This is >> There's another one here. >> Recording in progress. >> The chairman. >> Yeah, I'll be right with you. >> All right. I'll turn my video on here. Okay, there I am.
>> How's everybody doing tonight? >> Doing good. >> How are you? >> Everybody hear me? Okay. >> All right. We all ready to go? >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. >> All right. Uh, good evening. My name is Sean Iiggo. I'm the chairman of the Yama
Zoning Board of Appeals. We will now convene the February 12th, 2026 meeting of the Yama Zoning Board of Appeals. This is a hybrid meeting and it is being recorded. We will begin by taking a roll call for a quorum. Mr. Martin
>> here, >> Mr. Manon >> here, >> Miss Murphy >> here, >> and Mr. Panabiano >> here. Okay. And I am here as well. With a quorum present, I will now call the meeting to order.
The first matter on our agenda is petition 5005, Blue Sky Towers 3 LLC, doing business as BSTMA LLC. Property is located at 1044 Route
28 Yarmouth, Mass. It's in a B2 zoning district in an HMOD1 and VC3. The applicant seeks a special permit per 103.2.2 and section 408 to construct a 110 ft
wireless telecommunications facility tower. The hearing is held pursuant to the district court's remand order of January 5th, 2026. Case number 123-CV12
3334. Are the petitioners present? If so, please come forward. >> Hi, good evening everyone. Uh, thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chair. >> Matt Preventure. I represent the board of appeals in the district court litigation that was referenced. Um, I
just wanted to do a little table setting. Um, we had discussed this previously. Um, I had talked with the board in a private session about whether it would be willing to accept a remand of this project to hold a new hearing on the remand. Um, the project design principles have revised some plans.
They're going to make some changes. I think they're going to ready to go over each of those with you tonight. I know there was some questions. I advised them through their attorney of what the board's likely concerns would be, what information it would want to hear during this process. And so you should be able to expect that you can present to them
any questions or concerns that you have and figure out what it looks like. I know that the original >> Sorry, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to wait for someone's phone to stop ringing. Um >> uh the original announcement maintains the uh the proposal formally for the 110
ft tower. You'll hear about what changes have been made, what the new plans expect to show. Those should have been dropped off in hard copy and they you should have an electronic copy available. If you want to make reference to any of those, I'm sure they're prepared to field any questions. Um, do you have any questions for me before you start hearing anything on the renewed
application? This is just a regular special permit hearing. It's as though you were hearing it for the first time. Procedures depending on how this hearing goes may vary, but as to what your duties have to be, they're exactly the same as you would be if you were hearing this as a special permit application in the first instance.
Does anyone have uh questions for our council? >> No. >> Okay. So, that I will turn it over to the representatives from Blue Sky. They have an attorney here and they also have one of the principles of that firm here to discuss it with you. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Attorney
Prevention. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, staff, uh good evening. My name is Earl Duval. I'm with the law firm of Duval and Associates. Uh I'm here tonight on behalf of Blue Sky Towers. Uh with me this evening is Shawn Gormley, and Shawn
is a project manager uh for this specific uh project. >> Okay. So, I' I'd first like to think uh thank uh Matt for uh setting the table for us. Um as you all know, this is a uh you
know, based upon a joint uh motion to remand uh back to this board. So, it was agreed upon through uh litigation uh by council for uh Blue Sky and council for uh the town. Um I I think it's probably helpful for everyone for
me to just give a little bit of, you know, a brief history as to uh the first uh application, you know, that was filed or the the subject matter here and then highlight what the um changes are to uh
what is being uh proposed um you know this evening. Uh, and I think it might be helpful for you folks. And I think I saw I think you have the plans there in front of you if you flip to sheet
A4. That's the compound plan and elevation uh plan. Uh so as you folks may uh recall this uh the original uh proposal 110 foot monopole style tower uh that went to the
Cape Cod Commission was approved by the Cape Cod Commission uh came back to town went through the design review committee and as a result of uh work with the design review committee we ended up with uh what uh you folks are probably most
familiar with the threephase uh clock tower. Um that three-phase clock tower um was going to sit uh within a 55 foot by 60 ft fenced uh compound on a 100 by
100 uh leased area uh that we have. Um we had um two carriers uh uh at that time. T-Mobile uh was going to be at 105 foot uh center line. AT&T
was going to be at 93 foot uh center line. Uh the clock tower again 110 ft tall. The top of the um the roof uh extended up to 115 uh feet. Uh so that
was the um you know original um proposal and what was uh denied uh by this board. So throughout uh the litigation and some mediation and negotiations um what we have come up with uh what the
discussion had been um is we still uh have a 100 by 100 leased area uh with the church. Um we're still having a fenced compound of 55 feet by uh 60
feet. uh but rather than the uh 115 foot um three-phase clock tower, what is being proposed and you can see that there on sheet A4 is a 93 foot uh
monopole style uh tower. Now you'll see on there that um Verizon W I mean Verizon AT&T um would be at a 86 foot uh center line. the top of that um antenna would extend to the 90 foot
um mark. And then from 90 to 93 is is the uh separation space that would need to uh exist between the top of AT&T's um antennas and the top of that uh structure so that the town could put
public safety equipment on there. So again 90 uh 93 foot monopole 86 foot uh center line for AT&T and uh the re the need for the three feet is for uh
interference between potential interference between uh AT&T and a town um antenna. the uh the compound was moved
uh 28 1/2 ft to the west and 30 ft uh just over 30 feet to the south. Uh the reason for this move uh throughout discussions was to be able to preserve the um the existing tree buffer uh as
much as possible and also uh to move us uh further away from the uh the tree line uh for any and all digging so that we would not disturb or would disturb less uh any uh root systems that that might be there.
Uh there's uh discussion um uh with regards to if there was any damage to any of the uh trees and any of the limbs uh you know were to die that those uh limbs would be taken down because you'll you'll note on
not only just sheet A4 but if we uh go to A5 there's a planting um plan and there's a significant amount of uh plants that would be um you know planted around the perimeter of the um the site
uh there. So that's sort of the overview of the the differences and the reason for the move. the board has any questions. >> Does anyone have any questions for uh
council for the petitioner? >> Um I have one anyways. >> The uh is the parking number of parking spaces the same for the church >> or the encroach or something without?
We're actually um we have to get access into the facility itself. So if you look at that um right the A4 drawing we're we're taking up approximately it looks like two spaces maybe two and a half. But in general um
these facilities don't get a lot of traffic. So if there are services on a Sunday or you know funeral during the week um parking there will most likely not be a problem you know um these sites are frequented approximately once a
month by the carrier. >> Okay. Uh so we've gone down in height uh what about 20 feet or so? >> Uh 22 feet I think. Yeah. 115 to 93.
Yes. And no no more design just a place basic uh >> monopole style. Correct. >> Okay. I don't have anything else yet. >> Just give me some perspective. How many
compared to a building? How many stories high is this monopole? >> Add to the block. >> No. Just helps me think better. I don't know what 98 feet is. >> Approximately eight, you know, usually >> eight stories
>> about eight levels. Yeah, correct. It's usually about 12 ft per story. >> Okay. >> Approximately depending upon the actual construction >> and the plantings is there any chance I mean they're >> 3 to four feet.
So, so increase the in, you know, the size of those initially. >> That's not going to help much. Three feet. >> We do, one thing to note, too, we do have a uh solid wood fence around the compound, so you're not going to be able to really see inside the compound, see
the equipment. >> So, these plies are just sort of to buffer that. >> Yeah. And they'll obviously they'll grow over time. >> Yeah. Okay. All right. That's what I have have right now, but I may come back with more. >> Okay, Mr. Manony,
>> is AT&T the only carrier on the poll as of now? >> Uh, I believe that there's uh an agreement also signed with um T-Mobile T in in and how many more can can be added?
>> Look at uh sheet um A4 again, which is the tower elevation. >> Yeah. Um it's four >> three >> three plus the town. >> Yeah. >> In not including the town. >> Not including the town. Right.
>> And ju just one more question. You said it you moved the location. I think you said 30 feet west. I didn't. And then south >> 28 and a half feet um to the west and 30 feet to the south. And the the reason
for that was to be able to stay outside of the existing uh tree buffer as much as possible. >> So you're moving closer to Route 28 >> away >> away >> away. Yeah. >> Not because if I look at the original
plan, it looks like it's the exact same location, but um that's all right. I mean, if you're telling me you moved it. So, we're going what? Up closer to uh Long Pond. >> I think that's correct. >> Yeah. Okay.
>> Be further away from >> 28. >> Yeah. Okay. >> And a little to the left. Not by much. >> Gotcha. I >> I do have a visual here if you'd like me to share that. It shows the It's just of the
You want to see that? >> Sure. >> Why not? >> Yeah. Thank you. If >> I may just show the >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Is there a a gradient? Sorry if I'm
>> No, go ahead. Yeah, I'll have to >> Is there a a gradient difference from the location of the prior plan to the current plan from where the tower is going wanting to be? >> It's approximately the same elevation. >> I've been over there, so I think it's flat. But, uh, in the new plan, you have
the AMSL listed, but in the old plan, you don't. Do you know what it is on the old plan where the top of the tower would be >> the AMSL and the old? >> Yeah, >> the original. >> I don't I'm just not looking. Maybe it's on there and I'm not seeing it. But >> yeah, actually, if you give me a second,
I I can I have the old >> Oh, you do? So, would be 12.6. So be 12.6 approximately and then plus uh 115 about 124 125
AMSL difference. >> That's all I had. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, in terms of the antennas, I I see a potential of three. Uh, will there be any more than three?
Um, sorry, let me just uh look one second. So, uh, AT&T is proposing um six total. So there'll be two per face. So if you look at CA4, um you'll see kind of a it's called the
antenna plan up, they could they could potentially add more antennas uh for future technologies potentially, but those antennas would be added between the uh the antennas on the ends of the
platform itself. So they'd be more internal to what the what you would put up right now for an array. Would they go inside that? >> Yeah. So if you see the faces, >> right, there's three faces. It looks like a triangle. >> So any additional antennas would go
between the two existing. >> Okay. And and how wide are those? I think that are they measuring 12 feet wide? The size of those >> uh the platform itself could be about 12
to 12 and a half ft wide. >> Do they have to be a minimum of three feet apart? >> Uh so that's the separation between those particular antennas. So um I I'm not an RF engineer so I can't I I can't exactly speak to that. Um different
carriers do different configurations. So sometimes if you you know um well you probably may not have seen this but Verizon sometimes will put two antennas directly next to each other. Um I don't know why. I'm not an ARP engineer. >> Okay. So we don't have the actual
antennas. We just have what could be concept antennas. >> No these are there. >> No, these are their actual antennas. And if you again if you look at >> CA4 >> CA4 they have this they're >> the specs. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. It's just where you kind of you kind of caught me a little bit when you said that the different carriers have different antennas. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Again. Would >> this one be typical of
>> I'm sorry. Was the question >> AT&T or >> this is AT&T? This is AT&T. >> Yeah, this is this is specifically AT&T. This is their their most recent configuration for this particular site. >> Well, I think >> but in terms of the number of arrays you
have, we'll call them arrays. Three separate ones. >> Okay. Coming down the pole. >> There would be no more. There wouldn't be a fourth one added. >> Yeah. The the tower is being designed to accommodate the um the three carriers.
So, >> okay. Okay. Um, what color is that pole going to be? >> Um, typically it's a galvanized gray. Um, >> yeah. Can it be white? >> It can be. >> Okay. So, that would be okay. A
condition that it be white. >> If I may caution though, if you don't mind. Um, >> okay. >> When you paint towers, in my opinion, they typically tend to stick out more. Uh because galvanized gray is I don't
know I it's more of like a neutral color. Um >> okay >> tends to reflect sunlight uh a little bit better. It blends in. But whatever you guys want to do um it it's neither here nor there for us. But um you know
I've painted more than a few towers in my career and they do tend to >> Well, that was going to be the next thing I was going to ask you that are they all galvanized steel? Is that what they're made out of? >> Correct. >> I see. If you did paint it, what would
be the the life of that paint if you know? >> I I I I don't. Um >> how often do you have to repaint towers if you know? >> You know, I've never repainted a monopole. >> Um typically we've repainted uh you've
probably seen them around the Cape. They're the orange and white uh towers because they're painted for FAA visibility. Um those can go 15 20 years potentially before they get repainted. >> I was I was thinking of the one that's
over behind our South Yama post office across the street. That one is white, I believe. >> Is it white? >> Okay. >> I I the only reason I raised it I I I thought it was kind of a clean look. We can discuss that with the board whether they think that is necessary. In terms of the antenna, do they come a certain
color? >> Uh, they're typically gray like the pole itself. Um, but those can be painted to match the the tower itself. >> All right. Do they have a gloss to them or do they are they dull in color? >> Um,
it's dull. Yeah, it's more like a flatish type color. >> Okay. Okay. All right. But we'd have no more than three of those, I call them, arrays, coming down as represented on the plan. So, there's not going to be a fourth one
someday down below. >> Yeah, there's only three uh carriers right now. Um, >> okay. Do you anticipate any more than three? >> I can't answer the question, unfortunately. I'm not sure. >> And how busy does some of these how many
how many different carriers can you carry on one of those arrays? Uh each each array is one per carrier. >> I see. What would be the reason that they'd need to add to it? >> Um
so if you look at the history of um you know uh cell phones, if you go back in time, say you go back 20 years, you know, we had a progression of you know cellophones used to be just voice and text. Now we're up to 5G, which is, you
know, data, video, um, uh, you know, there's going to be 6G probably in the next four or five years, which is a different technology. So, as technology changes, um, you know, the carriers use those frequencies in
different ways to transmit their signals. Um, so the antennas have actually gotten a little bit larger over time. I don't know what's going to happen with um, 6G. Um it's kind of tough to tell at this point. Um it's, you know, it's a few years out before we understand, you know, what they're going
to need to do. Um so again, it's a tough call to to to see what these guys will do in the future. Um you know, a lot of times they'll just swap out antennas to add a different frequency or a different technology. A lot of the, you know, equipment on the tower itself is like
behind the antennas, uh, some of the radios and whatnot, uh, which you really don't see very well because the panels are >> Yeah, it's it's hard to nail down, but they do change over time. >> Um, you know, what what it will be, it's hard to say.
>> And and do you guys have a backup generator? I I think we may have asked this before. Down at the base. >> Yes. Yeah. the the FCC mandates that the carriers have backup generators because when you have power outages, they typically will have batteries to back up first and foremost and those only last
typically eight hours and then after that the generators will kick in so at least you can get you know emergency phone calls out if necessary. >> Right. And um would that be powered by natural gas?
>> I think in this case it's diesel. diesel. >> I will have to double check. >> Okay. >> So, where would you store So, if it is diesel now, now my next question is
where you going to store the diesel fuel? >> It's propane. >> Propane. >> Yeah. Sorry, >> it's propane. Okay. All right. That's good. Are you planning on having propane tanks on site or do you know if you're going to because I know you have gas on Route 28 so you could conceivably pipe
it in if you wanted to. >> Do you know if you've made a decision on that? >> Yeah, so they AT&T is going with the diesel tank. Uh if you look at the I'm sorry, propane. >> Propane. Okay. >> The tank is actually on A4. If you look at the tower itself, it's to the right
of the tower. >> Okay. All right. That's fine. tanks >> and and in terms of uh so I I'm I'm good I guess I was going to ask you know about noise in the generator but I've heard a lot of
generators that have started and ran during storms and stuff that don't seem to project a lot of a lot of noise and you are going to be fenced in correct that generator will be within the fenced in area I presume correct >> that's correct and it's a again it's a solid fence too So, it should mitigate
some of that sound. >> Okay. Now, who owns this tower? >> It would be Blue Sky. >> Blue Sky. And how many towers, if you don't mind me asking you, do you own a lot of towers? >> Um, we have a portfolio
um of about my my numbers are going to be vague, but it's about 140 to 170 different sites, but that's a combination of tower sites and uh rooftops. So we manage a bunch of rooftops uh as well. Um so I think I
think the portfolio right now exists. I think it's like 40 to 50 tower sites. >> All right. Um and u have you ever had to take one down? >> Um not with blue sky.
>> Okay. Well, let me ask you another way then. Have you ever personally been involved with deconstructing a tower? Yeah. Um, it's good, this probably goes back about 30 years. A company I used to work for, uh, they built a tower, uh, I
believe it was in Rutland, Mass, and they never secured a carrier. Um, but the zoning environment was different back then. Um, so obviously, you know, now when you go into zoning, you you have a carrier attached to the uh,
application. um back then um they they didn't have a carrier so they built it on spec and they never attracted a carrier so that that tower did have to come down. >> And and who paid to take it down? >> I I think it was the company that I worked for at the time.
>> Okay. Does your company carry an insurance policy to deconstruct these towers? >> Um yes. Yes. M >> and and and if you know what is the average cost or what do you know how much would it cost to take this one down
if for instance Blue Sky went out of business? >> Yeah. Um so typically our our call tower removal bonds they run between 20 and 30 grand typically for removal a removal cost. Um
>> Okay. >> Yeah. And would you uh be agreeable to a condition that you have to post some type of a bond? >> Yes, >> you would adequate to some certain to
pay for the deconstruction of this tower in the event that it has to come down say for let's say you guys ran into financial troubles and what have you if it was abandoned. Yep. >> Okay. So, we can pull up a ball. >> Just to make a note though, too, um you
know, uh hypothetically, if Blue Sky Tower were to go out of business, um you know, somebody else would take over the tower at that point, right? Because you have you have a customer which is AT&T, they're they're going to want to continue their their service in the
area. Um so, you know, the likelihood that the tower would have to come down just because Blue Sky went out of business was fairly remote. Um, >> no, I I I agree. I guess where my concern is is that the advancement of technology today, we don't know from
year to year how great the technology when you say 20 years ago and cell phones. I remember cell phones years and years ago that compared to the cell phones and the smartphones today, you know, it's the technology is really advanced. So maybe someday there won't
be a need for these towels. Maybe there'll be a sufficient antenna built into the phone that you don't need them. So, uh, just for purposes of the town of Yarmouth having to stare at that particular tower in perpetuity, we could
have a bond where there would be adequate funds to deconstruct that. >> That would not be a problem. >> Is it >> okay? All right. Um, I think most of my other questions have
been answered. Um, does the board have any further questions for the petitioner? >> Yeah, I have a a few. Sorry, Sean. >> Go ahead. No, that's fine. Take your time, Anthony. >> With the with the lease with the church, um, do they have a requirement for a bond for the de?
>> No. So, >> all right. Sometimes you see that in those leases. Um, if that existed, I wouldn't want to double up, but >> All right. >> Is there language in that lease? >> I don't remember. Generally there is
>> yeah generally there I don't have that um ground lease with us but generally there is removal language in that lease agreement to protect the landlord. >> Yeah but if there if there isn't a bond then I'm I'm okay with us asking for a bond. I just wouldn't want to ask for
you to put up two bonds. We would we would have one bond for for both if that was the case. Yeah. We wouldn't wouldn't matter. Does that try? >> So we could we could say then we could we could draw language in our decision that in the event that the use is
abandoned for two years or more that blue sky will agree to deconstruct it. When I say abandoned, I mean all cell tower users. I'm just trying to get some language. I know the landlord might be protected, but I'm more concerned with
the town and the aesthetic impact that it would have if that was no longer in use. If we don't need it, I mean, we all know we need it. Okay. And as you're well aware, we there wasn't a lot of support for it in that place, but
we've agreed that there will be that tower there. So, we're just in the event that it has to be taken down, but we have that in our bylaw anyway. So, um, but I would like to have some type of language in the decision
that says that if this use is abandoned for two years or more, you agree to take it down. That's not to say you couldn't come back and ask to and we're not going to do that anyway to you. We we're going to know we're we're we want to work with you and we all want great cell service. I think we're all in
agreement with that. >> Fair. Is that something a condition that you could live with? >> Oh, yeah. That's fair. Yep. >> Okay. All right. All right. Anything else from the board?
>> Yeah. Sean, you were suggesting you would rather see that poll painted white. >> Well, I like everything white. It's my favorite color. So, I mean, >> favorite color. All right. partial to why you want >> I'm thinking with the sun and everything that's just gonna be like a
>> huge white elephant. >> I I I I threw it out there just for purposes of discussion. I think the petitioner may have a better idea to just leave it as it is. It's kind of dull and it >> Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Yeah. >> Okay, then that's fine. Well, we'll just we'll just go with the what they're
suggesting, >> right? Okay. Thank you. >> Anyone else? hearing. None. Is there anything else that the petitioner wishes to add at this time? >> Not for me, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. >> No, I'm good. Thank you.
>> Okay. Uh Dolores, do we have anybody with their hands raised? >> Uh not online. I don't know if people in the room wish to speak, sir. >> Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in favor of this petition? If so, please come to the microphone.
Um, excuse me, Mr. Chairman. We do have someone now raising their hand online, Joanne. >> Okay. Why don't we We don't see anybody coming up to the microphone yet. We'll go to opposition in a second, but let's hear from uh the person who is on the line here. What is this? Joanne.
Joanne, can you unmute yourself? There you go. >> Uh, chairman I go. Uh, Joanne Crowley, chair of the planning board. >> Good evening. >> Uh, good evening. Um, thank you for uh your consideration of this uh change uh
for blue sky. Um, as you know, the planning board over uh uh way back to 2022 had some issues about visibility and uh the concern of the height and uh
I'm I'm not necessarily speaking for the board, but I know given our position in the past, uh the lowering of the height of the poll uh is welcome. uh the um and the positioning
uh back off of Route 28 is also uh welcome a welcome change. Um but I would like to ask the petitioner about u the landscaping and the trees um on the the the uh drawing A5. What trees are being
salvaged and what ones are new? Um, so on let's see. I'm sorry. I just need >> I think I think I have the right I thought it was A5. >> It is A5. It's not correct. Yeah. >> Um, you can kind of see we're trying to save
I'm sorry. Can see the existing. >> Yeah, you can see the existing tree line, but it they they notate um by circles where uh there's some trees. Um I don't know if you can see that. Um >> I'm I'm looking at it right now. So you see like below
and to the right of the proposed landscaping there's little circles that designate where the trees are. So um the the plan is to try and keep those intact as much as possible. But the concern that we have when we're doing construction is if you're if you're
digging and you encounter roots um and you have to dig in a certain spot and those roots get damaged, unfortunately the tree may may die over time. Um, so the instructions really for our contractor is to try and mitigate those
those trees and roots as much as possible. I can't I unfortunately I just can't guarantee uh anything because it is somewhat of a tight space. Um, but we're going to try and do everything we can to to keep those trees. But one thing to note as well, if there are any branches that overhang the uh compound,
those will have to be removed. But that really shouldn't affect the uh the life of the tree. >> I I I appreciate that. I I noticed again that the one movement of the monopole was to the north uh by the 26 or 28 feet
that you mentioned. Uh and was there any consideration for moving it any to any degree west? Um, we did move it slightly to the west, but at the same time, we're trying to uh adhere to the setback requirement
>> to the property line that's that's due west. You can kind of see that property line there, and there's a there's a um 105 foot uh set back. Um the other issue that we have as well is that we have to get the foundation in the ground um and then the other
carriers. So it it starts to limit us how far we can go over and still meet those setback requirements. >> Yeah. Again, the the the concern of the planning board was there's mature uh trees there and to the degree that we
can salvage them and keep them there. Uh that would be helpful. And uh whatever new plantings that you can uh uh accommodate there at the site uh would be most welcome. Uh, thank you, Chairman Argo.
>> Thank you, Joanne. We appreciate your input. >> Uh, do we have anyone else with their hands raised, Loris? >> Uh, no, Mr. Chairman, but you do have correspondents from the Conservation Commission. >> Uh, let me just go to that
one second here. I know I have assemble here. >> Do we have anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in opposition to this? I'm going to read this memo into the I have it right here in front of me if I may.
I have a memo from the address to the zoning board of appeals from Joe Gerol Limo, conservation agent concerning property located at 1044 Route 28 dated February 2nd, 2026 regarding petition 50005.
At its March 16th and April 6, 2023 hearings, the conservation commission heard a notice of intent for the proposed construction of a telecommunications facility within land subject to coastal storm flowage. >> The commission issued the order of
conditions for >> I'm sorry, Joanne. Could you are we getting some >> it sounds >> feedback from someone >> uh order of conditions for SE83-2382 on April 13, 2023.
Uh the approved plans titled Blue Sky Towers 3 LLC plan set sheets T1 C1 A1 through A6 SE1 D1 C A1 through 4 EC1 was last revised
on December 28, 2022 and drainage report was last revised on December 29th, 2022. Special condition five of B O OC order of conditions states any
change in the approved plan shall require the applicant to file in writing a notice of project change with this commission. Conservation Commission has not yet received or reviewed such notice. Um, I guess also we put in our condition in
as a condition that you're required to amend your order of conditions and any notice of intent with the conservation commission. Everybody in agreement with that condition? >> Yes. Thank you.
>> All right. Okay. Um, I believe that's all the correspondence I have. Uh, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in opposition to this petition? If so, please come to the microphone.
Seeing none. Okay. If the petitioner has nothing else to add, we're going to close the hearing to the public. We're going to open it up for board deliberation. Is anyone prepared to begin a discussion or to make a motion?
>> Anthony, what are your thoughts? >> Yeah, I'm I'm with conditions. I'm happy to uh to to discuss this and see what we can do here to get this moving forward for the town. Um, one of the things that just to follow up on what Joanne was
saying in their A5, they have a landscape maintenance uh plan that they wanted one time per month for the first year and kind of right in the bottom half of A5 and an annual inspection. I think we
should make that longer than a year. We would ask that to I would ask that to be a condition just to make sure that this is a heavily cited area and we want to make sure that it's beautiful for the town and continues to be so. Um so I would ask that that continue for longer
than a year as of one of our conditions that it's we have control over that. I would ask for the bond that you spoke about and the monocolor gray. Those are all conditions that I would be comfortable moving. Those are the conditions that I would
ask for. >> Now, that maintenance plan, it's one year. Do you want to go two years? >> Could I suggest they do a maintenance plan for two years uh and longer? If any of their plantings die, they're required to replace them.
>> I'm I'm good with that. Is that agreeable to the petitioner? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, we'll put some language in there. Longer uh replace
any plantings that die. Okay. >> And we'll do the bond sufficient to deconstruct the tower and uh all attachments in the event
that the petitioner or the owner ceases use of it. Um I think the the gray color that the that that uh galvanized gray or whatever it is, I I think that's certainly the
best way to go. Anything that's not going to really draw your attention. Okay. Um number of carriers. The petitioner has represented that there will be no more than three carriers. I'd suggest we make that a
condition if they want to add any further carriers to this that they must return to the board and seek approval. >> I'm good with that. >> Is there any objection by the petitioner
to those conditions? >> No, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. All right. >> As long as we can come back to the board. >> No. Oh, you certainly can come back to the board. No, we understand. Carry is three. Max
anymore must come back to the board. And we'll be incorporating their plans as represented to be true and accurate. and that they must
uh amend any order of conditions with the conservation commission. Um I think that covers it. Does anyone else have anything? Did we miss anything? >> That's good.
>> So, is that your you So, is it fair to say, Anthony, that you make a motion to approve the special permit as requested with those conditions as listed? >> That is correct. I so moved. >> Okay. We have a second to that. >> Second.
>> Okay. Any discussion on the motion? The only thing that I would like to add is um I'm glad we reached this consensus not only between board members but with the petitioner as well. I think we all
know that there's a a a very serious and dire need for better cell service on 28 especially in the summer months when sometimes you just can't really use your cell phones. I know there was a big concern with law enforcement that there
was a problem or a potential problem with people calling 911 that they couldn't get through. Um so I'm glad we're able to reach this resolution. I certainly and I think I can speak for everybody that we look forward to much
better self service uh in the future and uh we thank the uh petitioners for working with us and I'm glad this all worked out. >> Thank you. Thank you. Uh, with that we will take a roll call. Mr. Panabiano. >> Yes. >> I.
>> Mr. Manon. >> Hi. >> Miss Murphy. >> I. >> Mr. Martin. >> Reluctant. I >> I Okay. And I'm an I as well. That uh passes. Five in favor. None opposed. As
you uh I'm sure you understand. I'm speaking to the petitioner that there's a 20-day appeal period. Once it's clocked with the town clerk, after that uh appeal goes through, you can pick up your special permit at the uh from our
administrative assistant, Dolores, and if you would record that at the registry of deeds and bring a copy back for our records. Do you have any questions, gentlemen? >> No, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. And I certainly want to thank our town council, Matt
Prebenture, for his assistance as well. Everyone have a good night. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. It's just ugly. >> Okay. The next petition is petitioned 5210
Gregor Minkyner and Bridget Lightner Middleer. The property is located at 27 Locust Street in South Yarmouth. It's in an R25 zoning district and the applicant seeks a variance from section 203.5 for
front setback relief to construct a garage. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. Would you identify yourselves for the record, please? >> Yes. Gregorinker. >> And is that uh Mrs. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. So, why
don't you tell us a little bit about what you're doing? I think we know, but just give us a little rundown. >> Yes. Um, we are planning to build a garage and uh are uh asking for variance uh to be able to do so.
>> Okay. Okay. And we've got a set of plans here that you uh submitted to us that shows the house. Uh looks like you're going to do a little remodeling on the house and you're going to add a garage. >> Correct. Okay. And you need front
setback relief because Hold on second. I got it right here. You're required to have 30. And what do you have? 25. >> Um I think so. Yeah. Let me see here. I got a small plan.
Actually, uh, >> what do we have, Dick? What do you see? >> Well, the road layout for Locust Street has a spur that runs down next to this property. >> Yeah. >> To a to a dead end and another driveway for a house across the way. Uh, so I
believe that a road layout for that is within two feet of the proposed garage or so. Is that correct? >> Can you repeat that? >> Within two feet or so of the proposed garage. the way. I mean, I know you f you front Locust, >> but there's Locust has a spur that runs
it down to a dead end that also serves your neighbor kind of a to the side. Uh, >> it's an undeveloped road on the west side of the property. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah, I know what we're talking about that to get into your garage. >> Yeah. Now, granted, it's not really used
for anything other than their driveway and what will be your driveway, I guess. Um, but I think you're looking relief, pretty extreme relief right up to one or two feet from the road layout. Um, you
know, in other words, you're really on a corner there. And uh, and I think that uh, you know, you got two 30-foot setbacks, which needless to say, we're not accommodating.
>> Are you sure? I don't find anything bad, but >> Well, if you look at one of the uh >> if you look at the little mine's a little smaller. I don't know if you larger. >> If you look at the front page of this >> Yeah. >> it shows you that that road layout
continues down to a dead end there. >> It serves that house to the left. And even though it doesn't go anywhere, it's a dead end and so forth and so on. I think they may be needing to look for
additional relief of some sort. >> Is that 16 1/2 ft? Is is that is that to the center line of that way? >> Correct. >> The the two dash Yeah. The right. That's the to the center line. So the dashed
line close to the septic system there is the road layout I believe. >> Yeah, it is septic. Yeah. Is that u okay? I don't I don't think that's ever going to be used for anything. >> No, probably not. It's a dead end. It
ain't going nowhere. And it is served by will be served by this house and the other house >> across the way. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. All right. So everybody understands the relief that they need. Correct. It's right there where the garage is. It goes
down that little way. And it appears that uh well >> there's obviously no possible pay. >> Actually, I guess the petition did just say relief from front setback. So they're not really giving the
amounts. So, I guess maybe they're okay as far as that goes. >> I I Yeah, it's when I read the I I'm trying to understand if they are interpreting this as a corner lot. I guess they are. They're not meeting it
on the front side of the locust street, although they might be with setback averaging. So, I would probably put those houses here. So, that would work. Or no more than a third of the depth of the lot, which it probably isn't either. What is the slot for depth? 92. Well,
yeah. Okay. So, they'd still be looking. Um, okay. So, they need that that relief right there to get into their garage. They may also need relief from the board of health to put their septic system right over there. But that's not for us.
That's for them. >> Did you get permission from the board of health to put that septic system in yet? Um, >> we are waiting for this variance to go through. Oh, okay. Okay. They they'll Well, I won't speak for that. >> They may They may have issues, too. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Um Okay. Does anyone have uh questions for the petitioner? Dick, do you have any questions for the petition? >> Uh that was my only real concern. I think it's a um a nice home and it's a good thing for
the neighborhood and all that good stuff, but uh you know I I I always worry about worry about precedent setting things and so forth. So I do have to uh I am a little concerned about these uh setbacks.
>> Okay. Okay. Barbara, do you have uh any questions? >> No, not at this point. No. >> Okay. John, >> no, I don't have anything right now. >> Okay, Anthony.
>> Uh, no. I I I drove by the property. I've I've seen it, so I see what they're looking to do and how to improve that space. Um, it is kind of a weird Locust Street is kind of a weird uh with the and with the location on the side.
So, you know, I think that >> adds, but I don't have any I don't have any questions for the applicants right now. >> Yeah. Okay. Okay. >> Uh I don't have any questions either. >> Um >> don't think we have any. Do we have any
Oh, wait a minute. Maybe I got some correspondence. Uh we have some correspondence. Let me read them in from a Justin O' Conor. Uh dear Bridget and Gregor, we wholly
we wholeheartedly support your plan to add this structure to your property. We trust your aesthetic and know that your new build will be handled in a manner that will fit the fit in the neighborhood. Good luck with your
endeavor. Cheers, Justin and JP. Okay. Uh, dear members of the board, I am a neighboring property owner residing at 36 Locust Street, and I'm writing to express my full support for the variance request submitted by Gregor Mininker and Bridget
Lightner Medyncer for the property located at 27 Locust Street. After reviewing the proposed plans for the garage addition, I do not believe the project will have any negative impact on the surrounding properties. It will not obstruct views, reduce privacy, or alter
the overall character of the neighborhood. On the contrary, the improvements appear thoughtful and well integrated into the existing context of our community. For these reasons, I respectfully encourage the board to approve this request. Sincerely, Justin
O' Conor and JP McGran. Uh, let's see. I have a looks like a maybe an email or a letter from Diane Folks, a letter of support
for variance request 27 Locust Street, South Yamouth 02664. Um to the Yama zoning board. Dear members of the board, I am a neighboring property owner at residing at 19 Locust Street and I am writing to express my
full support for the variance request submitted by Gregor Mittyninker and Bridget Lightner Metinker for the property located at 27 Locust Street. After reviewing the proposed plans for the garage addition, I do not believe the project will have any negative
impact on the surrounding properties. It will not obstruct views, reduce privacy, or alter overall c the alter the overall character of the neighborhood. On the contrary, the improvements appear thoughtful and well integrated into the existing context of our community. For
these reasons, I respectfully encourage the board to approve this request. Sincerely, Diane Folks, 19 Locust Street. That's the extent of our correspondence. Um,
is there anything else that you'd like to add? Uh, Mr. Mrs. Metinker? >> No. >> Okay. All right. Uh, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in favor of this petition? If so, please
come to the microphone. >> Seeing none, >> there's someone coming up to the microphone, Mr. Chairman. >> Oh, okay. All right. Okay. Okay. I'm Mark Wormers and I live at 29 Locus Street across the way across the little private way.
>> Yeah. >> Um I don't mind them building a garage or anything. I just ask that they keep that private way area clear because that's the only access I have to my property >> and my driveway. >> Okay. All right. No, that that's all. No, we wouldn't we
wouldn't be allowing them to do anything other than just build the garage on their property. >> Okay. >> Thank you very much. >> Anyone else care to speaking in favor? >> There's a couple more folks, Mr. Chairman.
>> Okay. I'm also uh uh I live at a 54 Evergreen, which is the back side of the property. Uh and uh so I have no problem with the the addition. It's just that much like Mark said that um that uh extension from
Oka Street that actually goes to my backyard. I have a double gate there which I only use occasionally if I have construction or something that has to go in there for tree work, whatever. Uh and because I have a septic tank on my side of my house, that's the only way to get to the backyard. So keeping that clear
is important even during construction because if they have construction materials in that area, if something happened with a septic or a tree or something in the back, I couldn't get back there either um without using that uh extension much like Mark has some
similar things. So >> Okay. All right. >> Thank you. >> And one more I think Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. My name is uh Jack King. I uh for the 31 Locust Street. Uh I'm in support of uh
Gregor and they for their addition. Uh I think it'll be a welcome to the neighborhood. I think uh the neighborhood could use a nice, you know, keep the properties up and it'll add value and everything like that. So I just wanted to say that I you know,
consider them. Uh, I hope they get their variance and stuff. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Well, thank you very much. >> Is there anyone in the audience that wish to speak in opposition to this petition? If so, please come to the microphone.
Seeing none. Okay. Um, we're now going to close the uh hearing to the public and begin board deliberations. Uh, Mr. Martin, your thoughts. >> Um, what you I'm just looking for uh the
total lot coverage here in terms of the amount of uh area. I think if you look at their plan, their lot coverage proposed is 21.2, maximum is 25. So they're under the lot coverage.
>> Existing is 14. >> Yeah. Okay. I mean I, you know, I know everybody's for this and I would normally be for it. I I think this is another scenario where we get a situation where we're getting uh too big
a house on a small lot uh for one thing, but uh that happens a lot. So, I'm not going to worry about that. But I just do worry about the uh uh uh what's the word I was looking for? I
lost already. >> President. >> The president. Thank you. uh of allowing this property to be one to two feet from the uh from a uh street layout. And I mean, I know it's not 30
feet from the other side either, but at least it's 22 or something on that side. And two feet I've got some trouble with. So, as much as I would like to uh uh agree with this, I'm not sure I can.
Okay, Barbara. >> Um, no, I don't have any questions. >> Okay, John, any thoughts? >> Well, I mean, it's it's a nice home and it certainly be an improvement. Um, I too have a little concern about that
how close we're getting to that that property line, but um I don't know. I'd like to hear more feedback from the board on that. >> Okay. All right. >> Anthony, your thoughts?
>> Yeah. Um, if you look at the what is it second page of the site plan. Um, >> you know, the I certainly think they meet the criteria for a unique uniqueness of the property. It's an odd
streets on the corner. It's the setback requirements on the side are kind of weird because there's that secondary street that's I think that meets all the criteria for what is necessary for a variance and whether it's applicable to get over that hurdle for us as a board.
But looking at the signs, I I don't think it's maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but I don't think it's going to be as close to the the line as thinks it's going to be. Um, so with the side sign property line,
that's what we're in charge with is whether or not it's the setback to the property line, which they're entitled as proprietors to the mid way of the line and allowed to go towards that. So there's about 15.8 ft on that side, which I I think is
appropriate. We've authored that before for variances. And if uh you look at the the other plan that they have, which is a little less clear, the proposed garage, there's an additional 16 1/2 ft on I guess the left hand side when
you're looking at that plan, the proposed garage plan towards that road. That's that's what's needed for road traffic to get in and out. Uh I think it's fine from my perspective. Uh so I would be in
favor of it if we have to have a condition of during construction that it maintains clear that's a sufficient for me. So I'd be prepared to move on that but I'm welcome hear your thoughts Sean.
>> Okay. Well, the history of this piece of property right here, if I can date myself, uh because I my family actually used to have a house over on Evergreen Street many, many years ago. We tried
our bicycles. We cut through there and that gentleman who says he lives at Evergreen Street there. I think we used to cut right through his yard on our bicycles, but I think that's before he owned it. So, I'm sure it wasn't chas. But it is kind of a piece of property that that that little street right
there. It's kind of like no one ever uses it. It's really not recognized as a street per se. It's more like a shared driveway with the two houses that go down there. Now, the gentleman who who lives on Evergreen Street, uh
that particular uh he he's got a because he always had access into the back of his lot. As I recall, he says he's got a little fence or something, a gate that he put up and that's how he accesses his backyard. As I recall, it was kind of an exclusive little use for those three
properties. the gentleman that got up and spoke that owned across the way. Yes. >> Uh the opetitioners and of course the gentleman on on Evergreen Street. So I think really it's uh a a little and I don't even know if I call it a roadway.
I'd call it a little maybe lane at best. >> Um that's really not maintained. Um, and I don't I don't think but for the three of those properties anyone's ever going to use it. I appreciate the fact they're
both setting a precedent. I think if this had a little bit more use um then I might have uh a more of a concern with it. Um, but given the fact that it's very exclusive really to just three
property owners and it will always really be those three property owners because there's no way the town could ever cut a road through there. I mean, I guess conceivably they could, but they wouldn't because they'd go right into that gentleman's backyard and go right out to Evergreen Street. So, that's not
something that the town, I believe, would ever do. Um, it is a unique little piece of property here. It is kind of an odd shape. I I don't know if that is considered a corner lot or not. It's interesting. Um but if it is, then truly they have a
hard time meeting all of these setbacks. Um, so while I do agree with Dick about um not setting any precedents that would come back and and haunt us in the future, I think given the uniqueness
of this particular street and how it relates to this property. Okay. Um I I I think one could say that they do meet the criteria of variance. Uh, and while it is a pretty good size
house, I it appears from all their other setbacks that they're they're meeting them quite nicely. And if you do give them some credit as to coming out to that street that it doesn't really intrude on anybody, that gives them really some extra property. Not that they're going to take advantage of it,
but for use it as a driveway. Um, so for those reasons, uh, I could vote for this and and I'm going to support it and recommend that the board support it as well. Um, thank you. Having said that, um, is anybody, uh, prepared to make a
motion? >> I make a motion to approve as requested. >> Okay. Anybody prepared to second the motion? >> I'll second that. >> All right.
>> We have a motion made and no conditions, correct? just what's represented on their plans they submitted. Anthony. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um Okay. So, we have a motion uh to approve the petition as requested,
>> Mr. Mr. Chairman. >> I just had a question. >> Seconded by uh John. >> Do we have any further discussion on it? >> Yeah, if I could just add another question. Uh >> sure. when I look at the plan with the
pictures and first of all I apologize your drive new driveway is going to be out to the front of the house apparently as well and not to the side correct uh but the second plan on here is that just
a mistake or why are they saying uh you know showing completely different than where the septics going and the and the setbacks texting that that's actually the side property line which if you look at
um this map anyways is different and so that's kind of the thing I was looking at most. >> Are you looking at the plan Dick? Yeah, I was looking at the plan and
>> that's the plan that I was saying >> where the garage was just a couple feet from the so-called street layout and the second page of the other shows the side property line is still being
15t away which I don't believe is correct. Yeah, we had a initials filing. Maybe you have an older plan. Um, we actually worked with the department, sorry, to um have that adjusted for the for the final submission. So, the building inspector
gave us some instructions. So, you might have an older version of the plan. >> I'm sorry, I I didn't get that. I guess >> um we actually re we reserveyed the the property based on feedback from the building inspector. >> So, you reserveyed the property based on
essentially saying that half that road's yours. >> No, >> no, I don't mean to be difficult. >> No, we we had an we had an incomplete plan submitted and then um we had to actually reservey the plan to make sure that the setbacks are all accurate. So,
you have to look at this plan which was submitted. So, the one with >> not this one. You say >> this is the one I have problem. >> If it was this one, page two on this,
that would make me feel a lot better. Can I Can I I actually have another question, too. It relates to the plan. Um, on the second floor, uh, how many bedrooms is this house proposed to have?
>> Um, right now it has two. It will have, uh, one more >> three bedroom. Do you have a septic plan that you submitted with this? >> Uh, yeah, we have a stamp septic plan, but we haven't submitted it to the health department, but I think it was
submitted to the uh, building inspector. So, we expanding the the leech field. >> Okay. You know, I would kind of like to see that. I'm I'm not sure the elevations. Are you raising your foundation in this house?
>> I don't believe so. >> You don't believe so? >> It's It's not in the flood zone. >> Okay. Um, okay. I'm just trying to read the elevations. I got top of foundation at 50. This plan
doesn't show any elevations. Not that I can see. Oh, wait a minute. Catch base in elevation 50. Okay. All right. Well, I guess they're not. All right. So, the foundation's not going up any higher. Is that correct? >> Correct.
>> Um, and everything on this second floor is all storage of the garage. >> Above the garage, you have it listed as storage. >> Yes. Correct. >> Okay. See to the left, that other one,
um, it says storage as well. >> Correct. On the second floor, you've got one bedroom, a loft, and then quite a bit of storage up there. >> Yeah. Uh the roof line is going to not be full size there, >> right? Okay. So, you'll be able to walk
through there probably. >> I don't think so. >> You have no way h how the only way you get above the garage is a pull down staircase. >> Yes, exactly. Because of we can't fit a stair in there. >> Okay. Okay.
Um, and your plans are for a threebedroom septic system. >> Uh, correct. >> Okay. So, we'll put a condition on here that there'll be no more than three bedrooms in this house.
>> Sounds good. Is is that okay to the motion maker? >> Uh that's fine. >> Anthony. >> Yeah. Yes, >> Sean. That's fine. >> Okay. And uh John, you made the second.
>> Yeah, that's fine. >> That's fine. Okay. So, that's the only condition is it'll be no more than a threebedroom. Um Dick, did you have any more questions? >> Yeah, I'm afraid so. Um, >> is your only bath on the first floor off the garage? Am I right about that?
>> No, this is the house is existing. We have a bedroom and a bathroom. >> Uh, there's a bedroom bathroom upstairs. I see on that plan >> we have a bathroom does. >> This plan shows the bathroom. >> I don't know, maybe I'm crazy, but uh
shows the door into the bathroom. The only bathroom that shows Uh, >> off the garage. >> That's new construction. We have an existing bathroom and two bedrooms downstairs. The building is right now
has a bedroom. >> Oh, so these things that say existing >> Yeah. >> are existing. There's existing two bedrooms that are downstairs now. >> And the other little existing is must be a bathroom. >> Correct. >> It doesn't say that. >> It's un
Okay, I get confused. Easy. >> I don't think I have any other questions. >> Okay. All right. So, we have a motion made by Anthony, seconded by John.
We've had discussions on it. The only condition is is that it remain a three-bedroom home. Hearing nothing further. Moving the question. Anthony, how do you vote? >> Hi, >> John. >> Hi,
>> Barbara. >> Hi, >> Dick. >> I I got to abstain. I'm sorry. >> Abstain. >> Abstain. >> Okay. I vote I. That's four in favor. One abstension. Uh the uh the variance
is granted. Uh now I'll tell you once the decision is drafted and it's clocked with the town clerk 20 days must elapse. That's a technical appeal period. After that 20 days goes by Dolores will contact you. You can
come in and get your spe your excuse me your variance and take it over to the registry of deeds in Bosible Village and record it and then please bring a copy back for our records. >> Do you have any questions? >> No. Thank you. Okay, best of luck.
>> Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Okay, bye now. All right, our next petition is petition here. is petition 5206 to continue from 1826.
William Bravo, trustee of the William A. Bravo Replicable Trust property located at 147 Run Pond Road. It's in an I25 zoning district. The applicant is was seeking a special permit for 104.3
sub paragraph 2 for increase in height of a pre-existing non-conforming struct to construct a second floor addition and third floor habitable attic with outdoor deck. There is a letter requesting to withdraw from attorney Tardiff. Good evening, attorney Tardiff.
>> Good evening, Mr. Ago. How are you? >> I'm well, thank you. Would you like me to read this letter into the record? >> Uh, you don't have to. I just would like to withdraw this uh application without prejudice at this time. >> Okay. Uh do we have a motion uh from
someone on the board? >> I'll second. >> Okay. So, we uh have a motion made by Dick, seconded by Anthony to allow the petitioner to withdraw without prejudice. Any discussion on it? Hearing
none. Mr. Martin. >> Hi, >> Miss Murphy. >> Hi, >> Mr. Mayor. Tony, >> hi. >> Van Biano. >> Hi. >> And I'm an I as well. That's five in favor, none against. The petitioner is
allowed to withdraw without prejudice. >> Thank you very much. Okay, moving on to our next petition which is petition 5 5214 Tony Oscar and Alter Grace
Subverine. >> Well done. >> Okay, thank you. Property located at 43 and 45 Katherine Michael Road and 47 and 49 Katherine Michael Road in Yarmouthport.
Uh lot number 125.4 and 125.3. It's in an R40 zoning district as well as the APD. The applicant seeks a special permit for per 104.3.5
paragraph 2 to combine two abuing bare lots to create one buildable lot. Good evening, Attorney Tardiff. >> Good evening. Uh Mr. Chairman, members of the board, I'm Paul Tardiff. I'm an attorney in Yarmouthport and I do represent the applicants, uh Mr. Oscar
and Mr. Subrain. Um, they own the the two properties that you just referenced, and I know it sounded like four properties, but it's actually two. So, um, a lot of these lots, um, uh, were numbered that way because there's a lot of duplexes on, uh, on this portion of
the of town. So, um, these are two abuing lots. Um, un they're unimproved. They're in the R40 zoning district. Um, one contains 8,500 square ft. The other one has 9,134
ft. Um, the plan is to combine the two lots together to create one lot with 17,634 square ft. It would have 175 ft of frontage on Katherine Michael Road. Um, pursuant to Yarma zoning bylaw section
104.3.52. One more on the right side. Uh the zoning board of appeals can grant a special permit when the owner or owners of abuing lots whether or not they the lots are currently developed wish to combine or redivide such lots but where
one or more of the existing lots do not conform to the current uh dimensional requirements and where one or more of the resulting lots will not conform to the current dimensional requirements. So the project in order to u meet the
criteria for the special permit must meet the following conditions. A the combination or redivision does not increase the number of non-conforming individually buildable lots over the number of such lots as presently exist.
Uh in this case we are talking about two unimproved pre-existing uh lots which when reconfigured reconfigured will become one unimproved lot. B the combination or redivision shall
not increase any pre-existing nonconformity nor create any new nonconformity as to any existing structure or use of the lots. Um, and I think we've I think we covered this ground in in some other petitions in the past, but I don't think that this
uh section really applies in this circumstance, and I'll explain why. Um, Massachusetts has an odd quirk when it comes to lots created by the division of land under the subdivision control laws existing structures exemption
which is codified in Mass General Laws uh chapter 41 section 81L. That section allows the planning board to endorse a plan through the approval not required process when attractive land on which two or more buildings were
standing when the subdivision control law went into effect in a city or town is divided into separate lots um each of which uh one of such buildings remains standing. In other words, if you had two structures on a lot and you wanted to divide put put a
line between them, you can go to the planning board for an ANR plan and they will approve or endorse your plan to draw that line. But when you draw the line too close to structures so that it now does not conform to the setback
requirements of zoning, then they have to make a stop at this board. Um, and it's been this board's position. I think I've seen numerous cases where people have tried to do that. And if it's not uh if it doesn't comply with the current zoning when you
draw the line, it's a variance. It's not even a special permit because you're the one that put the line there. So, it usually comes into effect when you are affecting structures on the lots. Um, in this case, we we have two unimproved lots. So, we're not even
drawing a line, we're removing a line. So, we're not going to be um running a file of any pre-existing structures. Uh the use is stays the same under the R40 zoning district. Um so, in this case, we're just making it bigger.
Um the reason this came to be was that we wanted to look and see if we could build on both of these lots. Um with the new affordable homes act uh which basically has eliminated merger to to the greatest extent. Um it it it that
act did two things. It eliminated uh merger uh with the with the intent that they were hoping that there'd be more buildable lots out there because we need housing obviously. Um, but what the what the statute says is it's not merged
and you can build on it as long as it has 10,000 square feet and 75 ft of frontage on a way. If it doesn't, then you can't. So, um, the first thing we looked at was I went right to the bylaw and looked for the single lot exception and this does not apply. Obviously, we have two lots next to each other by the
same owner. Then I went to um the next section which is two or three abuing properties uh can also still be built upon but in this case it didn't work because um the applicants also own a property abudding
on the back of these lots. So that was out as well. So then we went to the affordable homes act um and that wouldn't allow us either because we don't have 10,000 square feet on either of these lots. So then I met with Mr. the grills and we sat down and looked at
section 104.3.52 and um he agreed that this is probably the best way to get this lot to be used for something. Um remember also that this section of town and I don't know if you if you went up
there today but it's it's the it's the area behind I I call it Pizza by Evan. I what's it I don't know what it's called now. It's >> what is it? gardens. >> Oh, it's the gardens. Yeah. But it's that whole area back there. Okay. >> Um and and you know, you've been out
there um multiple duplexes on lots such as 8,500 square f feet and 9100 square feet. These are all and and there that's a great development out there. These two lots obviously were purchased back in the in the past. For some reason, they were never built upon, but
if they were built as part of the gardens, they would, this lot would have up to four dwelling units on it. Um, we're just trying to put these two lots together to make one building a lot. That's it. Um, and it's actually going to be probably bigger than most of those
other lots in that entire area. Um the last um section uh that we have to meet under that bylaw is section C which is which says if more than one if more than one adjoining vacant non-conforming
lot is created by or is the result of the combination or redivision. Uh it may be approved for construction um and then it has certain criteria. However, we stop right there because we are not creating more than one adjoining
vacant non-conforming lot. Um, we're creating just one. So, that doesn't apply either. Then the last section has is D, which is the development and use of all the resulting and affected lots would be consistent with the current and future development of the neighborhood
uh and zoning district, not causing substantially or not substantially contribute to any undue nuisance hazard congestion. the usual special permit uh requirements. Uh I it's it's our position that creating one lot uh with
which can hold one house um is not going to substantially contribute to any undue nuisance. In fact, it's going to uh be just the opposite where you have the great density of duplexes on small lots. Here you're going to have a 17 12,000 square
foot lot with one house. um which I think really is more in keeping with the bylaw because we know that those duplexes would never be allowed to be built upon nowadays because they don't have the area in the R40 zoning district. Um,
and I also want to point out that section 104.3.51, the introductory paragraph to this section says it's the intention of this subsection to accomplish maximum feasible compliance with the intent and purpose of the current zoning bylaws
where full compliance is not possible, but where development of the available land may otherwise be accomplished without substantially dergating from the intent and purposes of bylaws. So, we believe that this project's in keeping with the purpose of the bylaw. I think
it meets the requirements of that bylaw and that a special permit is um is appropriate in this case. So, I want to thank you for that. >> Thank you very much, Attorney Charter. Uh Anthony, do you have any questions for
Attorney Charter? >> Uh, no. Thank you, Paul. That was very thorough. I appreciate Thanks. John, >> no questions. >> Barbara, >> no questions. >> Dick.
>> Um, one little confusion I have, which is I guess you're ahead of me on this too, I'm sure. But, uh, um, you said the petitioners own a property in back. >> It's on Weir roadside. Okay. All right.
Um, aren't they good for up to three lots as opposed, >> you know, two two? >> Here you go, Glenn. >> Yeah. Yeah. It's just that um the the house that they own on Weir Road is a double lot. >> That explains to that.
>> There you go. So, >> I don't have anything else. I think this is a proper uh and logical u uh situation where relief is should be granted and uh um certainly going to as
you say be a lot better having one unit on this property than uh you know uh four units. So would otherwise have been the case when it been developed the same way the rest of the property was and at
uh as condominiums actually duplex condominiums. Yep. >> Okay. Thank you. Yes, Attorney Chardiff. I want to thank you for explaining that section of the bylaw very succinct way. that uh that particular section when you
read through it, it's kind of a a mind twister if you really don't know how to look at it. You went section by section there and did a great explanation of giving us certain examples of how they may apply. So if if nothing else, it was
a great uh learning experience. Um >> no charge. >> I have I I have nothing to add. I I do agree with Dick. I I think this is certainly the logical this is the proper application of the bylaw as it pertains
to these two particular lots and I do think it makes sense to to allow them to combine them um and to make them a lot that they could build on. I mean this this there's no sense in leaving these two pieces of property
undeveloped. That's certainly not the highest and best use of the property. they're not being set aside for conservation. They were owned by someone that that person's paying taxes on them and uh they should have the benefit of the use of those those two particular
lots I believe. Um and I think our bylaw does in fact provide for that. Uh so I certainly would be in favor of this petition as well. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in favor of this petition? If so, please come to
the microphone. understood properly. They said you're built you're building one house. >> What are our guarantees that once you own the property, you don't throw up something with a bunch of tenants? >> You want us to make a condition that
there's only one house on there? >> Well, it can be a duplex. I mean, I'd be kind of a hypocrite if I said it couldn't be a duplex, but >> Well, I don't know, Mr. Chair. >> I mean, is it against the rules if somebody went in there and built like a six apartment building?
>> Yeah. I don't think we >> I'd have to come back to us to ask for that type of relief. >> So, it's going to be one house. >> Paul would have a hard time explaining that. >> Yeah, I would. >> I'll go along with that. >> Excuse me, ma'am. Could you identify yourself in the record, please? >> I'm sorry. Kathleen G. I live in the
gardens. >> Uh, Mr. Chairman, um, the intent is that this would be a single family uh, lot which would, you know, obviously if if there is room for an ADU like every other lot on in in town, it could do that, but I I don't know if that's the
intention. I'm not even sure if these applicants are going to be building it. So, um, but it's not our intention to build uh, a six-unit apartment building. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes
to speak in favor of this petition? >> Hello. My name is uh James Basy. I live at 35 Catherine Michael Road in Gardens. Uh not speaking in opposition, just of concern. In the Gardens, we have a wonderful community. Everybody takes
care of themselves. They get along and they do the best to keep their property up. the property that he's speaking of. Uh I don't think anybody would have objections to having a single family home there or even a duplex. We currently have two other single family
homes in our complex and the people there are very nice. We all get along together and we treat them as part of our residents inviting them to functions as well. I would ask the board though that if there is a variance that the members of the gardens association could
be notified to speak out uh once we find out what's going to be constructed there. That's our largest concern right now. Thank you. >> Great. Thank you. Um anyone else in the audience wish to
speak either in favor or in opposition? Seeing none, uh, is there anything else you'd like to add, Attorney Tarter? >> No, thank you. >> Okay, then we will close the hearing to the public, begin board deliberation. Um,
Anthony, your thoughts? >> Um, I'm happy. Yeah, I'm happy to to have it move forward as I proposed. If anyone wants to have a conversation, I'm I'm okay with that, too. But I would make a motion that we approve as requested.
>> Okay. Do we have a second to that motion? >> Second. >> Seconded by who? You, John? >> Dick. >> Dick. >> Oh, Dick. Okay. All right. All right. Anyone wish to have any discussion on the motion?
The only thing I would add is I do think they meet the criteria of the bylaw, especially the last part that was read by attorney Tarter. It seems like this is the proper fit um under the bylaw for us to uh to be able to do this. And I do
think it's improving it by taking two lots and combining them into one. Um so uh having said that any further discussion on the motion hearing none we're going to take a roll call. Dick
>> I >> Barbara >> I >> John >> hi. >> Anthony >> I >> and I'm an I as well. Um could we look forward to a draft decision attorney charter? >> You can. I'll have it to you tomorrow.
>> Okay. Very good. Thank you very much. Thank you. >> Um, you're on the next one, so don't go too far. >> Okay. >> Okay. Are you set up for the next one yet, Paul? You want me to give you a minute?
>> I'm ready to roll. >> Okay. The next petition is petition 5215, Joseph, Indiana, Dipio. Property is located at 6 Chilton Road in West J. It's in an I25 zoning district. The
applicant seeks a special permit per 104.3.2 sub paragraph 2 to raise and replace a pre-existing nonconforming structure making the structure less nonconforming. >> Good evening attorney Tarta. >> Good evening. Uh Mr. Chairman, members
of the board, I'm Paul Tardiff, an attorney in Yarmouthport. I do represent the applicants, Joseph and Deanna Dipio. And I know Mr. Dipio can't be here in person, but I think he is here by Zoom. So, um you know, if we ever have questions that I can't answer, he is
here as well. So, um the uh the property is located in the R25 zoning district and uh is the lot actually contains 10,320 ft, but uh 7,300 um of square feet of that uh is upland
and is improved currently with a one-story duplex which was built in approximately 1940. um on this plan that I'm showing here. This this is the existing right here. Um and you can see it is right on Mil Creek.
Um Chilton Road is a very short road. Um um it's a dead end. Obviously, it dead ends right at the uh the applicant's property. Um the the entire property is located within 100 ft of the top of the Coastal Bank. the entire property um
which has traditionally dictated where the house was situated on that lot. So I have a feeling it was built there because of uh of those concerns. Um the existing structure is 26.7 ft from Chilton Road this way. And this is the driveway where I'm pointing right here
come in off of Chilton in there. Um it's 5t from the easterly side boundary which is over here. Um see if I can get this thing to work right here. It's 5 ft off that road, I mean off that boundary. Um, and uh 18.8 ft from the rear boundary,
which is over here. And this is where the septic system is located. Uh, and 24 1/2 ft from the limit of the coastal beach. Uh, the existing septic system um is going to be retained. Um, and as I indicated, it's pretty much the
the entire area that you're seeing here. Um the lot coverage is currently at about 17% and the height is currently about 12 to 14 feet depending on how you measure it. Uh it is in a flood zone. Um it is has all the curses all the all the
pimples that you don't want to see. However, uh the proposal is to remove that structure and replace it with a two-story single family dwelling with four bedrooms. That's how many bedrooms are currently between the uh single family and then the actually the duplex.
Um because of the proximity to the wetlands and the shape of the lot, the location of the house is really quite limited. You really can't shift this very much any which way because you have uh wetlands all in the front. You have a septic system on this side. Uh, and you
have a limited driveway because the the rip route comes right through creating this triangle. Uh, that's all you have. So, um, it really can't go very far from where it is. So, the improvements uh, well, we're going to leave it exactly
where it is from Chilton Road. Um, the side setback will be improved by moving the house a foot further away. So, we're coming from five feet here. It's going to be six feet over here. Not a not a big improvement, but um they're trying. Uh and it also does shorten that side of
the house a little bit. Um the septic because of where that is, we really can't move the house anywhere that side because we can't put the septic anywhere else. Um lot coverage with the add addition of this deck right here. Um which doesn't have it's sort of
a walkway here, but there's a deck here and then we're squaring off this area right here. You can see up here. Um, we're going to be getting to 23 and a half% lot coverage, still underneath the 25%. The height will increase to 26 feet. It's going to be flood compliant
uh with the uh the flood vents into the basement. Um um it's it's a nice improvement. Um and that's the rendering. It it it's twotory, but it's not huge. It's it's well done because of the size of the
lot. I think it really had to be something like that. I think that's what we want on our waterfront properties. Um I'll tell you that the project was before the Yarmouth Conservation Commission on December 18 of 2025 and that they have issued an order of
conditions. I have a copy right here. So they they like the project where it was and um the applicant also secured approval to demolish the existing building from the historic commission on January 9th because of its age over 75
years. Um the a butter immediately to the east which is right can't see it on that side. So you have this butter right here who is probably the most affected because of going from 5T to six feet and the
gentleman who lives across the street here have both submitted letters uh that you have supporting the project which is kind of important because of um you know how tight this is and how small a little neighborhood this is.
Um, pursuant to Yarma zoning bylaw 10432 uh2, the single family and two family structures uh can be altered, extens extended or raised and replace with special permit if it's determined that uh such raise and replace will not substant be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than is
the existing structure. So it has to be substantially more detrimental. Um I don't believe that there's any detriment. I believe that this project meets the criteria. Um, there've been dwelling, there have been dwelling units on the property for 86 years.
The change from a duplex to a single family dwelling will reduce traffic on the road, parking, uh, and trips in and out of the site. Um, and the parking demand. Uh, it's pretty significant based on the small side street that is Chilton uh,
Chilton Road. The construction of the home uh, again to be flood compliant is a benefit. uh the new construction methods, the aesthetics that I showed you um although slight the improvements to the setback making that a non that non-conformity better uh is an
improvement as well as well as the um approval from the abutters uh which affects this project. So, we hope that the board can issue the special permit. Uh, understand that this is an old structure that needs to be uh updated and um this
will be good for the neighborhood and also for the town for um a number of different reasons uh aesthetically and also for the tax base. So, we thank you for your time. If you have questions again, I'm here and Mr. Dipio is I think
here somewhere. So, thank you. >> Okay. Thank you very much. I do have some correspondence I am going to read into the uh record. Uh I do have a memo here from historic review uh that
shows it was approved. Um I have a letter from Jeff Maz Mazamaro. Um he lives at nine Chilton Road which is across the street. And he writes that
we strongly support the ation for the reconstruction of a new home on their properties. It will be a tremendous addition to the street and neighborhood. And that's from Jeff and his wife Cheryl. Um I have another letter here from Tom
Mazamaro. He lives at 6 Chilton Road. Um dear zoning board, we live at 10 Chilton Road and our direct neighbors literally next door to Joe and Deanna to Cipio. We happily support the application for the
reconstruction of a new home on their property. This has been a long time coming and we and we will be a great addition. I think it will and he will be a great they will be a great addition to our neighborhood. We approve 100%. Bobin
Tom and Robin Nazamo. Then I have a memo here from uh to the zoning board of appeals from Joe Gerald Limo, conservation agent, regarding property at 6 Chilton Road dated February 2nd, 2026 and regarding
petition 5215, 6 Chilton Road, West Jarmath. At its November 20th, December 4th, and December 18th, 2025 hearings, the Conservation Commission heard a notice of intent for the proposed raise and
replace of a single family dwelling in LSCF and the 35- FFT buffer to a coastal bank and beach. The commission issued the order of conditions for SE83-2503 on 1626.
The approved plan set titled site plan six number six Chilton Road two sheets was last revised on December 8th 2025. That is the extent of the correspondence. Um >> Mr. Chairman
>> yes >> there's actually an email that came in on February 10th from Martin Dooall of letter of support. >> Okay. We'll note his letter of support. >> Okay. Uh, we will put that with the others. What is his address? Thor
>> 41 Standish Way, sir. >> Okay. He's right there up the top of the street. Okay. Um, all right. We're going to go for uh to questions. Uh, Dick, do you have questions? No, I think it's a beautiful house and
uh uh you know, it's changing a duplex to a very attractive single family home and I see no problem at all with the with the proposal. >> Okay, Barbara. >> Um
yeah, the rip wrap is is you are they adding to that or is it is it existing? I can't really see it on this map. I believe it's existing. >> It's existing. Okay. >> All right. Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> No questions. I think it would be nice improvement. >> Okay. Anthony, >> I have nothing. >> I don't have any questions either. I am familiar with the property. Um I think
it's going to be a great improvement. I I think uh from you know what they're doing again as we stated from a duplex to a single family home is certainly improvement and uh a less nonconformity.
I think it's a beautiful house very tastefully designed. I think it's going to fit very well into that neighborhood and on that street. Um and uh I think the biggest hurdle that they were going to overcome would have been with the conservation commission
and they seemed to be okay with it and they've issued an order of conditions. I think they meet the criteria of the bylaw and uh I do plan on supporting it and I urge the board to support it as well. Um is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in favor of this
petition? If so, please come to the microphone. None. >> Yes. >> No one in favor, sir. Looks like there's someone in opposition. >> If if there's someone who wishes to speak in opposition, please come to the microphone.
>> Is Margaret Mackey. She owns a house right behind the petitioner's house, 13. >> All right. I know where her house is. Good evening, ma'am. How are you tonight? >> Uh, good. little upset. >> Please tell us your concerns. >> It'll block my view that I've had for 46
years. They've got water all around them. A one family would be just a onelevel house would do. So, they could have all their view that they wanted, but they wouldn't be blocking the neighborhood behind them.
>> Okay. This is the second time that somebody's had to increase the size of the house. The last time was probably about seven years ago and it was uh disproved because of
it just did affected so many people in the neighborhood behind them. >> Okay. All right. >> And my son could he's in the business so he could probably tell you a few things >> just quickly. Um, it's just a big house on a small lot. That's what it comes
down to, you know. And it is, we're right behind it. We're close to the butters. So, it's just going to be this gigantic house that's going to tower over every house right in that general area. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, sir.
Do we have anyone else that wishes to comment? >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. There's someone approaching. >> Go ahead, sir. >> Okay. >> Hello. Uh my name is Eric Ray. I live over on Bradford Road as well. So it's the uh north lateral road just from
Shelton towards 28. >> Um so yeah, I think a few of us do have backfacing second floor decks and balconies up there. So there is some concern where the current structure kind of lays down uh the elevation with a water line and definitely raising up is
going to block a lot of view from that. So, I was just hoping for some clarification on exactly kind of where the proposed layout and how much elevation increase we're looking at. Um, but also just to raise concern as well with the obstruction of a large portion
of the we'll kind of all experience back on the Bradford roadside. >> Okay. All righty. Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else? >> No, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay.
Thank you very much. Um, is there anything else you'd like to add at this time, Attorney Tyler? >> Uh, just a couple things. Um, you know, and we're sympathetic about the the blocked views, but as as this board is well aware that no one has a right to a
view unless you have a view easement. Uh, there is none that I'm aware of um that entitles anyone to a a view like that. Uh, the house uh might be bigger than what's there now, but it's not a big house. It meets the criteria for the
town requirements. The town has instituted a 25% lot coverage uh calculation. They do that in a percentage form because houses can be different on different lots. And so this one actually does meet all of the percentages for the town requirements.
Um the other thing is is that it sits low because it's sitting in a flood zone. And so what we have to do is we have to get it out of the flood zone by raising that that first level up so that we can get the water to flow underneath it if it ever came up. So um that adds
to it again but again um we we could have you know we could have asked for 35 ft probably not a good location for that especially on on a on a smaller lot. Uh 26 feet is what the the plans are calling for. Um I think it's appropriate
and it's tasteful and I think that um um we'd like to have um your consideration for the special permit. So thank you. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Um I I I just like to kind of chime in here
for a second relative to that too. Um we have run into these issues before um in other neighborhoods when people say well you know you're going to block out you and we are sympathetic to that but unfortunately you know the person
who owns this lot has every right to put the house on it that you know they wish to subject to certain board or town approvals. Um, in terms of the size of this house, I think this house sizewise
is very consistent with the houses that are around it, including the houses that are right behind it and most of them that run along that side of the house of the road that's right behind it. I'm familiar with most of that area and a
lot of those houses have been rebuilt over there and they're similar size houses on similar size lots. So I think this house here um sizewise would be very consistent with the houses that are
there now. Uh and so I I did want to just mention that and that again we have had to address this issue with blocked views in the past and essentially opposition is uh you know unless you own
that property in front of your view there. I mean you're unfortunately you're not entitled to tell the person who owns the lot that they can't build up which unfortunately may obstruct your view. I would say though that the lady
behind us still has a nice view uh out her side property there because that is all lovely property out there and it has a beautiful water vista um and it's a really nice area. So I I hope that won't
in any way um cause any concern with her neighbor. Okay, it's not her neighbor's fault. It's really it's the policy of the board and the town as to what property owners are allowed to do with their property. Um that's all I had. Does anyone else wish to uh have any
comments? >> If I could just add to that too, Sean, uh uh the two houses in back are already twotory houses actually and and the uh uh this proposal is going to decrease
the actual footprint anyways of the house. That's correct. And we're going from a duplex to a single family home. >> Um Barbara, your thoughts? >> I don't have anything to add.
>> Okay. Okay. John, >> I have nothing to add. >> And Anthony, >> I have nothing. >> Okay. Uh is anybody prepared to make a motion? I'll make a motion to approve the petition as requested. Oh,
>> okay. Do we have a second to that? >> I'll second it. >> Okay. Motion made by John, seconded by Dick. Any further discussion? Um, and just to say in terms of meeting the
criteria of the bylaw, I do believe that they do meet the criteria of the bylaw that it's certainly not going to cause any unus undue nuisance, hazard or congestion. If anything, it's going to cause less than that because you're taking a two family structure and
reducing it to one family. So, in fact, you're reducing the nonconformities in the neighborhood. And so for those reasons and for other reasons as we've already talked about, I do believe that the petitioner has met the criteria of the bylaw. Um we will now have a roll
call. Anthony >> I >> John >> I. >> Barbara >> I >> Dick >> I >> and I'm an I as well. That passes five in favor. Um none opposed. Attorney Todd, if you understand certainly the
20-day appeal period after his clock with the town clerk, um, can I expect a draft decision from you? >> You can. >> Okay. Well, thank you very much and we uh certainly wish you the best. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay.
>> Okay. Dolores, do we have minutes we need approved? >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. January 8th and the 22nd. Do I have a motion to to approve those minutes? >> So moved. >> Have a second.
>> I'll second. >> All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. Any opposed? Hearing none. That passes unanimously. Any other business? Dolores. >> I think Anthony wants to say something. I don't know. No. Okay. You just said that.
>> Actually, Mr. Chairman, I hate to go uh through spilled milk here, but uh going back to the 27 Locust Street uh uh application in reooking at that and
looking at the different plan, they've got different amounts of square footage. Matter of fact, they have included that half of the road layout as theirs. as far as the lot uh uh amount goes in terms of the square
footage of the lot, which would I think would then preclude uh uh the scenario relevant to uh square footage on lot and so forth or 25% of the lot. uh that and that that
they're and the plan that they had done up showed 10,000 something square feet and the another plan showed 9,000 something square feet and then of course the uh actual um original plan shows 7,000 something
square feet. So I think there were a lot of mistakes on that. I maybe have too too late now to do anything, but I um I guess I should have looked into it a little more before, but I think there's some you know the a lot of the
application was uh not correct. Well, uh, not speaking to the, um, accuracy of the plans, I would say that they did submit a stamped plan from an engineer
showing the exact location on the lot. Um, and so in terms of what they were actually asking for was a variance just for the setback for the garage, nothing
else. So if it came to the attention of the building department that they needed further relief um then they would have to come back to this board. So the only thing that we granted relief for was that setback on
whether we considered it a sideline or a frontline setback. Um because it was determined to be a corner lot. I'm I guess it technically would have been a corner lot, although it's a little hard to I don't even know if
there is a name for that little >> It's part of Locust Street. Yeah. >> Is that part of Locust? >> It is part of Locust. Yeah, >> it is. Okay. So, on a map it is because it doesn't it didn't really look like it was labeled as Locust. Um >> it did not. It looked like it was a
private way. >> It did. >> My my my the one that I have. It's a little difficult to read, but I would just suggest that it is stamped by an engineer. So, where that that actual foundation
will be located uh uh will have to will be determined by where that stamped plan is. So, what we actually voted in favor of was only that lot line relief on that particular side. We we
gave them no other. So if and we limited it to a threebedroom because I I do think that we um I I I do think there was about the layout >> circumstances when when somebody comes to us with
uh false or incorrect information especi even even via via a uh engineer uh and we make our decisions based on that. Do we have any recourse?
>> Well, in terms of the engineer stamp, he's certifying much like a notary public certifies a doc that witnesses a document. He's certifying that that it's that foundation is exactly where it's
supposed to be. that he shot it with a transit and from proper measurements in certain locations and that's where he determined that that now it's not there right now. No. >> Okay. There's nothing there right now. But when they put it in they have to
come back and they'll do what's called an asbuilt. and that as built has got to be either dead on the money or within that line or they would have to come back here. The only thing that we really
did tonight was just to prove where that foundation's going and where it was relative to that line, that side line where that little lane comes in. We didn't approve anything as far as and the only limitation we put on because I
do think we might have had a question on the layout of the house and everything, but we restricted it to three bedrooms. So, they're not to say they would do it, but if a subsequent purchaser came in and and put in new bedrooms, then it
would probably get picked up as a lot of these do afterwards. >> My concern again is gave them permission for and what we didn't. >> Yeah. Uh is that essentially they are incorrectly saying that uh they own as
part of their property half of the road layout and that therefore makes their lot bigger and everything else goes >> well. I I I think what they did is just they took a measurement to the center of the line, right? I think that the actual
measurement, if you expanded that plan, would have brought it back to their actual lot line. And like you said, originally they're 2 feet off the lot line, >> which is what they are. Yeah. >> And normally I don't think we would have
done that but in this case um we did it because I think we felt that >> uh it wasn't going to be >> going to be through traffic or anything like that >> and no traffic and things like that. was
just limited to the three owners 55 evergreen and the other person across the uh the way there >> for under the proprietor statute if it's a private way which that's this is since it's not a public way you do own to to
the midway of the line >> I know locust is town is is a town way whether the spurs anything different it's possible >> well when I when I did look at that though it I I I was a little confused with that whether that was actually
locust or not. I mean, I can I can take a look at it. I mean, >> doesn't have any other name. >> Hearing is closed, but I think since we have a quorum and we're on the record, I I don't think we're out of bounds here. >> Oh, it does say that that little section is private. Yeah. >> Yeah. So, they would own to halfway
under the proprietary section. They would a private way you own halfway to the road of water above your property. >> I think you're responsible. I don't know if you own it. Is that true? >> Yeah. >> I maybe who knows?
>> I'm laughing because I've had litigation and sandwich over this exact thing for the last year and a half. >> Well, then you're you're ahead of me. >> Well, we l we're lucky we had Anthony sitting there tonight. >> He could certainly clarify that one.
>> Yeah. And this little map shows that that little spur is is private. Okay. Um, >> so are we good, Dick? >> Yeah, I'm good. >> Okay. All right. >> Any anything else I have I can discuss with >> We have a motion to adjourn.
>> I move. >> I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I don't think we actually took the vote on the minutes. We got a little sidetracked. >> Oh. Oh, please. Let's uh All those in fa in favor. Oh, yes, we did. Did >> we? Okay. >> Yeah, we did. We approved the minutes. Didn't we approve the minutes, everybody?
>> Okay. >> Yeah. Sorry about that. >> Yeah. Well, Dick started spilling milk, you know, so >> I think I'd let I let that get through. Yeah. >> All right. Do we have a motion to adjurnn?
>> Second. >> Second. Anyone? >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I >> I. Any opposed? Hearing none.