in your
case it's more like 8 to 780 square feet. So what additional what aspects of the handicapped are are driving the uh the increase in requested space? I mean,
because I said, I mean, like I said, wider doorways, a bigger bathroom. I can understand that. But doubling the size, I'm I I'm having a hard time understanding how how how the how the handicap aspects of that uh is is uh implemented because,
you know, with with that size of a building, >> we also have three people. >> You can't you I'm sorry. You can't you have to come to the So, let Sean talk and if you need to talk to >> Well, you're going to have a caretaker living there also. >> Well, that's the other bedroom. Yes. >> Yes. Right. Correct. But also, you know, you're talking about wider hallways,
wider around islands, >> but I don't see any of that in here. There's no there's no there's no there's no hallways in >> there. Yeah, there is no hallway. All there is is >> there's no hallways. >> Okay. >> So, would you would it be preferable if
we came up with a floor plan that showed exact dimensions to everything to see? >> And you actually have three ba three bathrooms. >> I mean, it's Two. >> Two. >> Then what's this over? What's over here? >> That's three.
>> Isn't this a Isn't this a bathroom? >> Oh, yeah. What's What's What's in this? >> Isn't this a bathroom here? And isn't this a bathroom here? >> It's sort of a double bathroom. >> So, Jack and Jill. >> And what can Can someone then tell me what is >> What is What is this room here? >> Laundry.
What? Right here. >> What is this room? So, do you really need a mudroom? I mean, like it >> we're going to have to, you know, what we are going to have to understand. See, our word is a reasonable expansion
from 780 square foot more than doubling it. We're I would have a hard time justifying to myself that that's a reasonable expansion due to handicap unless you can actually show me what the
you know where the expansion is uh you know due to the handicap. I mean you got I mean this is this is this is essentially a three family house >> and also >> this is bigger than my house. >> Yeah. So also it's been contradictory. the third bedroom is for a caretaker or
the third bedroom third bedroom will be a therapy room because basically on here it says the third bedroom will be a therapy room. So we I I would like to know exactly is there three bedrooms because there's going to be the parents, the daughter,
and a live-in full-time caretaker. >> No, the parents are going to be the caretaker. what we anticipate in the future it's going to be hard to tell who >> well exactly I mean but for the while they're still around and capable they will be the caretaker and if >> right >> the time comes
>> right exactly >> okay >> um >> what we have to be concerned about is once we if we were to grant this it is granted forever so if uh you know if the current
residents leave and somebody else takes over the property This could be something become something entirely different. My other question here is is you talk about you got this big garage with a radiant floor needed for future exactly what does that mean? You're
going to make this more living space. >> What what what's a >> what do you need? What's the radiant heat heated >> if needed for future mean? >> So So I'm installing >> name and address so we can >> Ron Franker. I own the property. >> Okay. So, um, I'm installing Radiant
Heat in there just in case I need it in the future. You know, we have a we have her van's going to go in there. All all the equipment to take care of the property go is going to go into that garage. Right now, I have a temporary building on the property just holding the equipment that I have to take care of the road. It's 700 feet in the woods.
>> Yeah. Yes. >> Um, I I got a big road to take care of and we had a lot of snow this winter. So, that's the reason I I have equipment to do that. So, um, that that's that's the size of the garage. And, you know, I don't know if I'm going to heat it. I'm going to put radiant heat in it just in case I I if I do need it, I'll I'll use
it. But I've been in a in a in a garage before with radiant and it's very nice. >> Yeah. See, what what was what was bothering me was is is a radiant floor needed for the future. That that almost appears to me like we're going to make it into more living space.
>> No, I don't need I don't need anymore. It's going to be a garage. >> Well, you see, and and this is where my first comment comes in. what you do with it and the people who buy the house after you do with it could be entirely different. And we have to look at the life of this for the ne you know for you
know you know forever because uh once we grant this it's granted forever. >> So we have to know what it is we're doing before we before we before we >> that if you want to build a garage build a garage but don't attach it to the ADU. >> But we still have a problem with the
fact that the ADU is as big as a house. A few minutes ago you uh uh said something about 800 and some square feet. Where is that from? >> That was uh if you if you what I read previously is that the the main house is
758 foot. Half of that is 879 square foot. So 879. >> You got this from the uh Roger Fan. >> Okay. Because the applicant, that was one of my problems. The applicant is
applying for an ADU. >> ADU requires 900 or half >> which is 879. >> But no, that's not from the applicant. >> No. >> All right. >> Yes. The applicant. >> The the existing dwelling is shown on here
>> and they don't even show the uh uh square footage of it. >> Right. >> In the application, >> correct? >> They don't show the the square footage of it. So, how are we supposed to figure out? I don't I don't take what the neighbor says. The neighbor went around measuring inside the house and all that.
Didn't appear. So, >> right. And I I did uh uh before this meeting, I had asked well weeks ago, I had asked Maria to to contact the uh the owner to say, you know, one of the things we're going to have to know is what is the square footage of the house, >> right? All right. Because that is part
of our requirement that it can't be can't be more than h that the number is 900 square foot or half the square footage of house whichever is smaller. >> That's right. >> So we have to know what the square footage of the house. >> So I consider that an incomplete application
because they don't give us enough information to to uh do what they're looking right. >> Yeah. Again, I'm not sure if I think as long as we know what it is right now, I think it doesn't make I don't think it will in impinge our ability to make a decision tonight. No. That that was
missing. As long as we're we can get >> understand they're wanting us to make something that's going to go against that. >> Yeah. Uh but what's the that >> but you know >> we can I can look up the property record card right now and tell you >> we can do that but that's not our
>> it's actually in the >> but I think we can we can dispose of this matter today rather than going back and having them put an application in >> the expediences there's other issues >> well there yeah and I think it doesn't matter really helping >> right >> the primary houses because it's still
over 900 ft that's the issue and the issue the 900 ft If you remember our original our original ADU requirements was one bedroom, one bathroom, right? The state decided you can have one by a matter of right. One ADU per property is
a matter of a right as long as it wasn't n over 900 ft. >> It's always been 900 ft for us, give or take a few little bit of extra room to to accommodate either a pre-existing structure or a handicap. As Roger says,
you're building a whole another house. I can't I I personally can't justify it. Um and and is not I mean I would like to actually explore the possibility of revoke of rescending the 1985 condition
regarding that property of subdivision. If we can do that, that was where I would like to take this, but I don't know if we can. No, that's >> And what is the reasoning for >> to have two lots with two single family homes on it?
>> Well, we can't they can't because the 1985 or 80ish decision said when they granted the right to build on that property because of this the the lack of um frontage that they were not allowed
to further subdivide. So, Sean, uh, what, um, I is there a bylaw that would allow them to subdivide it if we went that direction? >> If we were allowed to subdivide, you could cut this into two lots. >> You could make it under under what
subdivision? I mean, because you you're going to make the frontage. >> No, do that. You create you create basically sub road >> uh and ask for waivers on most of the uh requirements of >> so it would require it would require some waiverss
>> some a decision by some board planning board would have >> planning board um attorney Blake can you know can you chime in on this on that there was a decision in 85 actually it was started in ' 84 but the was a variance granted to allow the
construction of a single family house without meeting the frontage requirements subject to the following conditions. So this was a a zoning board decision in 85. The single family dwelling must be constructed a minimum of 300 ft from Reed Road and the lot
shall not be further subdivided for building purposes. Um is there is there a mechanism for reversing that? I think that you I suppose the property owner could come in and request
a amendment to the variance. I don't who's a permit granting authority? Is that the planning board? >> The planning board would grant a subdivision permit. Yeah. Um, >> yeah, I think that, you know, we'd have
to go before the planning board and ask to have it. I don't know about rescended or modified. >> Well, the question they had would basically, don't you have to go to the ZBA because the ZBA put a restriction on it that you can't subdivide it. >> The Oh, I asked what the permit granting authority was. Who
>> Oh, the ZBA granted a a variance from the original lot to build the house that restricted >> Yeah. So, I I think you >> would they just come in with another variance? I think they would. It would >> they just come in with another variance >> which would have the effect of amending revoke. I I think I would prefer to see
it amended rather than revoked. >> I I don't know if I'm splitting words, but >> revoke is very strong >> and it takes it out and then it makes everything non-conforming or whatever. But at this point, you're going in to amend the variance and request that you
can use >> one split. >> Yeah. a uh a common driveway down there and divided into you have plenty of lot area, right? >> Well, yeah, there's eight acres, give or take. There's only a half >> Yeah. >> minimum zoning.
I think if you did the u uh these uh appeal boards at that point, I was a member at one of them, uh would have been concerned about the uh uh lack of
frontage and and um uh maybe overuse of of the driveway. I don't know why they would have put that in every one of those uh decisions. Uh it doesn't make a lot of
sense to me. Uh they they just don't want two lots, but there's plenty of room. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Weren't you on the board in 85, Jerry? >> What's that? >> Weren't you on the board on 85? >> On there since the beginning of time. >> I know. I I suppose, Jerry, it's because
you don't want to overuse the frontage, right? And and two houses is more use than one. >> Well, exact. But we're doing the exact same thing if we would grant the ADU. >> I know, >> right? And regardless regardless >> changes in law. >> Well, the thing and and regardless of
the size of the ADU, that could be a 500 foot ADU and you'd still have the same amount of traffic going on there. And that was where the concern is. You don't want to have so much traffic going up that lane up up that >> small frontage to disturb the the neighbors. But the fact that they can
>> legally put an ADU on it, >> saying that that means you should could have other people, not our old white laws because we wouldn't you weren't allowed to rent them, but now you can. So I for for to protect the community, I
think the much more uh prudent thing is to wait to do whatever we need to do to get over that portion because then it's two lots in perpetuity and you don't have to worry about >> what someone else is going to do. >> I guess they have they have really two
options. one is to >> make the ADU that conforms to requirements >> or or closer to the requirements. I mean not >> reasonably reasonable was the word >> and I think the reason why that you know to me the reason of the 900 ft and then
the fact that we could allow a lot bigger because what if the primary house was 900 square feet so that then the ADU would only be >> 450 >> 450 and let's say you had to put it there it was somebody who was disabled you're not allowed to go that but I don't I don't I think the spirit of the
law here or of the of the the rule of the of of both the state and our in our previous thoughts on our uh zoning bylaw here was that 900 square feet was really the the the maximum, but we could kind of go over a little bit if we had to. And
we've we've done we've gone to like the 950, >> you know, but you know, almost 800 more square feet. And I understand this is a special situation because it's, you know, you're having, you know, a caretaker who is their parents who want to live comfortably
versus a caretaker who's just a caretaker for one person who's living there. Um, but um, you know, as Ryder says, you really haven't mapped out really why everything needs to be this big. Like I would like
to see if you really wanted to say that was really due to the to um their daughter's disability that everything needed to be to this scale. I'd like to see you need, you know, this much room to get past with the
wheelchair and the wheelchair here. You know what? How you need all that room in here? You know, does, you know, does the bed, you know, does the master bedroom need to be that big or can it be smaller? And does obviously the bedroom for the disabled individual needs to have enough of clearance for a bed and
whatever equipment that is required. um you know the therapy room um you know again it's been you know it's saying it's a bedroom but then it's a therapy room then we're taking a closet out and then you know there's somebody else living there. So I mean I
think if you if either as I think Roger said if you can kind of shrink it to the point to where you can say that why everything is necessary. >> Yeah. Like if I look here at the at the layout, there's nothing in here as far as doors or or access way that that does
not make it handicap accessible. It's there's there's nothing in here that I can see that is forcing that uh where the x square footage is required because of handicap. I I just
don't see it >> neither. I mean I mean >> it's just a it's just a you know it's a house. >> Yeah. >> Through the chair. Can I >> need a mud room? I mean like >> what? >> Yeah. It's not reasonable. >> Yeah. It's Yeah. I think it's >> through the chair. Uh just so I can we
obviously have two options here tonight. uh to continue come back with a revised plan that more what you would deem more suitable for your bylaw or amending and I'm not sure how we do that as an application to you.
>> You said a variance, right? >> Is it a is it I I think it would be >> and is it our is it is the holding in our purview? I believe that the the variance is in your >> perview, >> but I think once you do that, >> yeah, it's still going to go back to the planning board.
>> It's got to go to the planning board to split the law. >> Right. >> Right. >> Okay. >> But they always look to us most >> and I have one minute with the >> I mean they always look to us if >> Well, no. What we would do is again if they went that route >> and again
>> if we decided >> if we if we agreed upon the variance then that would then allow them >> to break it into two parcels >> and then since there's enough square footage you need 16,000 60,000 square foot. >> They came to us first because if they would go to the place
>> they couldn't go to them and and come back to us now. >> Yeah. You got to go to the the zoning board. Right. >> Right. So >> I I did ask >> but but but still it would be a two-step process. I did ask uh the engineer if u if they could put you know could could
they do that could they split it into >> yeah per our current >> rules and he said yes so >> well because it's four point something acres that's >> that's more than that's more than twice >> yeah well it depends on things like uh
>> wetlands and ledges is >> yes right uh John Sean >> John Could could you uh could they uh build what they want to build without uh variances
or or whatever? Uh if if you did split it into lots. In other words, could that second lot accommodate a house without without condition? >> We could the what whatever you want to call it the structure could be uh conforming to zoning. Yes. Well, but
what that means is that you worry about wetlands. You're going to have to have a well. You're going to have a septic we show that has would have to go on that property. >> Yep. We we show where the well is going to go. We haven't been able to have a septic because the town hasn't been doing new construction test since December. >> Oh. >> Oh. >> So, we've been waiting and
>> what we're asking is that can you make two watts and still have the room need to put the septic as well on this that one >> on this one? Yes. The answer your question is yes. They're going to be it's going to be this lot here is going to be somewhat strange looking. What do
you refer to as pork chop looking? >> Yeah, with a pork chop. But it it was a preference, but it was >> you have the the house now sits on a hill. There's a big drop off >> and and then it flattens out again. >> And that's exactly where this house >> that's where that goes. >> Yeah. Exactly.
>> It goes where? Top of the hill, right? >> No, no. This go this on the top of the hill. >> It's going to go down on Primrose. >> It's it's flat. is much higher. They wouldn't even see this >> right now. Uh >> understand that if you applied for a
varian doesn't mean we're going to grant it. >> Understood. >> I mean that's I mean >> so so >> there would be another hearing just for that if you went that route. >> Well, what we're what we're aiming for because of what they're the 900 square foot just isn't going to fit the needs of what they need to do. Okay. with the
person themselves uh and and have a caretaker resident or a bedroom there. And we discussed this early on about subdividing and but we were kind of limited by obviously the decision in ' 85. So
>> what we'd like to do is uh possibly continue this till June >> and possibly put an application in the meantime for the variance or or the modification modification to or to the variance
>> because we don't want to paint ourselves into a corner issue. So what at the same time and >> I think like what I'd like to see for the variance for the to to modify the restriction is to be absolutely certain. >> Okay,
>> you can divide those into two lots >> and have everything independent of each other because the last thing I want to do is to release that v to to modify that variance and then you're going to just say, well, one lot's got to be an acre and a half and the other lot's got to be two and a half. That is not what I
want because then it's then we then it just starts opening up the big can of worms. >> I'm not sure what you mean by that. >> I want to make sure you can actually get two twoacre lots out of that land. two fully independent lots with two fully independent >> well there'll be two conforming lots that's fully conforming other things
>> but have that shown to us and be clear when you're asking for the variance modification >> because I don't want what to happen is we modify that variance to allow it to be subdivided and then something else comes up later on that it can't be
subdivided into two conforming lots I would say we if if we were to grant that variance. We would I would only agree to granting that variance if there can be two conforming lots. >> Okay? because one of
>> I don't want to go through trouble then all of a sudden you come back to us and ask us for another variance because one of those lots are not going to be conforming >> because one of the >> this is going to be difficult because one of the problems or one of the issues that will come up we can create lots and
nothing's official until the planning board actually it >> right >> so >> correct >> and one of the things we're going to need to do is we create basically what we call stub road and we ask for waiverss on the construction to create the frontage for the two lots And that stub road is going to require waiverss from the planning board because
we have 54 ft of frontage and to have a 40 foot rightway which is the minimum allowed in town with 30 foot radius fillets you need 100 ft of frontage. We do not have 100 ft of frontage. So we would ask for a waiver >> on the fillets. Now they typically grant those for these type of situations. I
don't say it's absolutely sure they grant it but they typically grant it because it's not really a big deal. It's not like we have super traffic coming in and out of this driveway and there's plenty of room to get in and out. >> That would be the my only concern with that because >> there's always a concern because you never know when they go to the planning
board. But I think going coming I think if you would go to the planning board first they would deny it just based of the 85 decision. So I think coming to us first >> but when you say you you would only do it when you know there's a conform the lots would have the area it would be the
the roadway would need a waiver. >> Yeah. That would be that would be my concern. So, >> I can't guarantee that, you know. >> Yeah. I mean, the roadway taken out of that, right? >> Okay. >> Yeah. You need to have the square footage. You need to have make sure they have a well, a septic and and you put
the house in that uh it meets all the setback requirements. You know, essentially it's a buildable lot with the >> Yeah. it. I even though they they're not allowing perk tests uh and I'm not sure when that will start up again for new construction. >> I'm pretty confident this will perk this
is a giant gravel pit. >> It's not it's not going to >> question for >> you'd have to perk it anyway for the ADU, >> right? Well, we've been waiting for attorney four different >> um uh we have not run into this at this point, but this new state law kind of uh
adjusts some things. My question is this. The state law indicated that uh municipalities can still have u the link um dimensional uh requirements and so forth as long as
it's not to discourage uh ADUs >> uh or or make them impossible. Um my question is this that under our regular town bylaws
uh uh a single family requires 150 foot frontage and 60,000 square feet. But if you add another unit to it, uh it's 200 square feet 200 foot frontage
>> and um 80,000 square feet. Uh the uh the 80,000 is not an issue here, but do you see that you now have two two units on on a lot assuming we don't subdivide? Uh
and uh would the would the 150 to 200 be another issue uh for an ADU somehow? >> I I don't think it would be. I think you would you would piggyback off that variant. that was already granted because it's an
accessory dwelling you accessory to the >> talking about if we went with with a variance for a second lot. >> No, I'm talking about if you didn't go with the variance and you just went with an ADU. >> Yeah. I don't think that would affect the the the the
type of dimensional requirements because it's just going off uh the certainly for the frontage. You already got a variance for that and it's an ADU. So, it's part of >> you've never had a requirement for frontage on ADUs. >> Yeah. So, I think I I think if they did
an ADU, >> they could do what they're doing. If they had shrunk that down to what whatever, let's say 900 square feet because of the of the necessary modifications, I think that that would that what the plan they put before you would work,
>> right? >> Zoning wise, >> right? >> So, the new state law in effect kind of overrides our town law about frontage and uh square footage. >> No, because we've always had exceptions. There was never there was never a
frontage component regarding when we when people asked for adus >> because it's accessory too. >> We have never done that. We never considered >> well we never >> we always I mean I think we did when we made sure there was parking and things like that but I don't think we ever I'm
not sure if we ever had a a I mean at least in my tenure an ADU request that had a house that had a frontage issue. I I >> well and but and and we didn't expand the frontage requirement because of the ADU. That's not that's not what you do
with ADU. I think you would run a foul I think that the state you would run a fowl if you say it's 100 ft frontage for and then if you're going to put an ADU in it's 200. I think you would run a foul that would be >> that would be more restrictive
>> discouraging you. Yeah. That that would make ADUs impossible unless >> well that and it' be more restrictive than the state law which we're not allowed to do. Right. >> But they specifically say if I recall >> I I think it's for like setbacks and stuff, Jerry. I think you can say you can't build it right on the lawn >> dimensional.
>> Yeah. And and you're right. That would be I suppose if your bylaw said >> you have to have an additional >> 25 ft of frontage or something like that. I But but I do think that at some point you would you would run a foul. >> Yeah. You know, making these >> basically the poison pill.
>> Right. Right. Yes. I'm sure some towns in state that. >> Okay. >> Okay. Uh so uh I think our our request is a continuence on this particular application.
Uh >> June we're getting >> uh I don't know if we can get everything done by June as far as >> Well, we can move it on further. >> Yeah. Could I uh ask for something first and that is uh uh we obviously have some
people who are not satisfied with this letter. >> Uh >> I think we should hear that. Yeah. >> I I think if there's anybody here for this hearing, I think we should hear some of that. >> So that might guide them in.
>> Yes. Before before we >> and I especially I vote on this motion. I went down Primlo's Lane and you can't even see up up on the you can see a rooftop, >> but I don't know with this other one where that would go, whether it be out
there. I I don't know the answer. >> Yeah, that rooftop is on top of a hill and then it drops off quite steep. >> The view view from that is amazing. >> I can imagine. Yes. >> I couldn't get past the gateways gateway on the front so I didn't go into
the property. >> Okay. I didn't want to get shot. >> Yeah, I did. You know, >> you did. >> Crazy. >> So, I guess our request is uh >> do you want us to go to the planning board? >> No. Yeah, you have to come to us first. Okay. >> Because if we don't grant it, planning
board, >> is this going to go? >> So, let me ask this question and maybe through you to town council. So, if I come in with and I show a loting scheme that shows two lots that meet the requirements and for some reason there's a minor modification at the planning board,
they want me to extend the road 10 ft or do something. I don't know. I'm just theorizing. Do I have to come back and modify it again or will the var will the modification be for two visual lots and the road? Obviously, if we went three lots, we' be a different story. But
>> I think we can probably word it if in fact we were to grant it. We could probably word it such that, you know, you know, relative to, you know, modifications with planning board as long as it matches the, you know, the the zoning requirements >> because my concern is we go to planning board, primrose lane is still going to
have a problem even though we're meeting the zoning requ. >> Well, they're probably going to have a problem here as well. So, >> yes, we'll talk about that. But the option would be we could we modify this to 900 square feet or something that you would deem more reasonable and come come in with an ADU. >> I guess it' be a special little special
permit at that point. >> It's some Yeah, it would be a grant a grant. It says it may grant reasonable and necessary accommodations relative to ADUs for persons with disabilities. And we're calling it a a special permit at this point. I don't I I I think it has
to be something. you're gonna want something >> and you know unfortunately it doesn't fit in it. I think the only place it fits is a special permit. Right. >> I think I think the the the state rule actually referenced it as spec like we were allowed >> we can do a special permit. Right.
Right. For bigger ones. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Yeah. So I think that's Yeah. Yeah. >> And I think I think to to Jerry's point is that we would really like to know the if we decide to make this smaller, we really want to know the exact square footage of the primary
structure. >> So if we >> Well, if if it um Okay. >> Right. If they decide to shrink it, let's say they're going to go to 1,200 or even to a,000, >> it's still I we still need to know what we're going after because I still think
half of the primary is less than 900. So you would have to >> if they make that a separate lot, we're not dealing with >> No, I'm just saying if they say with the ADU, >> they they're not sure where which way they're going to go. >> Well, we're we're we're hoping that everything goes well planning boardwise,
but I can't promise anybody anything at that point because it's the same thing. >> If we ask for a waiver of planning board and and butter decides to appeal the granting of the waiver, we'll be in court for two years. >> Yeah. >> Yep. So that's why I think tonight actually and then the night in which we
perhaps modify that variance primro primrose road will have enough of chance to talk which will help us make our decisions either on a smaller ADU or big or that ADU right
now um or us modifying that. >> Um >> understood you could have I think everything should hope to be fleshed out by then. I just >> But you never know. >> So if you can ask for a continuence, you tell us when.
>> I think we'll we'll shoot for June. >> Excuse me. >> Shoot for June because I think we can >> come in in June. Say, I'm not ready yet. We'll continue it again. >> We we almost finished the whole subdivision process at PL. Well, the plans for the planning board and then this issue came up with you can't
further subdivide and we kind of got >> be stuck in the mud basically instantly, >> right? >> Which is now >> we have we have uh a continuence on June 10th. >> Yeah, >> we can shoot for that. >> Or if you want I mean again
>> well uh we can I guess continue it then. But I think what we can do is we can go in I don't know planning board schedule right off the top of my head with perhaps a preapp consult to get the feeling that what we've got drawn up and what we'll show to you will fly. Amen. >> Uh >> then you're going to have then you're
going to have to apply for the zoning board to do the a variance. >> I'll have to explain this all. I'll have to explain this all to them. I'm sure they're going to be >> I mean I think if they wanted to do a pre-conference I think I'm sure one of us would volunteer to to be part of that to
>> that would be that would be helpful. U >> I think we should also hear from I mean you do what you need to do ask your continuence but I still want to hear from the the audience about >> Yeah. I just had a comment on the ADU. I think it would be really um positive for
your explanation if you could basically start with what would be a 900 square foot structure and explain why the additional footage is required. For example, a 900 foot structure could be a one-bedroom, one living room, but because you need an aid to live with
you, >> I think that would justify another 100 square foot for a bedroom. >> As let me finish. Okay. Similarly for the garage, if it it involves a handicapped van, especially all the snow that we've had, there is arguably a
necessity to have an enclosed garage. I think that would be a better explanation. >> Well, I think I think the garage would be better off being detached. >> Well, no, no, no, no, no. Because with a van, you have to you don't want to have be pushing a wheelchair through snow. >> Oh, okay. Yeah. >> So, you would want it to be detached. >> That's true. Yeah, that's
>> But I think if you could explain it in that frame where you take what would be an allowed structure and explain why you need it to be this much bigger >> that it would answer a lot of the questions that were properly raised tonight. >> Understood. >> But also it's might not be 900 ft because you got to do the calculation.
>> 850 >> whatever it is. >> For example, there's lifts. You know there's if you have somebody who needs a lift, it requires a certain amount of space and the homes may need to be larger. Um, and I think it can be reasonably well quantified to justify
what would be a larger building for an ADA person than would be for the normal. >> Yeah. >> Just so I'm clear. So the garage portion of this outside the living living space, non-living space, I'll call it garage. >> Are we limited as part of the gross area
of the whole application or >> because we kind of need an oversized garage for the van and ramp? >> Yes. As long as it's not living space, then that doesn't that's that's not part of the ADU. That uh right, attorney Blake.
I'm trying to >> As long as you can't make into living space. I still wish the state would >> we couldn't we put a restriction >> accessory dwelling a self-contained housing unit inclusive of sleeping cooking and sanitary facilities on the same lot as a principal dwelling subject
to the uh it has to have it has to maintain a separate entrance is no larger sorry is no larger in gross floor area than a half uh in gross floor area. Let me look and
see what your gross floor area is. >> Yeah, >> nearly 3,000 give or take with the garage. If we're calling the garage part of the gross, that's why I'm asking this question here. >> G I think I I I don't >> Yeah, I mean that's a question of itself. But again,
>> here it's labeled as a shop. I think to Kevin's point, it should be it should be labeled here. Here's the size of the van. Here's the lifts the the space you need to get in and out of the van. Um and maybe perhaps for future times in
which the individual will be actually driving if I I again not knowing the disability. Um and nor should we nor am I asking is that this this individual may be able to drive at some point and maybe need more need space to be able to
get in and out of the driver's seat. And if you could just put that in this this garage space, I think to Kevin's point, it makes us feel a little bit like we're just not saying I'd like to hear from from uh from Attorney Blake, though. Is is the garage also considered as part of
the ADU? >> I'm looking because you say here that your gross floor area is defined as set forth in 760 CMR 7102. Um, unfortunately my
computer uh, for some reason it's Wi-Fi doesn't work. But >> I'll see if I can get it up. >> Have no fear. My, um, >> your phone never fell. >> That's really going to change the whole law if if we start saying that uh, all
ADUs can have of 900 feet can have garages basically as big as they want. >> Gross floor area. The sum of the areas of all stories of a building of compliant ceiling height pursuant to the building code, including basements, lofts, and in intermediate floor tiers
measured from the interior face of the exterior walls or from the center line of the walls separating buildings or dwelling units, but excluding crawl space, garage, parking areas, attics, enclosed porches, and similar spaces. >> So, it excludes garage.
>> Exclude that. And that's the state law. So >> yeah, that's a building code. Okay. >> And and you guys you incorporate the definition in the bill. >> Okay. >> But if they can if they legally get this second lot >> that Wait, that's that's a different >> That's out the window, right? That's out the window.
>> They are still going back. I think that the the applicants have not decided which way they would like. >> Well, they're going to actually pursue both mechanisms and see which one works the best. >> Well, we had the reason we're here is we had to come here because we couldn't go there. >> Right. So there weren't a lot of options
for what we did. >> By the way, I I don't know if >> you could have come for a modification in the variance. That could have been the first one. >> Yeah. And I didn't know if I if I started off with this, but again, the the members voting on this will be myself, uh Cynthia Kazawitz, Jerry Cino,
Constansky, and George Stalgus. Those would be the voting members on this if I didn't say that in the beginning. Um, so, >> so we're continuing, I guess, this application >> to June 10th. >> Uh, we will try to approach the planning
board. I don't know what their planning schedule is and I could probably >> Well, they go every other week, right? >> They go every week, but sometimes they have full agendas and other things going on. So, I can't promise >> if we get to the 11th and you're not the June 10th. >> I mean, you can ask for another
continuence. It it cost you a 100 bucks, but I'm a 100 bucks in this project is probably not >> I think the uh >> the major driver >> what we prefer is to build what they would feel comfortable building and we're hoping to go that route, but I don't want to shut off the other route, >> right?
>> Okay. So, she has paper. While you while you're doing that, I want to hear I want to open it up to the audience. So, anybody uh who has comments on on either aspect of this uh you know, feel free to come up to the mic. Just give me your name and address. Don't all jump.
>> No, no, no. I'm going to the bathroom stairs. >> Bring the microphone. >> I'm uh I'm Roger Poison, the uh the one that that letter. So, >> name address? Uh well it's 293 Driftwood Street for Massachusetts.
>> Okay. And I guess the well one of the concerns is once that does no like you said once the we it's allowed as an ADU what happens with a three-bedroom house once it's no longer
needed for the primary the original purpose of the handicap people. So, now that they're gone, they're going to be looking to rent it. It'll be rented into a, you know, with a three family, three-bedroom house, it'll
be a family. It'll add to the school issues and so forth. And and then if later on they decide they want to sell that property now and they want to split it, now we're going to, you know, back here trying to get that all resolved.
It's how can we split this property? and this goes to this owner and we retain that portion. So that was that's one of the issues that they have concern over. The other one which is not really with this with
this one was the clearing of the property that has occurred and the erosion that's occurring on that property. But that's another issue that I don't believe would be in the zoning board's in um preview. Um
the you know in as I see the ADU was set up to say hey K like when my mother got to the point where Alzheimer's was a little bit too much to for her to be living on her own I
brought her into my house. Now I had I was living alone. I had I had room in my place to bring it in. But if I had a family and I needed an additional space for that person, I can see where the ADU would be the require, you know, take
either a garage and convert it or a put an addition a separate house, you know, but usually it would be with the main the main caregivers would be the ones in the main house and being close enough to take care of.
>> Okay. Can I can I interrupt you just for a second? Go ahead. So, I can I can tell you what the state law is. Uh, couple of years ago, Massachusetts said there is a housing shortage. >> Yeah. >> In order to help alleviate housing
shortage, the state mandated that ADUs are by right. And that doesn't mean that they have to be for handicap or for whatever. It's extra housing. Is that correct, Attorney Blake? >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> So, it could be anybody. you know, we've
been using it in in Westport mostly over the past several years as you know, like family members and, you know, and and you know, just like you were talking, but the state law mandates that that's not the case. >> It is a by right for additional housing,
>> right? And specifically, >> and that's what we have to go by. >> And specifically, we can't like our previous bylaw before this state mandate was you couldn't rent your ADU, >> right? We still can't. Yes, you can. >> Yes, you can under the new law. You can >> We can't do short shortterm rent,
>> right? You can't short-term rent. No, no short-term rent. >> But we also said you couldn't long-term rent on the ADUs, >> right? >> Originally, the state law mandates we have to allow long-term rentals and ADUs. Our our bylaw restricts short-term rentals and ads. >> So, anyway, anyway, that's
>> after the you know what happens after you know what how does that change? >> Well, that's right. um uh by right they can put an ADU on there and have a family living there as long as it matches the 900 square foot maximum. So
they we cannot they have a right to do that according to state law and according to our own bylaw. So the uh so the options are either they come down to 900 ft roughly just let's call that the number and put anybody they want there.
They whether it be a handicap person or or rent it out to another family. They can by right do that. The other option is that we could we could subdivide the land and and just essentially make it two lots so they could officially do that. >> So it's it's going to be it it could be
one or the other. Uh, one of them they have the absolute right to do without us with uh uh with our blessing because we can't uh we can't impose more than what the state law says is allowed >> and and right if if they decided they if
this is only a 900 square feet or roughly they wouldn't have come to us. All they would have to go to do is the building department get a brilling permit and you would never you like nobody would have known. Nobody want to know >> because it's the way the the state law is. Um it's only because they're asking
for larger space. >> Um is that is that's why they're here where they're here. Um and you know they have two options. they have to get they have to prove to us that this large space either is absolutely required to fit the needs of
what they're trying to do or go the route of splitting the property into two lots and then we don't have to worry about what happens later because now it's just two lots and I think the state law also would uh be on our side with that because it the state law did
require did it it the whole spirit of the that law was to increase housing. Um, and by us, if we decide to allow the to modify that variance is exactly what we're doing. So, I think the state's on
our side on that bylaw, the town's bylaw prior to the change uh required the owner to live in one of the units. Doesn't matter which one. The state law specifically says the owner doesn't have
to live on either one. They can rent both of them. So that's another change. >> Okay. Are you done or you want are you got more? >> By the way, I don't think the state law addresses more than one, but it appears
to allow >> it does special permit, >> right? But we don't our >> by special permit. We can allow even more than >> I think it says shall by special permit. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Name and address. >> Not by right. Uh Rebecca Christristen 14 from Rose Lane. So I live in the
property that is at the back of that drop. >> Yeah. >> So we've seen just from when they've purchased the property till now they did put up that temporary building that's up there that they referenced the runoff and the trees that have been taken down
is affecting the back of my property. So my fear seeing that they want to put up another house that's bigger than the original is that there's going to be more trees that are taken down. The trees that are taken down have root systems that are all holding that hill up that are behind my property. So, I'm
dealing with runoff. I have to look to the future that it's going to cost me money to stabilize that which changes. So, now I have to pay, you know, to have my property surveyed again so I can see where that is and then I'm going to have to bring in, you
know, Phil. So, when the people I this property was my parents' property, I purchased it from them. So, I've lived there my entire life. When that property was originally, I remember when it was built and I remember when that they wanted to make two lots and they weren't
able to. And I remember the discussion around it. Um, and so when my parents were talked about that way back then, it was not as big of a deal because there was only going to be one house back there. Now there's going to be two huge houses back there. You know, that's
definitely impacts the environment. We all have cell uh wells. We all have septic systems. Our neighborhood, all of my neighbors are here, but we all have multi-generational. So, I own the property that my parents owned. Multiple people in our neighborhood. It's parents, grandparents, grandchildren,
all sharing the houses. So, we all understand the need to take care of our own. Um, but I'm concerned about the impact, the environmental impacts, and the impact it's going to have on us. Um, I look out my kitchen window now and see that they've taken down all the trees. I
have pictures from two years ago and now I see the back of their temporary building. It's their right to put that there. It's very close to the edge of the hill which concerns me because again erosion. So, those are the things that looking ahead I look to depending on
where that house is going to be put and it's a really big house. You know, is it going to impact my neighbors as well, their septics, their wells, how the runoff's going to change because we know when we take down trees that all is impacted. >> Well, the the one thing is if it does go into a second lot legally when they
build a house, there's going to have to be a storm water plant. >> Right. Right. >> Right. So, then that would concern me too. It needs to we need to see how that's going to where that's going to run off to because the river's there too, >> right? I mean there that they'll have to fight that battle with the planning board and and
>> conservation will be part of that. >> And I did a small addition to my house. I moved a wall and conservation had to come out. Yes. Um >> I know a long way. >> But again, am I going to say the same thing? >> They are allowed by right >> to build an 80 there. We can't stop them,
>> right? Of Our concern honestly is the size >> and how that's going to impact >> everything down the road. Right. >> I mean there's a lot of land there. So whether it's you know from a water runoff. Well as part of any building that they would put there they would have to go through all the process of
where's the water runoff where's the you know is there wetlands there? I mean uh all of that is part of uh of getting a building permit and putting something there. So >> understand that. Uh and and again, they are allowed to do it for an ADU without even
>> requesting it, >> right? But an ADU that's bigger than the original house by far. >> Yes, >> that's a concern. >> I think you heard us. I think we're concerned as well. >> Okay. >> And I appreciate you hearing us. >> Thank you. Anybody else? >> Name and address. >> Um my name is Clifford Bur. I have
bought um runs on Pros Laneide and at 102 Reed Road. That's where I grew up. So where that is that buff is his son's in the back on the hill that 102 goes all the way up. So where he goes in there is
only a small place he goes in then his land kind of goes over this way. >> Yeah. >> Toward my backyard on Primrose Lane now. >> So I'm worried about the size too cuz we all have modest homes you know and uh I mean they put up not a permanent garage up on the hill.
>> They cut down all the pine trees that holds that hill up. That's what I'm concerned about. We already seen runoff in their backyard. There's a big tunnel coming down like that. >> Yes. >> I think you'll actually be better off when they put a house there because
they're going to actually have to look at and manage all the water runoff. >> Putting a putting a shed there. They don't have to do that. >> But that's why a lot water's running down off of there. >> Yes, I know. But they didn't have to go through that process. When you put a
house up or an ADU, >> conservation has to be involved. They're going to have to go through all the process, which means storm water management, runoff of water from the roof, all that has to be taken into account. So, they may have to put in uh
you know uh uh holding ponds and whatever. Yeah. In order to in order to actually build something, >> I don't think you have enough room for hole in ponds. He said he's good. I don't even know if he's acres, but that's what he said. you know, that has to be managed uh whether they put an ADU
or a house on it. >> Uh that, you know, >> I'm just concerned about the size because because of the what's my property going to go down in value? >> Mhm. >> You know, right in my backyard, I'm going to have this monstrosity, you know. >> Mhm. Yep. >> So, I'm just voicing my concern, you
know. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. >> Anyone else? Sean, >> well, you have to read the >> request coming up. >> I lived there for almost years almost
seven years ago. >> Here's another person. >> Is there somebody else? Okay. >> Um, I'm Jessica Kirkwood. I live on four Primrose Lane and these are my neighbors. It is the house that most of us have grown up in. Multigenerational. I take care of my mom. My mom is a a
disabled handicapped person. in our house. We could probably have added stuff on. I have handicap ramps. I have the guardrails. I have all this stuff. We didn't do anything like this size house. And I do agree with what they're saying. It will affect a lot of things, but I just don't understand the severity
of like I mean the the monstrosity as Butch echoed like why why so big? You can make modifications to a house where I take care of my mom, my fiance, and my my little baby. We all live together. we can all coexist with a more manageable, more sizable house.
>> So, that's all I really have to say about that. But, thank you. >> Anyone else? >> Okay, Sean, you're up. >> And Sean, one quick quick question. Sean, is there a basement planned for? >> No. >> Okay.
>> There is going to be there has to be a runoff plan as >> if if there's an ADU and we're doing a septic plan, we'd have to still have storm water because >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. But I was just wondering if you were going to be digging. Okay. That's all. >> So, it's going to be a slap or footing.
>> Cynthia, was that question about about a basement or >> Yeah, I was wondering if it was going to be a basement. That's all. >> I thought I thought I read that be an unfinished basement. >> I might be mixing it up with another >> Oh, yeah. It does say basement of the house is
>> says unfinished basement. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. Basement of house. >> Basement of house will be >> that's my >> nonheed. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> So I Ron Frank Ker request that the hearing on petition be continued until
610. I understand that the deadline for making the decision will be extended accordingly. >> Okay. We have a request for continuence. Do I have a motion? >> So move. >> We have a second. >> Second. >> Second. >> Discussion. No. All in favor say I.
>> I. I oppose. No. So, we'll continue this till uh June 10th. >> Uh who would I contact to get someone to go to the planning board? >> Maria. >> Maria. >> She's not going to go. You contact her and
>> would this should go. >> Yeah. >> Would this call for a sight visit? >> Would that call for a sight visit if somebody could get in to actually see the property? Um when probably when we get to this if they do a variance to do that,
>> we probably want to do that before we grant. >> Yeah, I I drove there, but >> yeah, >> I went through the sign saying don't drive, but >> I didn't I didn't go out there. >> Okay. Uh the last hearing we have is um 231B Tickle Road, a hearing on
application of uh Derek uh Ogles. >> Yes. >> All right, >> you nailed it. >> I got it. And uh Diane, is it Dan? >> Danolin. Danolin. I like that. Danolin. I like that. Uh raise for a finding that
a construction of a 20x 20 elevated deck addition attached to the existing dwelling with roof structures not substantially or detrimental to the existing non-conforming use of the neighborhood as mandated by zoning bylaw. Article 523. The property is located at 231B Tech Road, Westport
Mass, and shown on assessor's map 20 lots uh 7A and 70 7A and 71A. Um I I want to make it clear to when we start with that um of exactly what a finding is. A finding is this is a
non-conforming property that you want to make a modification to. according to our bylaws, in order to make a modification to a non-conforming lot, you need a finding that says it is not detrimental to the neighborhood. And uh what that means is that it uh uh does it affect
safety? Does it affect uh you know traffic? Uh it's not we're not looking at the aesthetics of it. That's that's not that's not our bailey wick. And the other thing I want to make sure is that we all understand is the only thing that we are considering tonight is the
finding that the construction of a 20 by 20 elevated deck which is on the rear of the pro of the house uh attached to the existing dwelling with the roof structure is not substantially more detrimental than the existing any other aspect of this is not part of this it's
because it is not part of the application. I thought we were it was an administrative appeal from from >> this is a finding >> but I thought it was this we're here because Ralph issued stop work order. >> Yes he did. Yes she did. Can I
understand how this is all fitting in? Because there appears according to the non work order there's more than a 20 by 20 deck beam. >> Well, yes, they Well, matter of fact, that's one of the things they should do is um I will read Ralph.
>> Are they appealing that decision or >> No, it's uh I'll read. Okay, this is from Ralph Zula, the zoning enforcement officer. After recent visit, the property is located you have constructed a second level addition which is not part of your permit that
was issued. The permit in question was issued on September 10, 2025 for replacing windows and replacing sightings and building a 20x 12 deck canopy over the front door. as uh as per the Westport zoning bylaws, pre-existing
non-conforming structures or uses may be altered providing there was a finding by the board of appeals that such an alteration should not be substantial or detrimental to the existing. So that's that's what prompted you to generate your petition and again it's it's it is
because you built substantially more of your back deck than what was on your original plans. So correct. >> There's a little bit of confusion with that. My contractor which is here, he had done the initial plans. >> Oh, before that um voting on this again
will be myself, Cynthia Kazekit, Jerry Cino Constens. And it requires a v um this is a finding so it's a majority vote. >> Okay. So the original plan he had he was assisted when he came in to do the plan
that 12 20 x 12 or 12 x 20 that was there. That was technically supposed to be for the second floor. The 20 by 20 was for the first floor uh deck. Ralph was there. He he went there and measured everything. We we never we never stopped
at that time. I hadn't decided if I was going to do the addition. At one point we decided to do the addition. Contractor he instead of coming back to amend it had already started it. That's when the complaint came in. Ralph came down saw the second thing. He put a stop work order. Once that happened, we
stopped. We tried to get the plans, everything going and we came back for the finding and that's pretty much where we're at right now. >> Okay. >> So then he's not appealing right then. >> No, he's allowed me to stop work again. Uh the only thing I had to do is stop work on that side where that is. I do
have pictures. I wasn't able to get them to what it looks like right now. >> If you guys want have much copies. >> So this is this is not going to be an enclosed area. Is it I mean it's a big deck but it's it overlooks uh what type of pond?
>> Yeah. So the 8 foot bumpout is going to be an extension to the master bed. Then there's going to be like a hip roof kind of the picture on there that you're going to see that they kind of submitted. I put one that's a gener AI generated finished one. That's what it's supposed to look like. The other one has
a p same picture of a roof. It's not going to be like that. It's going to be more flat. Can I ask uh other board members uh uh who who all actually went and saw all of this? >> I did. >> Oh, I go out there that lane. So, I
could I down the lane way down the driveway. >> Yeah. And it says if you want to go to be, it's you got to walk down this. >> Yeah, you got to go down this. >> As a matter of fact, I was out and I chatted with this gentleman and a couple of the neighbors. they just happen to be there >> because I I I personally feel that if you don't see it, you're not going to
understand a lot of this. Uh and the u uh the other aspect is we just got this tonight and I think it's I think it's important I think it's important for the applicant to know what why Ralph is not here and
and uh specifically what he says. We're getting what he Uh, Ralph. >> Well, I I read Ralph's letter. >> No, Ralph. The reason why Ralph isn't here tonight. >> Yeah. Well, I mean, I read the letter that prompted you, but I'm talking about
this letter where where he's Ralph is now saying he's only given him the go-ahad to do what he asked for in his building permit. >> Correct. >> So, in other words, he's going to have to tear down some of this and so forth. How can we find that the f a finding on
what we don't know? he's going to put there. >> That's But that's >> No, >> I almost said he's got I'm not sure. >> He's got a building permit. >> Yes. >> 2020 by whatever. And according to what Ralph told Maria here, read this. Uh he
exceeded that quite a bit. >> Correct. >> So Ralph's not going to let let that go by. >> Correct. Unless we have a finding that says that his that his current plans do not are not detrimental to the neighborhood. >> His plan was a 20 foot.
>> No. No. His current his updated plans he's I mean you got >> but they but he's not doesn't have a permit for them. >> No. >> No. That's the reason why you come for that's why you come for a finding. You can't get the finding. You can't get a permit >> until you get the finding. >> Until you get a finding. >> He can still do the original stuff for
the permit which was the windows and the other stuff and the deck. That's all he can do. >> But he's done more. But he So, but between him and Ralph, they've had they've come to an understanding that he's not going to proceed with the Moore until he gets approval that the more is
allowed. And if the more isn't allowed, then the more is coming down. >> Do you have plans here for the more? >> Yeah. Here. >> Well, I don't. Do you have >> I have an No. I I have plans submitted. >> Yeah. We have this. >> This was the original plan. He said AI generated. He shows all the 2 by sixes
and I mean I mean it's a whole bunch I see >> this is a generated >> this is the more >> oh that is okay >> quite a bit >> I mean it has to come here first because route can't approve it >> because it is non-conforming in order for him to go ahead he need because it
is a modification to non-conforming property he has to have a finding from us to say that it's not detrimental so that then he can get his building permit >> and that what he's proposing uh is is not substantially more detaically uh for he he says he says that the
petition is that they could finish what was covered under the permit. >> Yes, >> that was the permit that he gave 24. >> But anything else would need a finding from his own. >> That's what he's here for, >> right? based on based on his plans of what he plans to do. >> Let's see what he presents. Go ahead.
>> And then let's also see what the neighbors present. >> Yes. >> Okay. So kind of what happened with that whole >> the contractor was going to go get he had already went back and we
denied it saying we need >> right >> the contract the paperwork that you guys have the contract of what is going to be there the reason why I added the AI picture at the end it's not very the pitch of the roof is not right I want to more accurate. That's going to be the
That's supposed to be the final image. >> I do have the contract here if you have any questions about building. >> Well, it says here that the the the roof was extended further than was supposed to be and is now too close
>> to the neighbors, >> but that's that's part of the the original permit that he would that was approved. an issue with the neighbors as of right now >> not not this part of it >> has nothing to do with this that was permitted I have a permit for it build
off the permit the neighbor is not happy saying that it's too close it's very very close proximity to there the neighbor actually has a second deck balcony that's maybe an inch off my property line the houses are on top of each other it just is what it is so they're not happy about that
>> I do have a couple pictures in there We had talked that day. This is not supposed to be on there. So that's why it wasn't anything like that. >> The thing in the back actually nobody's actually complained about. Um that's why we came for the back.
>> The the rest of it he has an approved permit for. >> Okay. >> This he doesn't. So he needs to come to us to get a finding to say that he can continue with this or Ralph is going to is is going to reject it because it because it is you know because
>> you have pictures of what it looks like right now work that >> I did have when I when I visited I had an opportunity to to speak with Derek um just as I was walking he was coming in
uh and also the neighbor >> uh Yeah. So, I think there's more to it than what what you see. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. So, what part of this was the original permit for?
>> Was it only the bottom deck down here? None of >> it. Second floor deck. >> Yeah, the per the original permit had a deck on it, but >> it had this deck on it coming out of these, >> but not this here and this. And then you
bumped out the house though before you put the deck on. >> Well, the top that Yeah. >> Okay. that bump out is actually bumped out more than so it would be coming down to here if you're okay. >> So this kind of on my end obviously I'm
not the one that pulled from permit so I didn't know anything. So Ralph was showed up to the house several times for the footings he was there checking it when that second deck was already put in there. Nothing was right. There was no red flags that was never questioned. So I didn't know anything and start
building up that second floor. That's when it was a permit. Contract hold the permit yet. We have a phone on there. We can't go. I'm not here to make excuses about that not being on there, but then we were told, "Hey, listen, you got to go for a finding." And that's where we're at today. >> Mhm.
>> So, question, Roger. That original deck, which was the one here that's was permitted for I think we have the permit somewhere. um or at least a request for the permit. Would that even be allowed >> without a finding
because it's I mean >> I I don't know if that was I mean Ralph granted it. So we're >> but to me it sounds because if you look at this this deck it you know you you're sort of enclosing down below for the
walk out. Looks like there's going to be some maybe some walls here. There's, you know, obviously they did a good job by putting the steps within this footprint of the deck so they weren't coming out any further, but I'm even wondering if this original deck was
>> Well, but regardless, I mean, we're still stuck with the we're stuck with >> our job here is the the the back deck that he is proposing now, is it substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood, right, to that we could
>> either accept or reject a finding uh in regarding that. So >> yeah, I guess where my problem is is that >> given the fact that this deck was permitted, >> this isn't going out any further than
that deck. >> So I miss >> So it's not So you know Ralph permitted this bottom deck. >> This top stuff. >> This bottom deck. Ralph permitted that. Uh, are you calling that a back deck or a front deck? He's back. He's saying back deck.
>> Back deck. Everything is looking the >> All of this has to do with the back deck. >> Yeah. >> The only one side we're looking at. >> Water side. >> Water side. >> Water side. Right. >> All the pictures you have is the back of the house and the water. >> The water side. Correct. >> But some people would call the front, but we >> That's right. >> We have I have the same problem with my
house. We argue all the time. Um, so if my thing is that if Ralph already permitted that deck, at first blush, this the rest of this structure doesn't go out any further than that deck. >> So there, >> well, not only that, but there's a it's
actually a fair if you if you see the the layout, it is >> it is not it is not encroaching on property lines >> anymore towards towards Wat. >> No. >> Yes. >> No, that's the one place that isn't. >> It isn't. That's the only place it is.
>> Right. >> So it is not a a zoning. It it is not a a a property line issue as far as the back deck is concerned. >> Correct. >> So what we need to do is look at at the the plans for the back deck and say is this substantially more detrimental to
the neighborhood and generate a finding based on that whether because that's that's what that's what Ralph wrote in his letter. >> And that second floor did have a smaller credit probably about by six extending out. I forgot to put the picture in there. So, there was already a structure
going off of that master bedroom that that went out probably about six or seven feet. >> Well, >> what does this what does this indicate? That line? >> I don't know. I don't know. But this is the >> I understand that's the but what does that line indicate? What is what does
this line indicate? The >> Oh, that's the well. >> Oh, it's that distance of the well. >> That's all from the septic to distance. >> They just Yeah, they just rather than Yeah. >> Okay. I was at the distance of the well. >> Are you cocking it? Yeah, that's what I
thought too. >> Isn't very far. That's beside That's >> That's not our problem. >> The one few things we don't have problem. I think uh I think it's a real disadvantage for us to continue thinking about this
stuff without seeing it or without andor without Ralph being here >> because it's very complicated. >> I I think No, I think it is because because I'm saying well if if that deck is permissible then everything else on top of it's permissible because it's not
it's not going past that footprint. >> Yeah, it is. >> That's No, it's not. >> Yeah. Look at this. with that. >> Now, on on this picture that that you >> Yeah, but that but it's not going out to this. >> Cynthia, the picture that you showed me. >> Yeah. >> Uh where is it? Uh are you looking out
toward the pond? >> If I was standing on this deck, I >> be looking at the pond. Yes. >> Right. So, my god, >> if you were standing there, you'd be looking. So, that's not the back of the house. >> That's the back of the house. >> Yeah. All right. Okay. >> Because Yeah. I agree. I don't I
disagree with you because I I have my I have one side of my house facing the water and the other tight not I call the house not facing the water the front of the house and that's the back of the house though somebody else in my household calls that the front of the house. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Well, that's what I'm saying. >> Okay. The water side clear
>> the water side water. >> It was my understanding that this one deck what we're looking and then this is what he's added plus he added uh am I right? He bumped it out. >> Uh that you added but not past the
>> bought eight feet. >> That's eight feet. You can actually see on that. >> You told me eight feet out. Yes. Uh onto this. This is the original house. Yep. >> Back there. And and he's added 8 foot in the top there, which from what I gather
from what uh Ralph told Maria that wasn't part of the >> Right. It is. Right. >> Correct. So, we got to decide is this structure here and this structure more substantially detrimental to to the community than not. And my first blush
without I I tried to get down to the property, but I got a little scared. The road got a little narrow and I didn't want to like >> Yeah. >> I didn't want shotguns coming out. Yeah. >> Um, >> so I agree. I think we should all probably I think as safe as it is here, but in my first blush, it's not this is
not going out past what was already permitted. Yeah, >> which I have a issue with was the frack thing was the deck was Ralph's there is no permit for that deck. >> What is this? >> That's just shows you the inside of what that is.
>> Where where is that? >> That that's the part that you're if you look in the front that's just from inside of there. >> I took a picture of the inside of there to show. >> All right. >> Well, how big. So, is there a
is there a setback for the back of the house facing water? Isn't wouldn't wouldn't one argue this is a con issue that is >> actually it's a that would then be the requirement is six feet >> that's for the back of property line but where is the property line but it's but
it's close to a body of water which changes things >> you had to be 200 any structure has to be 200 feet away from the water so that original deck should not have been permitted it should have required a special permit and should have required con because it was too close to the water
>> I was told by the several surveys and they differ. >> Yeah. >> Uh so that's an issue. Not 200 feet. >> But any any any new construction on the water has to be 200 ft away. Correct. >> No, it doesn't. >> There's clearly some neighbor issues here. >> There's two neighbors here that beside
me. >> Half the issues are not anything to do with the back of what this will probably become an issue now just because of the other things on the wall. >> From what I've been told, I haven't been told anything off. I probably have about 75 ft of water. at the end of the deck
right now. 75 ft. Yes. The property lines I went out there and measured from the septic. Everything I have is accurate as right now. There is because this is obviously in in the courts right now. They they filed some stuff. I've gone over some of their property lines
and going over there. The houses before this historically they're on top of each other. >> Yeah. I mean the GIS has part of their house on your property and part of your house on their property. I mean >> Yeah. So those I mean the GIS's are a little >> they're a little they're they're a little off. So there's multiple
different issues going on with the property and I rather not get into >> No, we don't want >> Yeah. And I don't want to get in because there's a lot going on there. So everything that I've kind of done and I have pictures of what this property looked like before. Uh I took down trees
and approved sight lines where they had no sight lines. There's approv 25 ft tall. trees I removed to and gave a sight line. Uh everything I've done to this house like the products I'm using like high is to maintain and not bother
anybody and there is no reason this does not change their view. This doesn't change anything from what their original sighteline is. When I bought the house I greatly improved it. I have pictures here. I know I showed Mr. Mina just to show some of the some of the things that are being complained about that are
actually already there. retaining walls that were already there. Uh there was a deck on that back that was about 12 feet by 20 ft. Um so that deck actually only extends about another 8 ft. On the top there was another there's a uh there was a small patio off of that sliding glass
door that went out about was probably about 8 ft wide by about seven six to seven feet out. Right. So some of these extensions all stayed within the footprint of what was already there. And from a lot of what I've read, >> as long as you stay here, >> as long as I stayed with that, I was in good, right? So
>> even with not being permitted, I didn't know this until afterwards because Ralph had come out to the site. Ralph had been checking up on him. He checked the footings. He he checked every step of this. So it wasn't until that actual structure and the complaint about something else that wasn't even on the back came up. That's when all of a
sudden I got the stop stop working notice saying, "Hey, listen. That's not on there." And that's kind of what they hung the hat on, which touche. It wasn't under permit. We're wrong for that. We did go to a finding and I'm fine with that. As of right now, my house has been
3 months. No. Well, hasn't signed almost six months. This project's been delayed. Delayed because I'm trying to I was trying to bring the right paperwork stuff here. Ralph finally allowed me to continue the work, stay away from that area. But I mean, right now, we're just being delayed and it's costing money,
you know, for nothing when it's in the same And I know I' I've done some of my homework with case laws and different Supreme Court uh rulings that this would not be more detrimental. It stayed within that footprint. And like I did everything in good faith. I understand
that there wasn't a permit. But at the end of the day, we once I found that out, we did make the changes. We filed for it. We got denied for it. Said we had to go to a finding and that's where we are today. >> My my goal today is to be able to get them to stop working on my house to finish it. I mean, I've had because of
this, I've had flood damage in my basement. I've got no gutters. I can't continue. They can't they can't put in windows. They can't put in gutter systems. Like, it's a real concern. Now, >> Eric, I have a question for you. Um, the
uh this bay window type thing on here. >> Yes. >> Uh, was that part of the original house? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, it was >> So, all you're getting this is the bump up. >> Yeah. Yeah. But you didn't change this at all. Nothing else
>> protruding from that that north side of >> No, that's it. >> Are are there plans to put a window on this bump out here? >> No, because if you can look, that's going to be an extension of that master bedroom and you see that lodge opening.
It's probably about a 12T slider. >> That's enough light for >> This is the inside. Could you go into a little bit more detail on why it wasn't included in the permit properly? >> So part of the conversation there was kind of this I was going to do this
project in a couple stages. So the bump up was kind of talked about. Didn't really make the final decision when he when he went and got the permit. I wasn't aware that he put on the commit said all right we're doing it. He just never went and made the changes to the permit. They his got they started
working. They kept working. Ralph had been going out. This wasn't a sneak surprise. Ralph had been out that property a dozen times by the time this this went up. They just hadn't come back and we didn't think that there was going to be a finding that's that's on us that you have to go through process like this. This is the first time I've ever
done additions on the house or anything major projects like that. Uh and that's just kind of what we fell into. >> Yeah. I mean, I again, I didn't go down because I got I got stuck down there, even though I live
in a I live in a similar kind of community. Um, but I got prayed somewhere else. Um, so you're you're and I'm just saying this structurally, I think, man, I'm not I'm not a contractor, but I've done enough of
construction that if you're going to put a 12oot slider there, you you need a metal beam up there. >> So, that's one of the things that's going to be happening. So that so once once again I said it was going to be happening project >> me and the cont me and the contractor I talked about that there is going to be
some different construction going on there different >> yeah like I don't see how this is holding up >> yeah the old sticks >> there's going to be some different structure there that's going to go from there uh but once again we haven't been able to change or modify anything in
that for probably about three months >> yeah because you look like you're going to double you're going to double joist it down here. >> Yeah, there's some changes that have to be done with that. Like I said, it was kind of maybe on me for not making the decision sooner contract, >> right? Because I I I even worry if the
pilings are good enough because now you you're supporting a lo you're supporting more structure. >> Yeah. So, >> that's that's Ralph's jiggy. >> Yep. >> Is there an architect involved? There was an architect involved in I
don't believe he's back to several people have the same type of issues with architects that just not really all over the place. I just want to kind of get this started once we get finding. So then once once we go to do all the extra
work, >> I think well I think actually Ralph might require some of that to have architectural approval of certain things, but he's not even going to he's not even going there yet because you don't even have a per you don't have the >> there has been some conversations when this first got up before the project was
even shut down. There was some conversations that you want to come back in to do this. He is aware that there are some changes that have made it blind side. >> Yeah. >> Sorry. >> Now, did you have any pictures, Eric, of
the of the uh I guess >> before >> the front side of the house? >> The side of the house? No, the front side that that corner area that's now almost touching the neighbors >> the one that's not on here.
>> Yeah, I'm saying do you did you provide any pictures? I'm assuming >> I didn't provide any pictures of that. I know >> I'm assuming your neighbor >> on any on that. I was able to show him a picture that shows that I mean everything that on that side of the house that's actually there I actually
have pictures the the porch area that they're calling the patio is a cement block there that's already that they just put one over the top of there's a retaining wall on that side her property line is and her overhang that she has on second is literally I'm going to say an
inch probably a quarter of an inch away from the property line that overhang is about 2 feet away doesn't any windows doesn't that's been the real contention I don't understand why >> oh sorry
as I mean, from the pictures, I don't think it it it does not, as the the applicant said, it doesn't go beyond the original footprint of what was already permitted
>> on these photos. >> On these photos. Yeah. Exactly. And that's why I think I I I think Terry's correct. And I think I think a site visit might be in order before I >> I think what's more important is to have Ralph reiterate what was approved. Yeah. And
what's >> right >> what needs to be done. >> Yeah. >> And the fact you know I'm sorry it can't be had medical issue tonight but >> so I mean I can tell you right now and I mean I don't tend to hide anything. The bottom was permitted that bottom deck. I do think there was some confusion on the
permitting pro process because there was supposed to be the second deck. If you actually look, it says 12 x 20. That's a 20 by 20 at the at the bottom. So, I think there was a confusion about where the 12 12 by 20 was going to be. That was the second floor cuz the 8ft bumpout turns that into a 12 x 20. So, there was
some confusion there. Ralph, once again, I mean, you can look at all his checks off at each each site visits. My my concern is keep delaying this when >> it it's non it's it fits within all the case law. It fits within everything. I didn't I didn't go past anything. I
didn't go past the original deck there that was 12 feet that went out 12 feet. I haven't gone past that. I stayed within 8 ft. Um the only thing that has gone past there is the decks that was already permitted and um I stayed within that. I think to delay this any longer
um I I don't think it's fair. I mean, as you can see in some of those pictures, like how weed just the uh >> No, we >> can you just tell me one more time. So,
the um that lower deck was permitted, but it was permitted at 20 >> It does say 12 by 20. I know for a fact as I was there when we put the pot the footings in, Ralph had come out and checked them.
>> That's 20 by 20. >> Yeah, that's 20 by 20 that bottom deck. So that bottom deck probably went out 8 ft. >> Okay. But that was not permitted. >> It was cuz he came out he checked all the footings. He he he signed off or anything. The permit I think there's an error on the permit. If that was if that
was the case when he came to do his his his sight checks, he would have picked up on that. That's a big >> You think maybe? Well, without him here, I think that's what to to Roger's point. Without Ralph here, it's unfortunate that there is the missing information.
>> I mean, if that was the case, I would imagine that would be on my finding paperwork. It's not It's not It's not The only thing that's on my finding paperwork is that second floor with that deck on the second floor. No, he talks about I think he mentioned >> the roof too, >> the overhang
>> that it would that that the the deck that was permitted is bigger than it was permitted. >> I I have his paper here. I don't see that. If you guys can point that out, maybe I'm wrong. >> A 20 by 20 elevated deck >> tension attached existing dwelling with
roof structure is not substantially more detrimental. But he's talking about that second slot structure. that wasn't on the committ. He's not talking about >> bottom floor, >> but he already approved a 20 by 12 deck
with a canopy, which I would Right. >> So, the can the canopy is on the opposite side. >> Okay. >> So, the 20 x 20 deck that's approved. Then what he's saying that I needed a finding for is the second floor bump. That's the only mean that Ralph's had
numerous of conversations about this, >> including the roof of that one, right? >> Everything to do with the second floor is what he's saying. That's what I'm saying. >> Yeah. Everything with the second floor is what I'm here for a fine, >> right? That's what I'm getting off of that. >> Yeah. Everything. So, me and I'm not
here to hide anything. So, me and Ralph have had multiple conversations about that. And his his determination was because I'll tell you this right now, looking at some stuff, I my opinion at first I was like, I don't need to find it. looked at some of your bylaws and it's like okay I need to go for a finding it is what it is like here we
are but it was strictly for that second floor and in his paperwork it says finding that the construction of a 20x20 elevated deck addition attached to existing dwelling and roof structure is not more substantially detrimental than existing non-conforming use >> yeah but I I it's unclear to me if he
means deck or decks >> right >> they're both there's two elevated decks there right >> well that deck is not they would normally come here >> for any kind of change like that for a >> Yeah. And well, again, that's why I don't understand why that first deck if
it was to if if Ralph had believed that first deck was to be elevated, I don't understand why he didn't send them here. >> Yeah. You have I have my contractor here that was here. He I mean, he was there for all of the >> inctions. No, I mean, if I that we're
not questioning Ralph's inspections. I think we're we are I'm confused as to what Ralph means in his but you just quoted um the finding that construction of a 22
elevated deck addition to the existing structure is not right but both of those are elevated decks. So, >> so therefore, I don't understand Ralph's logic of why the first elevated deck didn't need a a special permit, but the second one did.
>> I can clarify you with that for a second. That yard and there's other I already went to conservation commission for this approved dropped down. We took out 3 ft. So, that first that first debt now is a lot higher than what it was because we had taken out 3 ft before the
construction. That's why it looks elevated. That's where the confusion might come because before that yard we took about three feet down. If you notice any pictures you can see a door >> that used to be half a door, >> right? So now that's it's it's a short but now it's like almost a full door
>> and >> that's where your elevation >> and then K con approved you digging all that out. >> I went to conservation commission and they said nothing I had done was I didn't violate it. >> The question was did they approve you digging out that
conservation commission. I went there and they know all the work that I did there and they didn't find anything wrong. >> So that that digging out was a part of your plan that you presented to them. >> That wasn't part of the permit >> conservation commission. I went I went
from that. So cons once again my mason had called and they said well because there's a retaining wall there's a fence. He said you don't need a wall is the same as a fence. You I don't need Okay, I already know there was issues in this neighborhood with neighbors. So I said, "Make sure you get all the
permits." Well, come to find out, he explained to them that it was on the water. So then it become an issue of, "Well, you didn't get it." So then I contacted Conservation Commission, sat down with them, did all the paperwork, they did several sic visits, seen all the work I did, and they gave me the approval. They said that nothing was
wrong, and I got approval. I mean, right here he says um this is in Ralph's letter. I'm still stuck on this. >> It's okay. >> I I'm sorry. Um I really do think we need to do a site visit and we need Ralph to I I just I it's >> and I apologize for delaying it more,
but the site visit can happen within a week or two at most. >> Yeah. Um >> um >> I mean because he says that >> it's going to keep you out of court further if we do it right. >> Oh no, we're we're already >> we're going to keep it further. I mean >> so let me ask you this question then. Can I just finish my >> question?
>> Sorry. >> Um that he does say that what was on what was permitted was replacing 14 windows, same size, same location, replacing siding for whole house, building a 12 a 20 by 12 foot deck
canopy and then I guess that's supposed to be a comma or whatever deck canopy over the front door. I don't even know what that means. So I I have a picture on I'll show you because I I did >> but he does say a 20 by 12 foot deck one. >> Yes. So once again I believe that's
where there was some type of typo or something because when Ralph comes clearly 12 ft and 20 ft are two drastically different things. It's the work has been allowed to continue. Everything continues to go as as as process. The side canopy that you guys
keep going back to that's not part of this. I do have a picture to show what that >> right there. >> Are you seeing a side canopy? Uh, north or south? >> This is going to be on
>> be the north side of the house. >> Yeah, >> it doesn't say side canopy. It just says canopy. >> Canopy >> over the over the >> cuz that's technically the front door on the side of the house. That's how you walk in the house. I think that originates from the >> Oh, so the canopy wasn't this canopy because the canopy is not
>> I the application says 20 by 12. >> Yeah. Right. >> Is that precise wording? Ralph didn't invent that wording, right? >> He pulled that from the application. >> That's the application. >> Yeah. So, >> so who prepared the application? >> You can talk to the contract. Apparently, the contractor had help. They helped him and they filled it up.
He the contractor said he didn't actually fill it up. >> This is the canopy on the side that they >> This is the front door. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. the side doors >> on the north side of the house. Side doors. >> Is this the neighbor's house? >> Yes. >> Mhm. I mean, the house is already on top of the deck. >> Yeah. No, no. I mean, listen, that's
what it is. >> Yeah. >> And concern areas and >> that's why we love it. >> So, I mean, I think on its face though, is this is this accurate >> that what was requested in the application was not what was built? >> Yes.
>> Right. Correct. >> Yeah. So the 12 x 20 if you actually look at the application it does say 12 x 12 by 20 >> for some reason and what I think happened there my opinion I don't have but when he originally went to a deck it was supposed to be for the two decks
upstairs and downstairs that second floor deck was only supposed to be >> the lowest the lowest deck >> the top deck >> the top deck is 12 by 20 the lower deck is 20 by 20 >> but this is not detailed in the application >> I
contract You can talk to it. I mean that's how close >> is this is this top deck 20 by 12? >> No >> this one will be 20 by 12 once the >> you mean out once the structure >> then out okay >> this is how close
>> but it's I I have a question for you know council Burke. Um what are the standards that have to be met to get a proper application that is grantable? Because I when I'm reading this there's a lot of ambiguities. Well, and I think that's the source of a lot of the
problems. And my second question on that is which >> bias should the zoning board take? Should they be biased for the applicant who created ambiguities or should they be biased against the
>> uh I don't think bi >> not biased. I know what you say. Either way, I don't I don't The standard is whether or not it's more detrimental to the neighbor, substantially more detrimental to the neighbor. But your question wasn't quite like that. Your question was, have they prov have have they provided you with enough
information to understand exactly what you're you're voting on and you that that is up to you to determine. I mean, there does seem to be an awful lot of confusion here. >> Well, let me let me rephrase it. The
issue here is that Ralph made a stop work order. But the question is is was that what was actually allowed >> so >> because if if it's if what is happened is allowed in the application then there's no there's nothing to be decided on but that's not the case.
>> So I mean correct me if I'm wrong shows up there does action to make sure everything's going process right there checks and balances this process. He goes out there that permit says 12 by 20 it's a by at that point if there's
something wrong as a homeowner I didn't pull the permits that >> he goes out there I would I would expect and say hey wait time out you have an issue here >> this this >> right but that doesn't that's correct >> however the fact that he didn't propose
an issue doesn't mean that he recognized that there was an that you you did there must have he we don't know what because Ralph's not here we don't know to say okay Ralph said 12 by >> 12 by 20, right? >> Yeah. >> Oh, this is clearly bigger than 12 20 by
20. 12 by 20. >> But that's okay. >> But that's okay. We don't know that he said that. He didn't We don't know. He made that mental >> click. You Yes, you. Yes, I agree. You detrimentally relied on the fact that he came out and he said that was okay. I get that. I'm a homeowner, too. My
building inspector comes out and says that passes my inspection. I assume I did everything right. I agree with you. >> But you aren't. >> Yeah. But however, >> now unfortunately, now unfortunately, you've created more because you did more work without a
permit. Now everything is being put into a little bit more scrutiny than perhaps would have been if you just would have stopped at that first deck. You probably would have gotten allowed with a 2020 deck. >> I don't neighbors may or may not have complained, but I that's not really relevant for here. But now the fact that
we have to look at this together, we have to understand what the nature of the original permit was for >> and understand what what Ralph Ralph was >> I don't really totally agree with that because in a finding all >> what was approved and what the what what
a finding is is he has current plans on what he wants to do. >> Is that more detrimental to the neighborhood? That's what we're here for. I is detrimental to >> I haven't seen his current plan. >> That's what I was >> without but I also think I can't make
that definitively without doing a site visit. >> Okay. Yeah, I understand that. >> That's what I was getting at is what are the plans now? Are we going by these pictures? There are no plans in front of us right now. Cynthia, I also want to mention that there's nothing to say.
There's nothing to say. The the building permit was applied for >> those don't look. >> I'm going to wait for Cynthia to hear. Um, >> this looks like this. >> Cynthia, you you just said a minute ago about uh him talking to the homeowner. >> Yeah.
>> The the builder is the one who applied for the building permit. We don't know whether he talked to the uh uh builder or not. Yes. Without I'm saying we I'm saying we don't know that. Okay. Until Ralph tells us Yes. I told Bill.
>> Right. They're say like you're saying you talked to Ralph. That's right. >> But Ralph's not here to say to confirm or deny. >> Well, yeah. >> Just because something she wants to say something, but something was said that I I just don't agree. The first time I ever when I when I first done these plans, I told my contractor it was a 20
by 20. That is what we had never seen the building permit until these complaints came in. >> Right. And that's that's fine. That that we we don't we don't we do not we are not holding that against you. >> We completely agree. you trust, you
know, you trusted your your contractor to do the right thing. Things aren't the way they're supposed to be, so now you're here. I mean, or right, and I get that that we're not that's not a a a a bad mark against you. Don't worry about that. >> I just want to make sure that
>> No, there's no bad mark against that. That h that happens more than it doesn't. And you know, obviously you've realized there's also some deficiencies of the the of the work um because you're going to need much more uh
>> I don't know about that. No, you look >> just the whole thing about um >> the >> you know I mean I in my head it was 20 by 20 and uh although I was only and somehow I missed the whole thing that I
was only permitted for 20 by 12 and so it's it's okay cuz gee >> but no but I'm not saying this whole structure is okay. I could tell I I you don't know that I'm not going to say he needs holding down. I'm just saying that I don't hold it against him for not knowing that the permit got put in to
that is not going to affect that is not going to affect my decision. The decision could eventually be none of this should have happened and all it goes, right? I mean, but I think I mean, look, you've built the house, right? If
you if all of a sudden something came to light that something was built that you thought you had told your contractor to do, but then it wasn't done right. Would do you want someone to penalize you? >> No. I guess what uh >> So, I'm not think I'm not >> There has to be some sort of litigation or something between the owner and the
contractor. Exactly right. That's but that's not for us to decide. Us to decide is if the new plans are, you know, I think there's two there's two issues before us. One is this new plan substantially more detrimental to the
neighborhood and then we deny the the the the the uh finding and then this has to come down and then there's the other issue of plan. Are you referring to >> this one? >> Not all of them. >> That's a plan. That's a plan. >> That's the plan. >> That's not really a plan. He's even said
that that doesn't >> No, he said this didn't. This is what he said was AI generated, right? >> Yes. >> This is the plan. >> Could I say something or >> It's not a plan according to if I walk into the building inspector with just
that picture, right? >> He's not going to give me a building, >> right? >> But he gave him But Ralph gave him a building permit for this without any any drawing. >> He gave him for this. I don't there's no drawing. >> I don't know what he That's >> we have the building permit application. That's why I think one I think you're
right. We need to talk to Ralph and we need to to do a site visit. >> Yeah. >> But we're talking here about a finding. We're not talking about So the finding is this kind of structure 20 by 20. I don't care if it's 2 by sixes or 4x4s.
That's that's not our problem. That's a building that's a building permit problem. Is this structure more detrimental to the neighborhood? How it's built is is is Ralph's problem, not ours. >> Um, could I say I'm sorry, I've been trying to say something. Um, my name is
Dan Reyes. I live at 231B. >> Um, talking about the updated permit and the finding. Ralph wouldn't review the updated um, plans for the 20 by 20 until we came here for the finding. So he said, "You need to go to the finding
first before we provide before he reviewed the new 20 by 20 with the 8 foot bumpout and the downstairs decking that was there." Um, so that's why we're here. He he said, "You need to go to find he wouldn't review it and he said you need to go to the zoning board." Did
he? So we did that. >> After you do that and he >> then we have to provide him with the updated plans. >> He reviews and approves the the plan appropriately. Did he say you have to come back here and we do another finding? >> But typ Yeah. Because typically we have
>> I'm not sure. Right. >> We usually have a set of plans as you want them. >> Yeah. >> In front of us and that's what we do and that's what stays with the record forever. >> Yeah. I'm just saying what he said we needed to do in order to update the plans. Um
>> that's where we're at. >> Late on that because I mean typically we do have a full set of plans. >> Not not for a finding. We've done a lot of things where findings are are the enclosure. It I want to I want a a 12 by 20 bumpout and because all we're looking
at is does the bump out. >> I don't care how it's built. That's got not that's >> we've had whole houses. >> Yes, we have but we've also had most of them are additions. Uh you know it's it's not a finding usually for house with the person who used to be sitting
to my left and now is no. So you know so it's it's generally I want a 10 by 20 bumpout. >> Yeah. >> Is that going to be more detrimental? How you built it with 2x sixes or 4x4s? I don't care. That's not our problem. >> But >> is the bumpout >> more detrimental to the neighborhood?
Then it's going to go to Ralph and he's going to figure out is it built properly? >> Okay. >> But there I want to build. I I'm looking seeking uh a finding because I want because you want to build >> not not because I've already built this. Yes.
>> And now I need for you to say it's okay and finding. >> But if but if we say that it is more detriment than >> but we have to the concept. We got to take that away. We got to pretend that this doesn't exist and this is what he's coming with us right now. >> Correct.
>> We have to we can't we cannot. No, because there's so much of that that goes. >> No, but we we we are we are we are we are we are serving >> build what you want and then you know >> No, no, no, but we could ask them to pull it down. I mean, we could if you if we decide here that this is more subtle,
then the whole thing is coming. >> That's the way it's done in Westport. I'm going to do what I want to do and then >> but no, first of all, we we we can't say there is Yes, I agree that happens all the time in Westport, but we can't put that against him, right? He at least came to us when an issue was was brought
to his attention. Right? So I give him a check. Good. Right? Should he have done this beforehand? But what we have to look at now is this. If he would have come to us six months ago with this plan, what would we have decided? Yes, we have to take that away. We're not
allowed to put our own per we have to we just have to we have to interpret >> and enforce our zoning laws. We cannot put personal >> input into this. Even though we all the reason I'm here is and I think you're here too is because there's so much of
the >> ask you know ask for forgiveness instead of ask for permission going on in Westport. That's why I'm here. So he's asking for both. He's asking for permission. He's asking for like a miaopa. But we but we can't really we have to commend him that he's asking
this didn't just decide to continue building this and say screw everybody sport. Right. So >> that's what they usually >> exactly. So that's why we have to look at this and say >> as a clean slate >> as as a clean slate, >> right? >> Would it would we have you know even
though we maybe don't like and or don't like the way it came to us, we have to put that aside because that's we are we're a finder of fact not a finder. >> He wouldn't be here if the neighbors hadn't written Ralph repeatedly and said >> well I think Ralph I think well then
that's not his problem. that was unfortunately I think I think at some point Ralph would have stopped this or if he wouldn't and we need to address that. Um because I would have hoped that at some point Ralph would have said wait
this is more than the permit because he would he wouldn't have had anything to check off on. He would have been like looking at his permit and saying well I can't I can't I can't right so he would have stopped it. um the neighbors because they're there every day. I mean, Ralph was only going to go the next time
Ralph was going to go was probably for to look at something else and then he would have seen all this. >> So, we don't and so he doesn't we don't have a floor plan at all. We don't have any kind of >> This is a floor plan. It's >> I mean, other than >> it's it's decks. >> The decks. It's decks. >> Well, it's a bump out bumpout, but
>> it's a bumpout, >> but Ralph >> But over the deck. So >> Ralph looked at it >> and Ralph can tell the difference between 12 by 20 and 20 by 20. >> Right. And Ralph's not here to say what he
>> Yeah. But he >> but he saw it and he at I've I've seen Ralph in action enough to know if if if he sees something that's not right, he says something, >> right? >> But we don't know he didn't. >> He didn't. >> No, we don't know that.
>> But he Ralph's not here to say that. He didn't do a cease and desist order at that point and then that came in. So he got involved with this >> when the top when the top came >> but this was already done and he saw it. >> Those are things that I think >> but he saw it.
>> Okay. So how do we want to proceed? >> Yeah. >> Around and around. How do we want to proceed other than I do want to hear from neighbors? >> I do not think this is >> neighbors. I think there's I think there's I don't think it's substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood because the bumpout the the it's going
out towards the the water. It doesn't go out it doesn't extend the footprint from side to side to neighbor neighboring properties. Right. However, I have questions of of I have con questions. I got I got a lot of questions of why I
thought anything that was that close to the water needed to go to Con. Um, >> but you also uh we have we only looking at one end of the house. >> But that's all he's asking. >> But that's all he's asking for. >> Am I right that you put construction on
the back? >> Yeah, but the finding was only for that. >> Yeah. >> Finding is only for this piece. >> The canopy and everything that you had the picture for that came that's on my permit. >> Right. So is it is it accurate to say that we we're dealing with a small deviation some level of deviation from
what was permitted and as Mr. Manard says our our sole goal here is to decide if that's not more detrimental. No, >> but I and I agree with what what Cynthia says is we have to look at this as a clean slate whether it was bigger or smaller than what was originally
planned. Wouldn't we have agreed to this? >> Yeah. >> If it would have come >> if if this was the original plan >> to go to the way back machine. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Can we Blake a >> Just to go to >> Yeah, we will. >> Your point. >> Um, under the building code, there are
provisions in there that can penalize people for getting the permit after the fact. >> I believe it's double and treble uh uh permit fees. >> Yeah. So, >> for an after the fact, I I know I it's probably not a lot of money, but I know
that you had voiced a concern about, you know, people are just building and then nothing happens. there is that provision in the building. >> So that's something that Ralph could invoke. >> That's something he would and I I suspect he would look at the circumstances where you have a homeowner and a and a and a contractor who kind of
did this, but it would be up to >> Ralph. >> Yeah. I mean, there's plenty of people who do things and pay the penalty rather than get the permit because they couldn't get the permit otherwise. I think we should >> and much more egregious than this >> because there there was some other
construction on the back end. >> That's not what we're here for. >> That's not what we're here for. >> We're here for that. >> Not what we're here for. But when when it comes time to say >> this, >> we're only going to we're only going to be talking about whether we approve or disapprove this. >> And what about what happens to the other
>> that that he has a permit for? >> And then and that's the only thing on Ralph's letter that says is beyond what was in the original That's for to deal with. >> This is all we're talking about today. >> It is for >> to deal with. >> But but how does it not get into our finding? >> Because it's there. It's there.
>> Yeah. But it's it's we can't go beyond what the permit what what the application is all about. >> We can't expand the should approve this. We should say except for this other stuff. That's right. That's
only going to hear from the neighbor. That's why I was confused of why we're not >> and again we're only talking board >> the deck that faces the water. >> Mr. Chairman, members of the board, attorney Matthew Aspen with an office at 255 County Street in Somerset. I represent Patricia Leah who's
immediately to the east that we've talked you've talked about quite a bit uh tonight. I think Mr. Cino is absolutely right. There's way more to this that the board needs to know. >> We're only Excuse me. I'm going to stop you. We are only going to be discussing
what the application is for. We cannot go legally into areas that are not part of the application. If there's another problem with another part of the application, then that's a separate issue that has to be handled separately. >> Respectfully, you keep saying there was
a permit. There was not a permit for this for this addition they put on. >> I'm saying the per the application in front of us is only for the deck that faces. So, so our application process we
can only we can't expand beyond what the petitioner application is for. >> Well, I understand but there was a lot brought up in the h in the 45 minutes that was presented here by the petitioner. We should be able to respond to tell you exactly it was con issues brought up. There were all kind of issues and I need to respond to that
respect. You have you have con issues related to this aspect of it then I'm well then >> I have related to the whole project as as uh this kousitz >> as I close >> close if I may can I let me give you some let me give you some handouts that
I have here and I want you to follow with me because I think you know Mr. Patino's he's brought it up so I want to address it on everything that's going on here because there is litigation in superior court and quite frankly there's the complaint is to tear down what they've
constructed because they constructed it in violation of zoning and the building inspector what he did or what he didn't do. You need to know that the permit that was applied for was completely inaccurate and I'm going to point it up to you in a minute. >> Mr. Monarch, can I can I just say something real can I say something real
quick? >> We we just went to litigation on this on Monday. They rejected to bring up any of the house issues during litigation. They avoided all the house issues that they had. The only issue was a retaining wall that was set by the back. If they wanted
to deal with issues with the house, we could have done it in area court. They during litigation, they said that they didn't want to speak about the house at this time and they left that alone. So, I think it's kind of unfair for them to come into this point. >> I'm not sure what is it you're going to be talking >> and the litigation does not include the
back of the house that we're trying to get a finding for. You're talking about anything that has to do with the deck that faces the water. >> Brought up by the board. >> Now, I'm going to tell you, you're only going to talk about things that have to do with the deck facing the water. If you have something in here that talks
about that, >> respectfully, that's respectfully. If they bring something brought something up, I have the right in the public. >> And I'm and I'm telling you that >> the petition only covers the deck facing the water. We cannot
get involved in aspects of it that have nothing to do with the deck facing the water. >> Address the compound is >> if if that if that has anything to do with this then fine. >> Yes. Okay. And the reason I wanted to bring these
things up from there is because it >> g people should be allowed to do things without permits. I should be able to address that and tell you what exactly happened to this piece of property in the last six months.
>> If if it has to do with this and and then then you go ahead. >> I'm I'm open to >> lots 3,400 square. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Nobody's addressed that they're going in excess of lot size by putting this. They can only go under section 7.4
of your bylaw. 50% of the lot coverage. Okay. They're building this 400 square foot deck. There's nothing before this board that tells you whether or not because this lot's only 3,400 square feet that they're going above that. That
needs to be considered by the board. You certainly cannot grant authority if it exceeds 50% of the lot. >> And that is something the building inspector does. >> But you can't >> the building inspector is responsible for that. We look at this as a as that he has approved it.
>> All right. So let me rephrase my argument. The argument is if they've gone over 50% it's substantially detrimental to the neighborhood because the purpose of the zoning bylaw is to protect the surrounding neighborhood. So if they've gone in excess of 50% of the 7.4 you can't approve this because that
substantially interferes with with without a variance. They would need a variance for that provision. Okay. With regard to the con, you know, in all due respect to the petitioners, they only want to there's no question they want to aesthetically prove their improve their property. We
know that. I mean, there's no there's no question about that. But Miss G is right. They got to follow the rules. Now, they went to the con after the fact. I've got pictures of backho down there tearing down trees, everything else. And then when my clients complain
because of proximity to the deck, then they go to the con. Now, I'm not sure what the con because there's no there's no issue there. Mr. Cino brought up the and that's why you need to speak to the building inspector because there's also
a pre-existing non-conforming expansion of it on the east side of the property. That's why I'm telling you that permit is lacking. They're ignoring that. That was part of the cease and desist story. the original permit. And I really ask that you look at the original permit because you looked at it before. If you
look at it, it's number three in my passage. The original permit on page two lists the dimensional the dimensions of the lot. It's absolutely untrue. This was deceiving to the building inspector. Look where it says provided actual left
side 30 ft, rear side 25 in my package. Number three on your package. >> Number three on my package, page two. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> The numbers are completely incorrect. You can see by the pictures that are
submitted that the pro that the house is 3 ft from my client's house, but look what they put in the the petition. So, the building inspector looks at this. It says, "Oh, you're in compliance with zoning." It's critical for this board to know that the permit was granted based on the information they provided, which
is incorrect. >> Then the building inspector has to take care of that. >> Again, he has to take care of it, but it's part of the whole picture. This is not one non-conforming use on this deck. This is a non-conforming use on the on the jut out that they put in on the patio they put in. And also, I know that
the um the lot everybody's talking about this is not waterfront property. If you think it's waterfront property, you're incorrect. Their property line in their deed goes to the high water mark. >> And if you look at the first chart, I want page one of my submission, their
property line is away from the dock. So, what they did, what problems prompted this? Okay, just so the board knows where we are, they put a fence along their boundary and my clients right away to the to the uh to the shore all the way down to the seaw wall. They don't
own this. They don't own 10 ft from the seaw wall. They only own to mean high tide. So that's what triggered all this. They blocked my client's access to the u to the the seashore and a dock and a landing. The other neighbor did the same thing. So they put the fences right up
to the seaw wall of property they don't own. That was number one. They didn't go to con to destroy all that property. Number two, they did put on their building permit that they were putting a a bumbo right next to my client's property. They put windows, siding, and
a deck, wrong size deck. The board needs to know that this is all problems that they created by their own valition. Now, whether or not it is intentional or not, there are four different issues that they didn't play by the rules. con the
easement violation the bump out the deck that you keep saying we're here for. So now my clients going what's next? Are they is they you keep saying they got a permit. They did not get a permit to build a deck. They did they did not get a permit to build the bump out. None of
that was included in the permit they got. But that's not can we're here to decide can they go we're we're pretending that this didn't happen and they're just coming in and asking us for this right if we say this is okay based upon not substantially detrimental to
the neighborhood then they ha they still have to go and get that building permit and then with your record here that you provided I I I would hope that then our building inspector will either
>> accept or he he will that's where it gets stopped. >> I agree and I don't understand >> unfortunately it's it's a this this whole thing is bifurcated that like >> I don't understand why I don't I don't have the cease and desist order in front of me and
>> the application talks about the deck as Mr. indicates it talks about the deck, but the application should have been for any non-conforming use. So now they've got this property and you can see it in the pictures. They got a B. They built an
addition onto the property that they haven't finished and it's in there. And for some reason, and I have a feeling it's because of the the way the permit's worded and the incorrect dimensions on the permit, that your building inspector didn't issue a cease and desist
specifically for that buildup. You should have issued a cease and desist for not only that bump, but for the deck and everything else that was going on because there was no permit. and they were all expansions of a pre-existing non-conforming use under section 5.2.3.
So, it's it's a little bit disingenuous to say, "Well, we only came here for this." Well, tomorrow you grant this, the appeal period goes by, are they going to finish the other bumble? I think the whole thing needs to be addressed. Are we going to, you know, >> but we don't have a cease and desist order? >> I don't know that.
>> Did you appeal the building permit? >> No, we're in superior court right now on um we filed a superior saw saw an injunction for them to tear it down because it was too late to issue a building to appeal the building permit. Actually, the building permit >> but there's but there's no building
permit for this building permit right now for anything. >> No, but you're talking about the front and the and that there is a building permit that you claim. >> No, not building permit for the front bumper. >> Well, you you claimed that this building application was just plain wrong with a lot of things. You never appealed it.
>> Appealed the building permit? No, the building permit was simply for sighting windows and a deck. It didn't include anything about this bump up. So, there was nothing to appeal. You understand what I'm saying? >> I I I I get what you're saying, but what you're trying to You're you're talking all over the place, >> right?
>> We're here for the back deck, >> right? >> Deck sub and bump out, >> right? >> You're talking about all these other things. My question to you was, did you appeal the building permit for which which Ralph issued and some of the work out there is done? I think we all agree
no building permit was issued for the 20 for the for the for this >> for 20 by 20 decks, >> right? All right. Yeah, >> but you keep going round and round the house. >> Right now, there's no building permit, >> right? >> Hang on a second. >> We're not issuing a building permit tonight. >> You have a building.
>> Hold on. I had the permit right here. One of the things that also they didn't bring this up in superior court and they they tried to run away from it and come in here. One of the things is I have emails and I wasn't prepared for this today because it's simply for the finding of the back. I have talked to Ralph about every step of this project
because the neighbors have complained. I have sent them superior court rulings. I have talked about every single step. Ralph is fully aware of everything that's going on on the side. And like you like she saying, there's been no objection besides verbal, hey, what's
going on with the side? It's permitted. And since then, I have been told that that was all set. And the only issue right now is on that back side in superior court. I have the paperwork here of their lawsuit. Their lawsuit is about the side of the building. It's not about this back piece that I'm coming
for a finding for. And like you guys are saying right now in here, if Ralph decides, hey, there's some issues here that's between him and my contractor and we can go from there. I just need the finding so we can start moving forward with this. Once Ralph came to this to this property and and said, hey, listen, there's something here to stop. We have
not even gone remotely close to that piece. We stopped all work. I told my I told my contractor they were offsite for two months when my house if you see the pictures of the house, the house has been like that for over two months until me and Ralph came to an agreement that I could stabilize the siding of the house. I didn't I didn't I there was not one
inch until we had approval that was touched on that house. And when we received the seasoned assist and we went down to speak to the building department, they said that the only area that they were concerned about was the back piece of the house, the decking.
>> I didn't see >> I just I have >> building permit. No, I'm asking. >> Um >> I have a question. >> You in your packet, it it shows a picture from the uh >> from the application and there is a notation. I think it's in part three.
I'm not sure what page it is. It's the first picture in part three from the application >> and I and I think this actually goes to something you were talking about, Mr. Manard. >> And they chose >> Excuse me. Can I ask a question here?
Does this does this number there mean 20 ft >> extending from the house? >> That's not mine. That was That's what I'm saying. That was the >> No, I'm just wondering how you interpret that. Yeah, >> because this was a question that you were getting at Mr. Manard was the original footprint of the approved deck
and it's a bit rough but I think if this top deck this is the house this is the top deck if this is 12 by 20 it's pretty clear that that 20 is indicating that the bottom deck extends 20 ft. >> So therefore that if I'm reading that my belief
uh is that that's a 20 by 20 deck on the bottom. So that's the original footprint that Ralph would have looked at >> and I think he has a typo maybe in the application but in the drawing it looks like a 20 by >> does Was there originally a deck there to begin with? >> Yes, there was. It was how big was that deck?
>> So that's my question. You is that the way you >> It was a 12 x 20 deck originally. >> The back there I the way I interpret it there's a 12 by 20s. >> Well there's a 12 x 20 deck on the top but this is the bottom deck and that's a 20 there. So that makes me think that
that indicates the extent >> and that's why we're saying it was a typo on the permit because the drawings showed a 20 by 20 deck >> and the original deck was 12 by 20 permit. >> Well, but the permit includes this is part of the application. So
>> permit the permit doesn't say it says deck and it says canopy. Apparently they're talking about a canopy on the side that Mr. Cino was talking about that I was talking about over this new addition. >> Well, I just think that's what permit says.
>> No, but the permit should reflect what was in the application. So, there's a drawing that indicates that footprint. There's a reasonable expectation that Ralph approved that footprint. >> Yeah. And I just don't know my I think my client's problem just to cut to the chase. They're not they don't want to be they really don't want to be bad
neighbors. But there's there's four incidents here of not complying any of the rules and regulations and that just that just snowballs everything. So the lawsuit that's pending and if I have to go in I we Mr. Mr. Ogles is correct. We did not address the injunction because
we wanted the town to take care of that as it pertains to the the illegal building of that addition. But can you answer like do you believe that that is an original 20 by 20 deck drawing in the application? >> I don't know if that applies to the whole deck. Do you see the two pieces? I
don't know if that's supposed to go the whole length because if you look at that, is that the scale? I mean, look at the other deck. The other deck then the other deck would be 100 ft and then we wouldn't even be here because it wasn't possible, right? The other deck's five time or at least three times the size of that. >> Now, correct me if I'm wrong. That's up
to the building to say he wants a scaled piece. The regulations are very clear, but you have to submit to the needs of >> he approved it. So, and then on the side on the side part of that house, he I also just now that was mentioned, Ralph also was given a it was an AI generated
image of what that side of the house was going to look like. It was actually much larger, a larger peak. We actually slimmed it down and gave a more lower pitch. This way there was no issues there like that. And I believe they were aware that we were only supposed to
discuss the back of the house today and they still chose to come in and discuss other portions that were not part of the um finding. >> There too is always this. Can we all just have one person talk?
It's just like hang on. The addition they put on the east side of the on the south side of the house is clearly I mean nobody can dispute this. It's an extension of a pre-existing non-conforming use. It's right on the property line. So there's no there's no that's not open for debate. Can I tell
you why your building inspector didn't address that? I can't tell you. I mean that thing that's very basic. Nobody can say that's not an extension. >> But we can't address that he didn't address it. >> Well, but but but here's the but here's the problem. As you said, it's a it's a
culmination of the mess that this is in. There's four times they didn't go to get the right permits. Now, the building inspector and and I don't know. I'm sure as as m as Mr. Stelis, is that right? As Mr. Steel says, he knows what he's doing. He checks everything. But it
makes no sense to me that that particular problem, which was raised by my clients repeatedly, and I think they they spoke with Mr. I told him the same thing. Showed them and it's in my package. What the heck is this doing here? How did this come up and why is this part of the cease and desist? I
don't know. So, they're looking for a finding and that's why I started and maybe I wasn't clear, M. I apologize for that. The application isn't clear. Is the cease and desist for pertaining to the deck? Are they looking for relief from the cease and desist for the
sideyard and the deck? because the side clearly not the side edition is clearly an expansion of a pre-existing use. I don't know what they're requesting for. It's a it was filed by them. And again, they're lame people. I understand that. They're not they're not builders or they're not contractors or they're not
lawyers. But but the problem is it needs to be clear. I don't know what he stopped working for. If you have to if he's going to come in here and say, "Oh, no. They can't they can't they're going to tear down that addition they put in because they didn't request relief for it then okay I think I think we I think
we can work that out that fine they tear that down and if the deck's being put in and you find that it's not detrimental to the neighborhood great but I I can't tell and if the board can tell great I don't know what the cease and desist was for >> do we have this do we have the cops
>> I have a cease >> can I have a copy of the cease desist because I can't seem to find it in my package >> I'm glad you brought the other things because I know my contract had wrong. I had those >> right here. >> You know, we we keep going around and around and I'm going to keep telling everybody we're here for one purpose
only and that is if you were to build this exactly as this is this how we got here is not really our problem. It's whether he got proper permits or not is not our problem. That's a building permit problem. We're only here to say
>> if they were to build this, is it more detrimental to the neighborhood? And what that really means is does it affect safety and does it affect pro uh parking? Does it affect it? >> I understand what you're saying. >> That is that's the only thing that a finding is for.
>> But all your board members don't agree with you with respect. Miss G was very clear. >> Well, >> she was very clear with respect to what with all respect to you. Okay. this board. I was on the Somerset zoning board 86 to 88. I've been practicing zoning law for 40 years. I'm in my 40th
year. I'm very familiar with it. This is the biggest and quite honestly one of the most conscientious boards I've ever appeared before. I've never seen hearings go this detailed and and people know their stuff here. No question. But I am allowed to address it when somebody on your board brings it up. And that's
all I'm saying. That's all I'm saying. But I guess the issue here and I is that Ralph cease and desist said the permit was for replacing 14 windows, same size, same location, replacing the siding, building a 20 x 12 deck. We'll just
we'll just ignore the sizing there and a canopy over the front door. Then pre-existing non-conforming structures or uses may be altered provided there's a finding. Read the >> read the first sentence is what Ralph is
saying was built without the permit. >> Right. >> No. >> After a recent site visit to your property, it was noted that you have constructed a second level addition >> which is not part of the permit issue. >> I think the second level addition is
that >> is that what the >> and the bump out. >> There's a bump out on the second floor. >> See, that's where I disagree. My issue here is the canopy over the front door, right? And if I'm almost say like but then there but there then there was
another thing from Ralph saying the only thing was >> the this but I really think they need to have a variance a finding for the canopy. I I agree with >> well yeah maybe case but that's not this >> but it's not in this petition. So,
right. So, I think we one we need to clarify that you also need a uh a finding for the canopy over the front door. >> No, we didn't >> again without Ralph here. >> Correct me if I'm wrong. He's just referencing what it was was there for
and he puts can be over the door because that's on my permit. I actually >> Right. But but then he also references pre-existing non-conforming structures or uses may be altered provided that there isn't a a there's a finding. Right. Replacing windows and replacing siding is not an alteration. Correct.
And the a guy. Right. >> Right. >> Canopy over the front door when there wasn't one >> is >> maybe. >> Yeah. But that's not done. But then again, I don't understand why the building of the 20 or 12 or 20 by 20
deck wasn't wasn't the original. Why wasn't that? >> Well, didn't didn't you say there was a deck there already? >> There was. >> There was. And there was a deck on the top floor as well. There was like a small. >> So, maybe that's the reason because there was already a deck there >> and it was already 12 by It was already 20 by 12.
>> No, no, it wasn't. It was a small small. >> It was 12 by 20. >> Yeah. That small upstairs was a small deck. >> There's a small deck above that small. But the one below, >> I'm talking about the one below. >> This this deck here
>> was 12 by 20. >> Then there was a small little kind of Romeo Juliet kind of decky kind of thing. >> That one was smaller. >> Yeah. So I think that's where the 12 by 20 got thrown in instead of the 20 by 20. Well, there was supposed to be a 20
by 12 upstairs and then the deck downstairs was going to be expanded to a 20 by 20. So, the existing 20 x 12 was going to be expanded to a 20 by 20 and then the one up was going to be expanded. >> That that one upstairs was never in the
original permit. So, >> yeah. So, that's why we had to >> Are you saying the second level? I don't know what that means. I I there was a second level addition put on on the east side of the property. There's no second level edition put on on the deck. >> There's a second level edition on the
deck. >> There's a second level edition on the deck. >> Yes, there is. Yeah. No, there's a there's a bump out. >> The bumpout >> that's supposed to be from our bedroom. >> It says second level edition in the first sentence. >> So, I I suppose he was referring to the east side of the property. >> No, he's referring to the back of the
house. >> Back of the house. >> That it's clear to me. >> Yep. I I would like to go back to uh Mr. Manad's U. uh thing about this is sufficient plans. Okay. That that not
more detriment substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. >> Are we talking about this plan? >> No. >> No, we're talking about >> this plan. >> No. >> Are we talking about >> this plan? >> That plan. >> Are we talking about
>> this plan? >> The crayon drawing >> that that Roger held up >> those. Okay. >> Yeah. those plans. >> Okay. Uh we talking about another one that's really quite nice. >> That's
the Yeah, >> that's just a rendition of what it's going to look like. >> But that's that's what it's supposed to look like when it's done. >> But so is this other that's a finished product. >> Yeah. >> That's a finished product. >> Well, that was coming that that those pictures are from our those are
>> when people are looking at this and looking at our decision. Which one was it? >> Well, that's what what the We would put if we put in decision based on these set, you know, identifying exactly what >> well >> because really all we what you're concerned about is the size of things
that it's going to be a 20 by 20 bump out with a with a roof on top. >> See the overhangs on this one? >> A bit a bit more. >> No, that's it doesn't. >> But that's not accurate. That's why we provided the >> No, no. What I'm saying is an overhang >> is uh goes into the neighborhood. So
that's that that's the picture that the picture that you're looking at was actually that's part of the original where you say it's not >> this is the canopy over the front door. >> But that's not what we have right now. >> That's what that's what this is what it says. >> No, it's it says that we have a permit for the canopy over the front door.
>> That's something you're going to want to look >> That image is what was submitted to the board like it's not a canopy. >> It's not a canopy. >> No, it's not a canopy. >> All right. Is there anything else you want to you want to bring up? No, I >> thought I got that. Yeah. >> Hi there. My name's Thomas Bassid. I
live at 231C. Uh if anybody would have a complaint here, it would be me. Half of my windows face that house and uh I don't think it's more detrimental and I I think it looks good. >> I don't have any complaints as a neighbor. >> Thank you. >> Just defended.
I just I'm just advising the board. >> Mhm. >> Even if I wasn't, I'd still be happy. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I live at 231A Tickle Road, the butter. My name's >> the rear the deck facing the wall. >> Yes. Yeah. >> Okay. Good. >> So, uh, my name is Jeremy Hardy. I'm a
constable with the town. I serve paperwork on behalf of Ralph all the time. >> I spoke to him once about a week and a half ago and then once Monday morning. He assured me several times that tonight they would be speaking about all of the problems with the building permits. I won't continue on, but he swore up and
down. I had nothing to worry about. He said getting an attorney was a waste of money and that they would discuss everything today. I'm I'm urging that you all get to see the property and speak personally with Ralph Soua before making a decision. And I think that's,
you know, the key here is that without Ralph here, >> we're only hearing he said, they said, >> he told me >> I agree. You should, you should all speak with Ralph personally. >> Getting, you know, the, you know, the, you know, the bottom line on this, I think, is is is important.
>> You get the fuller picture before. >> Yeah. As I said, I said I I from what I can see here it >> I would say >> now I don't want to interrupt you but but I I have a question for attorney Blake. Now right now our petition is
specifically for for this rear death if in finding >> if in fact there are other aspects of this that should be a finding is it another application or can we amend this? Well, I think we we would need to understand what what Ralph
>> permitted >> what he peritted and what his position was with respect to you got to get a finding, right? So, at that point, I think that you could issue the finding for the back. But if Ralph says, "Yeah, and that front whatever bump back what
whatever we are talking about needs one too," then the applicant's going to have to come back in for >> for a second one. Okay. >> A separate one, separate application. Well, I don't I mean, you know, I I think what he ought to do is the applicant ought to do is he ought to go talk with Ralph tomorrow morning and
find out exactly what Ralph was envisioning when he wrote this and exactly what he needs to do. And then I think at that point he could probably amend his application for the and for the next >> Can he will he actually do that? Amend the application to include other aspects
of this? I I think he probably could provided there's sufficient notice. Well, I mean, what is this? Yeah, we'd have a rough time with with the notice. Yeah, he'd probably have to put in a new application and we'd have to renotice it. >> But we can also but we can hear it together.
>> Oh, you certainly if if you're if the notice works out, then yes. >> Right. Is there any way we could do that where where the applicant wouldn't have to pay another application? >> That's up to you. You know, waiver is up to the town. It's not
>> We have that ability. >> I haven't really looked through your entire bylaw on that. So, I I can't answer that. I don't feel comfortable. >> We passed when when we've had some things, for example, for the town, can we wave it? We I always question whether we had the authority to wave a thing and
I've never got an answer. Yeah. Well, um I'll write that down and we'll find out. >> Okay. Um is there anything else you want to add? >> No, I just I would just request again that you guys speak with Ralph personally. >> Yeah. Thank you very much for your time. >> Are you the butter as well? >> Yes. So I
>> I'm her son-in-law. Okay. >> Yeah. And I'm a constable, so I serve paperwork for Ralph all the time. I've seen way less problematic papers that I've served than this. >> So I have pretty uh
I have a work order from him when after he stopped my work order. It says after recent site visit to your property 2 231b to the road you may continue work to secure the building from the elements. No workers allowed on the portion of the building that is being reviewed by the zoning boards.
That's the back. This full permission >> okay >> to go into and start everything else into the building. Um, I'm thinking here we're I'm thinking we're going to have to continue this at least to get Ralph's ground truth on this. Yeah. Because right now we're hearing a lot of
>> and and even what he wrote isn't entirely clear. >> Right. >> Right. >> So, you know, exactly what part of this has been approved, which part of it is under uh needs a finding. I think I think we really need ground truth from
from Ralph. Uh so I I'm I'm going to suggest that we continue this and and if we if we do decide to continue with this does not count against your continue uh the way this works is you pay a $500 fee for this meeting. Uh
we continue things sometime because you just don't have all the information that we need and and we continue it. You get one for free. >> Mhm. >> But if you don't come in with the with all the information then the second one you have to pay $100 for. But if we continue it, it doesn't come accord your
count against your clock, >> right? And we're continuing it because we want to see >> how long, right? >> We can decide what the time frame is >> because >> I mean I mean obviously you want to do this as quick as possible because you're holding up all your work. >> Yeah. So right now they can't continue siding the house right until
>> we, you know, we can schedule it to whenever you know meets everybody's requirement. You know, obviously we need to get Ralph in here. Uh, I've already seen that the site. Everybody else wants to go look at the site. >> I want to address uh Attorney Blake's uh
opinion uh about uh if if um Ralph decides that something else needs to be done or it's in violation or going to tear it down or whatever. Uh if we amend the uh >> Well, you said we can't a we have to
make a new one. >> Right. So that Right. So we said a new one. >> Right. So that means that um our continuation is is not part of that new one, >> right? >> The new one is a new one. >> The new one is a new one. >> And so I just want to be clear that
that's what we're do dealing with. And that applicant is then hung up for another $500 fee. >> Yes. >> And I just want to make that clear. Yes. Versus $100 of >> Right. Yes. If Ralph says that we need a
uh a finding for something that wasn't covered under the original petition, >> Yeah. >> then we're going to need another petition. >> Is it can it be done? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, I mean it so that doesn't affect >> if >> the construction because if we need I I
think we may need to have another finding for the canopy. But but the fact that it's done right >> doesn't like the speed in which we do that isn't isn't not is imperative because here he can't do anything else and there's damage occurring
>> and we want to do that this part as expediently as we possibly can. >> So can almost falls in the same situation that you can't stop siding there >> until that is until that whole side's done. So once >> so right now what they've been doing is they've been siding up to a certain
point stopping Once again, if this canopy, which is on the permit, is now all of a sudden an issue. I have two concerns about this. Why wasn't it put in on this one to where I could file a finding on hold one? >> And where I'm finding I'm battling two points where you just keep moving the
goal post. >> Well, no, I think because there's two goalkeepers. Ralph said one thing that he you may or may not understood completely. We're saying one thing. >> So Ralph But Ralph may come back and say you don't need a finding for that. And then then you're okay. If you know if we
need a finding for that then we'll then >> I have multiple emails with Ralph side candidate he had a lot of questions about it I looked up some court rulings and all that stuff and then even in his work order where he allows me to start work again the only thing he me I can't go >> right in which case then in which case
you're confident that he's going to come in and say that you don't need a finding for that >> yeah I would >> but you know we'd like to hear from him >> I would be pretty concerned if he did just because why wouldn't that be on this I do one >> as as we would have a concern with that as well. >> Yes. What's a good time? >> Are you talking a couple of weeks?
You're talking a month? U from my standpoint yesterday. >> Yeah. You guys, you're the one that needs >> We we don't haveed everything. >> This is an appeals. Uh so we work, we don't have a schedule saying it's always
uh the third Wednesday of the month. We could do it next week. >> We could do it tomorrow afternoon. >> We can't do it tomorrow afternoon. >> Correct me if I'm wrong. From what I've heard today, you guys want from Ralph more than you want. >> Correct. >> As far as that goes, I don't really I
mean, I've presented everything I can present. >> I don't have anything else to present to anybody, >> but we can't have a meeting with Ralph, right? >> No, no, no. We would have to We would >> Well, excuse me. If you're going to do that, you got to come up here and
>> Oops. >> I'm Patricia Leah. I'm the Butter and >> uh at an address >> at Yeah. 231A. >> Okay. >> The only thing I'm concerned with, and I have emails from Ralph, too. I had spoken to him and I said, "You need a
variance because I saw that the the bumpout he did was so close to the house. >> This is the only thing I've been in contact the the canopy with the cement patio. >> It's the cement patio was up against my foundation. I know you don't care about all that, but I'm just saying the
situations." and he said he had a permit for everything, but as you can see in the original application, there's no setbacks. It he bumped out and he actually put it an addition top and bottom. That's all I'm concerned with.
>> I'm a you know, like how would you feel if someone's just doing the the the the hood of it comes down as far as my balcony that was done with a variance the correct way you're supposed to do it. That's all I'm asking. >> Okay. >> Okay.
>> That's all I'm asking >> to to to to just so I'm clear what your issues are. Your issues are with this. >> No. >> No. >> No. Not at all. >> No. You got the wrong Yeah. That's what I'm saying. You're just worried. >> I would I would say to you, >> go do the front.
>> Go do the front. I am not It's I spoke with you about that. >> Yeah. >> The roofers and I said that's a fire issue. You need a variance. So there seems to be a disconnect between what Ralph said to you and what and what >> and he told us I'm the one that I I got
the emails where I said come and check this out. He did and he said to you this has to come down and you said I'm not taking it but I >> I'd love to speak to Mr. but he's represented by council who was actually here earlier was represented by Mr. marking the superior court action. So I
can't speak to them directly, but I will represent to the board that my client exactly what she said. She's not >> I'm not I'm not trying to you would feel that way. Hang on a second about the about the deck in the back and all of that. >> It's very unclear and I think it's
unclear to the board what he was seeking a finding for. >> Well, he needs a fine definitely for this. >> Well, I don't know. You just said the candy. She told >> No, no, no, no, no. She I just want to know what her issue >> what her thing was. >> But he said there's a permit for the canopy. >> There was >> but the canopy she's talking about was
on the other east side. >> So we don't know. >> Yeah, I know. No, I I I got it. I see where I see to or what relief because all due respect to Mr. I can't do what he does for a living. He can't do what I do whatever he does for a living. But my
point is the application is not clear to me because to me it's crystal clear that there's more than one expansion of a pre-existing non-conforming use. >> We agree. >> Why would you ask? >> Well, >> I don't know. >> But that's the reason why
Ralph say because he may have decided that the >> what you call it the the porch canopy >> is does not require a >> I don't know >> finding. I don't know. I mean that's that's >> I have a question what said
>> so we're going to Ralph to answer on this back >> you just heard from her. She's not worried about the back piece. He's worried about the side. >> Yep. >> Why can't we just do the finding for this on the back piece now that the neighbor is not even concerned about the back piece? I understand her side. There
are some things and if you were we had a conversation about this. The vinyl siding I put on this is James Hardy vinyl siding is non-combustible. It's a almost a fireproof. >> But you also put it on the addition today. They they >> Yeah, they're doing it. But that but that but that vinyl sighting is actually
I wouldn't put it because the houses are so >> it's on the addition that >> it's it's not combustible. And I can show I can show we can step out and we can have a conversation. I can show you all really quick. We She really doesn't want anything to get damaged or anything. We'll come back as quick as you can if you can help
Ralph here. I know you only meet when you meet once a month. No, we >> No, we we meet whenever we quiet, >> but we are trying to speak their findings. We're willing to come back. >> We got to know their findings if that's what they say we need to do. >> We don't need to know because it's a continuation. Anybody whoever to
accommodate them wants she's going to live there forever. She wants to get along with them these issues and we need we need definition of what this is. Yeah, we need right now we need ground truth truth on what's been approved and what and what does Ralph require as a
finding. Those are the two things that we need and we don't and and there's conflict between even his own paperwork of what that is. She says she's okay with doing the back. He says he's willing to come back for a second finding. So why don't we just
>> deal with this tonight? >> Get this sorted out and then they have to come back. Well, if it's a condition that that's that nothing else goes on, I don't know if this board's empowered to do that, council could say. But if there's no if if there's a condition that he doesn't until we get a
determination from from Ralph that this other bill doesn't need >> I want to hear from Ralph. >> But Ralph can go out there and say he can but he can do that tomorrow and and and require us a finding for that aspect. >> That's correct. right
>> now. They need to get some work done to to >> you know what? Let's just >> take care of their house. Their their house is going to get damage. We got storms coming. >> We also need to look out for that. Why Why make them pay extra for damage?
>> No, he authorizes the building authoriz especially with the siding that I I purchased. This is a very expensive siding. It's non-combustible. It's one of the most expensive sides you get. They can't continue until certain points. So everything stays exposed. If there's no issue with the back as what
just said and I understand her she's frustrated with this side piece. I have pictures and and I'm more than willing to show you everything. A lot of the stuff was already there. There was retaining walls there. You probably didn't see it because the approvities were covering everything, but there a lot of that stuff I just went over the top of. But that being said, if it's a
side issue that Ralph is going to have a problem with, then Ralph can bring it up and we can deal with that. Well, in the meantime, why can't I just We have a vote on this finding in the back. It's non It's more n not more detrimental. She's not even concerned about the back piece. Like I've said, it's just the
side piece that I do have a permit for. It should have This should have been proposed to me. I'm not a contractor. I I had a contract that they talked to Ralph. >> We already We've been through this. >> Roger. How many votes do we need to pass? >> Three. >> So, three yes
>> for three yes and two no. is okay. >> Yes. >> I guess the only thing that I would worry about that I know that I'm concerned about I'd like to talk to Ralph. >> How would you like to talk to Ralph? I think Jerry would like to call. If we
vote right now, there's a chance we vote against you. I >> if we vote after we speak to Ralph, >> there might be a better chance, >> right, >> that you're gonna we're going to vote it after we go. >> I have a suggestion that that might
accommodate that. Uh and that is uh I I really believe that this is a little different than your typical uh I want to build a house on a small lot or whatever. Uh and and we already said that we'd like to see it. Okay. So my
suggestion would be if we could do a u an on-site. >> Yeah. >> And that could be that can be a regular meeting uh you know posted >> that's two weeks though is how many days? >> 48 days.
>> No no no. No no no not if it's a continuation of this one. >> Right. >> Okay. >> There there is no notice. >> There is notice. >> Yeah. There's an open meeting law notice. >> Yeah. >> 48. But you can do an onsite like >> you do an onsite on the weekend. >> Yeah. So what I'm saying
>> which we usually do a Saturday, >> right? So I'm suggesting we do a Saturday. We try to get Ralph there. >> Ralph, >> it's all done. Yeah. >> And and then we could actually vote. >> I would like I would like to have >> we we could schedule a meeting for next Wednesday.
>> No, no, >> we don't even have to. >> You can't this room is being u used. It's >> there's another meeting. Oh, there's another meeting here. >> But we wouldn't go Thursday. >> You can vote it right if >> we can vote. No, we could we can notice we can vote it right on on site. Uh
>> so understand if if you notice a meeting for his property. >> It's an open meeting law. People, anybody from the public can come, right? >> It has to be accessible. >> Yeah. If they can find it >> and it has to be accessible. >> Also, this construction stuff laying
waiting around there. Like I I wouldn't be bringing a ton of people down there. People aren't going to show up. >> Okay. Well, I was trying to >> I mean, you can't have it both. Why do you We're trying to accommodate >> you. I don't care if you go, but like as he just brought up, you got random people that show up. I mean, >> I mean, that would be concern.
>> I think it's only the neighbors that would show up. I don't think we've never had random people show up. >> Random people are going to be >> I mean, I've never done this before, so >> I'm trying to address your concern. >> We're trying to help. >> No, I understand. or or or we we just go
for an on-site. We don't have any discussion, >> right? Just like >> and then we bring Ralph in >> next week. We start all this over again. >> Um >> or next not Wednesday. >> I'd like actually Ralph at the out on site. >> Yeah. >> I think it would be instru and that's
why we can't do it on a Saturday then because he doesn't work on Saturdays, right? We had to do >> we would I mean I did again I don't want to push Ralph to do something but I think it would be for me it would be helpful if Ralph was there >> during the on-site only to point out
things >> right >> I have a question and back to what Mr. Bernard was trying to focus us on is just um focusing on what we would need to have a um a finding on. I rereading Ralph's letter a number of times and
hearing everybody talk I think if we look at the first sentence it's pretty clear that he only called out one aspect of the project that is not permitted and that's he says a second level addition which I think is that 8 foot bumpout. So is that is that sufficient detail if we
just ignore the rest of the perhaps ambiguities he's affirmatively said the one portion that's not permitted >> is that enough to to ask to to go with a um >> I think the decision now >> have
the be an issue with the back well I'm back front uh the north side I guess >> well I just don't see any other reading of his that that's the only part that he found that's not permitted. >> Um, and with that, there was something
else I noticed is that I don't think we went in any detail about why that would be further detriment than what was already permitted. >> That's just something I noticed >> as far as blocking view or creating additional runoff.
>> Unfortunately, >> I don't know. I just I just put it out to him if we voted tonight without talking to Ralph there the decision may not be as favorable as he would like that there'd be a better chance of a more favorable decision after we spoke
to Ralph >> because people are still confused about >> so >> what what is actually approved and so I mean he can he >> I was just wondering if he agreed that that was the one I'm not confused that was the one thing he called anybody else is then if the chair is okay with us taking a
vote tonight. >> No, that's not the way it works. It's, you know, it's it's it's it's the the board, >> right? We would vote. >> So, somebody has to make a motion to I think somebody needs to make a motion tonight, >> you know, and >> I I think there's enough confusion that I would like to hear from Ralph as well.
>> Okay. >> Because I'm I'm not entirely sure what what aspects have been actually approved, >> right? And which and so I'd like to hear it from Ralph. >> Yeah. >> Because even his own letter isn't >> clear.
>> Really really clear. >> No, it's not. >> So well, there could be another issue where where uh they initially spoke unless we actually saw >> that that corner that seems to be the issue. uh unless we actually saw it on a
written plan uh and approved then uh I think that would become an issue and then they'd have to start all over and come here for >> is is two weeks going to cause you major headache. >> Tyveck Tyveck's good for a year. >> Oh, it's we're getting close. I mean I
mean it's been up for a while. I mean >> especially the I think the new stuff lasts even longer. >> Yeah. One concern that I have like right now is it kind of >> I think it needs some cheering up. >> Ralph is playing both sides of the fence according to what they're saying according to what I have with Ralph. Uh
I mean the other concern and I'm not saying this is the case but I mean the fact that he does serve papers and he he's friendly with Ralph. I don't know if Ralph just doesn't want to start trouble there. Rob's like that's like in personality it's you know there's enough >> I have like I know the emails I didn't bring them because I didn't think this
was going to go this so salt like this but I have the emails where he's like he's told me on site hey just send me the emails what you have and then I've never heard anything else from him >> I think if you haven't I'm still asking >> if we're going to continue this we could continue >> two weeks I mean what would I need to do
to feel comfortable >> because this we can't use this next Wednesday we could do next Thursday >> yeah it doesn't have to be a Wednesday doesn't really have to be a Wednesday. >> No, not at all. We could if we could do a um an onsite on site >> Saturday or whenever. >> Yep. >> Uh before that. And uh and if Ralph
could be there, wonderful. >> If not, but we got to make sure that Ralph can be here on the Thursday. I mean, I know we need to really like >> I got to be fine with Thursday. >> Wednesday. >> Oh, I know what >> But like you I'd rather see Ralph be at the on-site if possible.
>> Yeah. Can we do the on-site on Monday and then uh either take a vote then or or reconvene for Thursday? We're not going to vote on the offsite. >> Okay. Well, okay. >> It's a holiday. Monday the 20th, so Ralph wouldn't be working. >> Patriots day. >> Yeah, we can't.
>> We can't meet on a on a holiday. >> Okay. Yeah. I'm okay with the Oh, I I can do the morning on on site on Saturday and I promise I'll remember. >> All right. So, are we going to Are we >> Can we get Ralph >> going on Saturday or We don't know.
>> We can't get I mean, we can't I mean, if it'd be nice if we contact Ralph now, but I I wouldn't call him at 9:30 at night. >> 9:30. >> So, somebody just lets us know tomorrow. >> So, yeah. could maybe >> do we have to say when we're doing the onsite in this meeting?
>> You can you can continue this me this hearing. Right. >> If you go on site, you can't talk. >> Right. >> Right. Right. >> You can't say a word. >> I don't think it's going to really help unless Ralph is at the onsite and we're able to I just I don't think it's going to help us that much.
>> We can't talk to him. >> You're saying I'm sorry. >> No, you can't you can't >> even though he's there, we can't talk. The and the AG is clamped down a law. >> You mean >> like you can't say anything, right? >> Well, and and but would we have to give
a twoe notice in order to have an on-site? We can't ever do that. We can't have an on-site with a building inspector and ask questions even if it's a public meeting. >> If it's a public meeting, you can. But right, >> you have to let everybody on. And this
is the big one I keep repeating. It has to be accessible. Meaning people with wheelchairs got to be able to go down. >> Oh. So even though we know that no one with wheelchairs will probably show up, the fact that it isn't accessible is probably accessible if you have an
all-wheel drive wheelchair. >> And it it very well may be, you know, this one very well may be a flat. Most of the site visits people take her off in the woods and stuff. >> Yeah, this is not flat. >> But then
>> let the other alternative I may suggest council is that you go in different shifts. >> Yeah. >> So to not to not violate the open viol. >> So yes, I'm not going to go. I've already seen the place. >> Have Ralph meet you down there. Two. You
go down, >> right? That's the way to do it. >> Poor Ralph. >> Don't have a quorum. >> All of it. >> So two at a time. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> We don't. And you don't have to you don't have to notice it. >> You can go four, but two are going to sit in the car
>> and not be part of it. >> And then they'll talk you can talk to Ralph and then two others can go down and talk to Ralph. >> Long as they're not all together. >> Kevin, did you know this was going to be so much fun? >> Oh jeez. was 40 years ago.
>> So, I apologize. >> So, we're continuing. But if we're Doesn't he want to know when we're continuing the hearing? Yeah, you're not leaving, right? >> I'm not leaving right now. >> Okay, good. I thought you were Yeah, I just thought you were leaving. That's all right. >> All right. Um
>> I mean, it'd be really good. I mean, it's uh we got to get Ralph, but it's a matter of >> Can I make a suggestion? >> Yeah. >> We We don't know if Ralph's going to be available on the day that you guys want to go down. >> Well, I'm not worried so much about going down there, but we need him for the meeting, >> right?
>> See, but but we have to we can't assign a TBD date. It has to be date certain. >> Yeah. We can't say, "Well, whenever Ralph is ready, we'll have a meeting." We can't do that. We have to pick a pick a date and say it's going to be what we can do is and
>> can we all >> what we could we can do is we could assign it to next Thursday and if you can't come we'll continue it to the next Monday. >> Yeah, >> you know when we can actually get them >> one person can show up and continue a meeting. >> The only thing you can do without a quorum. >> Is that right?
>> Is what? >> Continue a meeting. >> Continue a meeting. >> So I could just come and say we're continuing it everybody. And is that right? Oh, all right. >> Or we can just have a Zoom meeting. >> We're going to tell you this. I'll see you later. So, >> we can just come in and >> Oh, how does that sound?
>> We don't know what Ralph schedule is. >> So, >> and we know the the schedule of this room next Thursday at the moment. I was just going to ask you, is there a public uh publicly accessible uh schedule for this room? >> They still haven't done that yet, have they? >> They haven't done
>> Wait, what was Wednesday that they can't that's going to be here? >> You're involved. >> It's our meeting. you're meeting out. >> Well, she can come here Wednesday and discontinue it >> if she has to. >> Yeah, we could actually go down We could actually go down the hall, but >> Yeah. I mean, exactly. I don't think we need this room. I mean,
>> well, we you know, we actually going to have we're probably going to have this many people. So, down the room down the hall is probably going to be a little >> We really need this room. >> Can we just do Thursdays? >> Thursday. >> Thursday. >> 23rd. >> Thursday. >> Thursday. Okay. And then if Ralph can't come, we'll just automatically continue
it. >> And we'll find out when when the Ralph can't look at me like that. >> Okay. So, no. So, when the meeting no >> I think the meeting is Thursday and it might be continued to Monday if
available. >> Can I just ask a question? So, can I just Excuse me. Okay. So, forget about the site visit. Let's just go there. Make sure. Is it going to be okay for us to bring our cars down and come to your >> cars? You won't be able to go down.
>> Well, you can you can >> the road. You have to park up top of the hill. >> Well, you have to park about 50 feet away. Well, I'm not even that far. >> Well, whatever. I mean, I can walk down that far. >> Cars. >> You can fit two or three cars. >> Okay. But I mean, I'm just saying we don't have to come together if
especially if if we're not going to have route there. There's not It doesn't really matter. But I think people were a little uh apprehensive about driving all the way down there and stuff because it's very private. >> So um so so the neighborhood doesn't
have a problem if we if our different cars go down and and walk around the site and see it and then we meet. We can just do it. >> So we don't really need to do a siphon. We can just all go by our own ourselves. We can't talk, >> right? Because because Ralph's not going to come anyway. And that was the point.
>> I would suggest that you have someone to show you around. >> It's very confusing. >> I don't know. I found it. There's a little sign says if you want if you want to go down here. Yeah. You got to go down there. >> I could find it. I was just I just I just was like I didn't want to like I had a big truck and I didn't want to
come down and have all the neighbors come like zooming at me. >> As long as you know we're coming. >> Okay. I'll make a motion that we continue this till uh next Thursday at 6:30. April 23rd. >> April 23rd. >> April 23rd.
>> I second. >> Uh is there anything? >> Monday is not going to be available. >> What's that? >> 27th is select. >> Yeah. >> So this room won't be available. >> Yeah, right. Thursday. >> If we have to if we have to continue
from Thursday, then it can't be Monday because I actually can't be here on Monday anyway. >> Well, yeah, we wouldn't. Yeah, >> we'd have to redo that. So >> we have to come back here >> the 23rd. Yes. >> What' you say about the this room? >> Select board on the 27th.
>> We're talking the 23rd, right? >> You know for the 23rd. Anybody? >> We're talking Thursday. >> Thursday. >> Thursday the 23rd. >> She would know. >> Val, is that okay? >> 23rd. >> I guess there's nothing on the schedule. >> Okay. But but you've got the Wednesday
one on the schedule and >> No, I'm looking at what's what's been posted. It's hard to tell because they don't post till two days, >> right? >> The 22nd is scheduled, >> right? Yes. >> Yeah. But in difference to your
situation, >> first come, first serve. >> So we >> Well, that's assuming they have to schedule Paula. >> Yeah. So with your >> 23rd. That's what I'm saying. >> Yes. The 23rd. The 22nd's already scheduled and so is the 22.
>> All right. I make a motion that we continue this hearing until the 23rd uh April at 6:30. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Seconded already. >> Oh, you seconded already. Uh all in favor say I. >> I. >> I. All oppose. No. So we will see you.
>> Your eyes have it >> next Thursday. >> And hopefully these >> they can get down and take a look at your property. >> Um >> okay. Uh Right. >> The only other thing I have is
>> Are we going to agree that we're all just going to go there by ourselves? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> I'll take my mini track and get anywhere. >> Yeah. I mean, it's you sort of got to >> Well, I went down there and I saw the house and I saw the a van, but I was like, >> when you when you get down the van, just
keep walking towards the water. >> Yeah, >> because that's where it is. Okay. Um, meeting minutes for March 11th, 2026. Uh, Maria's generos. >> Uh, anyway, uh, Maria's generated the meeting minutes. I know we've all
commented on them. >> Uh, so I make a motion that we approve the March 11th, 2026 meeting minutes. I have a second. >> Second. >> All in favor say I. >> I. All oppose? No. Okay, good. I can sign this off. Any other business? Uh, other than uh
>> I think Cynthia has to sign those because she presided. >> Oh. Oh, you were. Is that >> bring them over? >> Uh, you got it. >> You missed my debut. >> Oh, all right. >> Oh, >> oh, you were the >> She was it was >> she was she was chair for the day. >> Where do I got to in the back or in the
top? >> Oh, there we go. >> Okay. Uh, town meeting is what? Uth >> May 5th. >> May 5th. >> Oh, wow. >> And there's a bunch of zoning things on it, so you know, may want to
>> read them. may want to be there. >> What time is the time >> or do we have to wait till the very end of the meeting as usual? >> Yeah, I think so. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Anyone know whether they >> did the planning board hold >> Oh, that's my job.
>> public hearing on the uh uh village zoning issue >> on the what? >> On the village zoning. >> Oh, familiar with that? >> No. No. >> Okay. Right now it only pertains to Adams. Mhm.
>> It's supposed to Well, when we first talked about it, it was going to be at least four villages, possibly five with some. So, >> this is all the villages. So, it' be Central Village. >> This one is only going to be Adamsville.
It was originally meant to be talked about. >> Okay. West. >> Yes. Sun Village is already it own commercial. >> The point. >> Anyway, um >> probably the point. Yeah, >> but I'm just wondering
>> we haven't adjourned the meeting. >> Oh, >> I know. But >> because put kids to bed. >> I make a motion >> because it's my job. I make a motion to adjourn the meeting. >> I second. >> Wait, wait, wait. No, wait a second. >> We don't have That's not meeting
material. >> You're still talking. >> I don't care whether you hear I know. Go ahead. But uh I'm assuming you guys all knew too. >> Yes. >> But this is something we've been looking at for a long time. But um right now the planning board has taken it upon
yourselves to meet uh amongst themselves and then also with the planning people uh of Rhode Island. >> Yeah, I read that >> to uh plan this stuff. Uh only five lots in Adamsville are involved with this,
including the one with the with the uh little travel trailer. Okay. And uh that's coming up at this town meeting. >> Oh, yes. >> My question is, do you know if they've had or intend to have a public meeting? I I've been involved with this for a
long time, >> but they haven't involved me at all in this >> No, it doesn't hurt. No, I just read about in the paper. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So, I don't I don't know. >> Yeah. So, this will eventually we expect
go to the other bill, >> whatever. And basically, it it's to set some guidelines that would allow by right uh certain kinds of businesses to be in those area. The point being
another one >> they're going to they're going to reszone that as as >> Yeah. But not not reszoning it. They're just making I don't know. I call it an overlay. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's you know. >> So, >> we got to we got to we Somebody just got hurt out there. >> Yeah. So, okay.
>> She fell down the stairs. >> Really? >> All right. Let's go ahead. >> All right. I make a motion to adjurnn the meeting. >> I second. >> I 15. All >> in favor?