Recording in progress. >> Good evening everyone. >> Good evening >> Mr. Chairman. >> Everybody hear me? Okay. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Uh good evening everyone. Welcome to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Yam Zoning Board of Appeals. Today's
date is December 11th, 2025. My name is Sean Iiggo. I'm the chairman of this board. We will now convene the meeting. Uh this is a hybrid meeting and is being recorded. We will begin by taking a roll call for a quorum. >> Mr. Martin,
>> I am here. >> Mr. Mr. Ne, >> I'm here. >> Mr. Manonyi >> here. >> Mr. Pabiano >> here. >> And I'm here as well. Having formed a
quorum, we will now begin the meeting. The first matter on our petition is on our agenda is actually it's a decision 45509. It's a memorandum to file seeking a
modification to of decision 45509. Uh this concerns property owned by John and Barbara Hannon, trustees of the Center Street Realy Trust, 41 Center Street Yarmouth Port Mass. Are they here tonight? >> Uh, yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hannon can
come up to the table. >> I have them come on up and join us. >> This is the advisory. >> Okay. >> Good evening, sir. >> Good evening. >> Could you state your name for the record, please? >> John T. Hannon.
>> Okay. Uh, Mr. Hon, I have a memorandum to file here regarding um your property located at 41 Center Street in Yarmouth Port. It's for the board's review. It's a draft memo to remove the accessory
apartment restriction from decision 4550 to reflect the changes from the YAM zoning bylaw in the Massachusetts Affordable Homes Act. Is that your intention tonight, sir, that you're seeking to remove that restriction?
Yes, it is. >> Okay. All right. Well, I'm going to read this uh into the memo into the record. It's a memorandum and it says as follows. If everyone all the board members have that in front of them.
It says, "Relief was previously obtained from the board of appeals in petition 459 on March 31st, 2014 to create a family related accessory apartment at the property. The decision was recorded
in book 28102 page 110 and a declaration of covenants family related accessory apartment was recorded in book 28102 on page 114 respectively in the Baronsal County Registry of Deeds. Subsequently,
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts enacted the Affordable Homes Act effective February 2nd, 2025, which permitted a market rate accessory dwelling without the requirement of a familiar relationship. Is the petitioner's current intention to
abandon decision number 404509 and to establish one market rate unit at the property without a familiar relationship requirement? That is your intention, sir? Yes, it is. >> Okay. I don't think we need any discuss
any discussion required from the board. >> I just have one point, Mr. Chairman. I noticed a discrepancy in the memorandum date of our hearing and the actual decision. >> I think somebody inverted a number. It's the decision was March 13, 2014
>> and the memorandum memorandum says March 31st. So, >> excuse me, Mr. N. Is that is that the date of the hearing or the date that was filed? Okay. >> It says relief was previously obtained from the board of appeals in petition 45
4509 parenthesis March 31st, 2014. >> Correct. That's the date it's filed with the town clerk. That is the decision date. >> That's the decision date. >> Correct. >> So what we have that was filed with the town clerk of a of the board of appeals decision is not correct. It says the
hearing Oh, the hearing date was March 13th. Okay. >> Yeah. >> And the decision is not the decision is not dated. It was just the date that it was filed. It's not stamped or anything, so they can't tell.
>> Well, the date that excuse me, the date that it's filed with the town clerk is the decision date. >> This says 4 Well, that's the date it was recorded was 4:14. I just Anything else, Mr. Nees?
>> No, that's all I had. I just I I just think that the the memorandum says the date is March 31st and the decision was filed. Oh, I say it was filed with the town clerk on March 31st.
>> Correct. >> Okay, >> that's technically the decision date once it's filed. >> All right. Fine. >> Okay. >> I thought it was just >> um Is anybody prepared to make a motion to allow this?
>> I'll make the motion. >> Okay. >> Since I wasted since I wasted five minutes already, we'll move on. >> No, no, no, no problem at all, Mr. Ne. No problem at all. There's no bad questions. Okay. All right. Okay. So,
motion was made by Mr. Nez, seconded by Mr. Pan Biano uh to declare decision 45509 void without any further obligation on the part of the applicant to abide by this decision and may seek approval if any required to permit the
principal dwelling and accessory dwelling unit to remain without any previous conditions issued by this board. Any further discussion hearing? None. We're going to take a roll call vote. Mr. Panabiano.
>> Hi, >> Mr. Martin. >> Hi, >> Mr. Neats. >> Hi, >> Mr. Manton. >> I >> And I'm an I as well. That passes. Five in favor. None opposed. Okay, sir,
you're all set. We will uh uh Dolores, I think we have to uh sign this and have it stamped and give it to the petitioner to take to the board of appeals, excuse me, the registry of deeds, correct? >> Uh yes, sir. >> Okay. Um Mr. Hannon.
>> Yes. >> We're going to get this uh stamped, okay, for you probably in the next couple days. And then what you need to do is to uh Dolores will contact you, our administrative assistant to your
left, and you can just come over and get a copy of that. And if you need to take it over to the registry of deeds and record it, and if you could just bring a copy back for our file, we'd appreciate it. >> Okay, I'll do that. >> Okay. Do you have any other questions,
sir? Uh the the other question that I have the this uh apartment was in initially uh occupied by my daughter who passed away.
My daughter and two grandchildren. The grandchildren are still there. Um grandchildren in 1922. Um and we would like to have that to you know
to to be continue to be a not a family uh apartment but just a just an apartment is that do I have to go through do I have to go through the >> the process okay so it just
>> No you you you're there's no restriction on that sir >> oh okay >> so They move out. You can rent it to anybody that >> you're never going to move out >> as you want. >> Choice is yours, sir. >> They got they got pretty good landlord
land lady. So, >> all right. You're all set tonight, sir. Thank you very much. >> Hey, thank you. >> All right. Thanks. All right. The next matter on our agenda is petition 5202 Lewis Bay Management LLC. The property
is located at 32 Rainbow Road in West Jarmath. It's in an R25 zoning district and the applicant seeks a special permit per 104.3.2 2 sub paragraph 2 andor a variance from section 203.5
for front setback relief to construct a 380 ft square foot addition to a pre-existing non-conforming dwelling. >> Good evening, sir. >> How you doing? >> Good. Could you identify yourself for the record, please? >> Yes. I'm Ed Stafford, the agent for Gary
Howland for 32 Rainbow. >> Okay. Uh could you tell us a little bit about what you want to do over there tonight? >> Sure. We want to add around uh 400 square foot addition and it's a obviously it's a pre-existing non-conforming structure right now. The
setback off the front where our addition is going. The closest setback for the existing house right now is 22.5 ft. The proposed uh addition porch off the front will be less non-conforming than the
existing house at 23 feet, 24 feet, and 25 ft at different points off off the front. It's kind of a, you know, corner uh lot with two different road names. >> Yeah. Uh >> we're still uh the proposed uh lock
coverage is around 16% which is still under the 25%. >> And uh I don't think it really increases uh it's a non increase for the existing non-conforming nature structure and I
don't think it's substantial more detrimental to the neighborhood and the roof line is not going any higher than the existing house. That's about it. >> Okay. Okay. All right. Anything else you'd like to
add at this time? >> Uh, no thanks. >> Okay. We're going to go to the board members for questions. Uh, Mr. Martin, do you have any questions for the petitioner? Actually, this may be a question for anybody who can answer it, I guess. Um,
mainly for you, Sean. If if a property is already non-conforming by side setbacks, front setback or whatever the case may be, uh which it is in this case being 22.5 uh feet to to Bay Road, do they need to
get relief? >> Yes. In this case right here, it it's actually very interesting here because when you look at their um their plot plan >> Yeah. >> Um the existing house, they have two fronts and two sides as we all know
about corner lots, >> right? >> Uh but there are two fronts where the house is right now. They're set back on one side 22 and a half on the front. what they're proposing, which on paper would appear to be closer, is actually
further away from the um existing encroachment. They still need relief because they're supposed to be >> 30 >> 30. Um,
but I think what we could do here, I don't think it's really a a new nonconformity per se because there already has a nonconformity in the front setback. So, I think uh if the board were inclined to grant relief, it would be done so through a special permit. But
to answer your question, they would need relief from us. Yes. >> Um, okay. I mean, I think it's it's worked into uh the front setbacks here in a way that still provides a reasonable uh
front sack front set back uh for the new addition, not to mention the old uh house being closer anyways. And uh so I don't uh I I think it's a a
reasonable request. I don't have any questions. >> Okay. All right. Mr. Needs, do you have any questions? >> Um, my question is what's what's the purpose? I I I >> it's a uh >> is it a new bedroom or is an expansion
of a bedroom? I I couldn't see something with an existing floor plan, but not a proposed floor plan. >> New bed. >> This is a new bedroom, bathroom. So, it'll be now a >> threebedroom >> and it's a two-bedroom currently. >> Yes.
>> Okay. >> And the septic's in compliance presently. >> Have to be if it isn't. >> Yes. That's out of our purview, but Okay. I have nothing else, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. >> Okay. Thanks, Mr. Manonyi.
>> I don't have any questions. Seems reasonable request to me. So, I'm fine with it. All right. Mr. Pan Biano. >> Uh, no, no questions. I agree with you, uh, Mr. Chairman, that I think it's a
special permit under for uh, chapter 40, section six for an extension. Um, I I think it's that's the right way to go. Special permit, but no questions. Seems reasonable. >> Okay. And I have no questions at all. I Yeah, again, I think it is special
permit is the proper form of relief. Um I'm looking at it. It's those corner lots as we know can be very difficult to to navigate when we have petitioners come before us given the the setbacks
with two 30foot setbacks being front setbacks. It's hard to fit these houses on it. I think uh it is an interesting way they fit this one on. And uh I agree with the board that I think there's sufficient frontage remaining here after
their proposed addition uh that would not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. So I think it's a reasonable request and I plan on supporting it. Um Dolores, is there anyone uh with their hands were raised?
>> Uh no, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in favor of this petition? If so, please come to the microphone. Seeing none, if there's anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to this
petition, please come to the microphone. Seeing none. Uh, is there anything else that you would uh like to add? Uh, Mr. Stafford? >> Uh, no. I'm all set. Thank you. >> Okay. All right. Then uh we're going to
close it to uh the public and uh begin board discussion. Uh is anyone want to make begin a discussion or is anyone prepared to make a motion? >> Uh I would move to u uh
let's see accept a special permit or to approve a special permit for petition 5202 uh as requested. >> Okay. No conditions. Correct. >> No conditions. >> Okay. >> Second. >> Is there a second to the motion?
>> Second. >> Second. Okay. Motion made by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Manton. Any further discussion on it? Hearing none. We're going to hear do a roll call vote. Mr. Panaviano. >> I.
>> Mr. Manon. >> I. >> Mr. Neats. >> I'll vote vote I. But I just wanted to comment that uh in lack of uh any correspondence or or opposition, I think it's it's certainly something that falls within our purview. And I was thinking
when I when I looked at it at first that it made sense, but uh if all the neighbors were opposed to it, it might have had a different result. So, >> okay. All right. Noted. Uh you're an I, sir. Yes.
>> Okay. And Mr. Martin. I >> Okay. And I'm an I as well. That passes. Five in favor, none against. Um, as you may be aware, Mr. Stafford, there is a 20-day appeal period once the decision is clocked with the town clerk. After
that time, uh, lapses, uh, you can, uh, come to the board of appeals office and get your special permit, take it over to the registry of deeds and record it, and uh, please bring a copy back for our records. >> Sounds good. Thank you,
>> Mr. Chairman. Before you let him go, uh, since the application does ask for a variance as an alternative. >> Oh, okay. Thank you for reminding me. Yes. Um, you ask for a second form of relief. We would ask that you withdraw
or request to withdraw your relief for a variance, which you don't need obviously without prejudice. >> Yes. >> Would you like to do that, sir? >> Yes. >> Okay. Request is made. Do we have a motion? >> So move. >> So move.
>> So move. Motion made by Mr. Pan and Biano to allow the petitioner to withdraw his request for variance without prejudice. We have a second. >> Second. >> Seconded by Mr. Nez. We will do a roll call. Mr. Martin >> I.
>> Mr. Ne. >> I. >> Mr. Manon. >> I. >> Mr. Pan Biano. >> Hi. >> And I'm an I as well. So that relief is withdrawn and that is without prejudice. All right. Thank you very much sir.
Okay. The next matter on our agenda is petition 5203. That's the town of Yarmouth. The property location is at 451 Forest Road in West Yarmouth. This property is in an R40 zoning
district, the APD and zone 2. The applicant seeks a special permit per table 202.5 for P10 use, which is municipal use in a residential district for a proposed seasonal PAS treatment system for wells
10 and 11. Do we have a representative from the town of Yarm? >> Uh yes, Mr. Chairman. Miss Rosala is online. >> Oh, you're online with us. Good evening. >> Yep. And we also have um Tyler Bernier from Kleinfelder, our consultant.
>> Okay, very good. Okay, we'll zoom them both in. Uh who would like to present? >> You there, Tyler? >> Tyler, you got your hand raised. Can we uh bring him in? Dolores, >> there he is.
>> You're muted, Tyler. There we go. We're getting there. There he is. >> I'm here now. I don't know. It's a little slow to join. >> That's all right. Good evening. Could you identify yourself for the record, please, sir? >> Good evening. Yeah, I'm Tyler Bernier.
I'm uh the project manager and engineer for Kleinfelder, who's the town's water system consultant. >> Okay. And ma'am, could you please uh identify yourself for the record as well? >> Um Lauri Rosala. I'm the water and wastewater superintendent in town.
>> Okay. All right. Um Mr. Bernier, you're going to uh present. >> Sure. If you'd like me to pull up some plans, I can certainly do that. Um I can start off >> Sure. >> Yeah. Yeah. I'll give you a high level
overview. So the the property at um 401 Forest Road is currently and has been used um since the 60s or 70s as a municipal water supply parcel. Um there are two pump stations located on that
parcel um that provide drinking water to the town of Yarmouth. They're wells 10 and wells well 10 and well 11. Um, in the early '9s there were corrosion control facilities uh constructed at those at
those properties. So there are currently four uh municipal water supply structures that are located at the property. Um the project that we are undertaking does not propose any changes
or modifications to those buildings or their um outward appearances. Um there is some some minor electrical work that is required you know within the panels and running some new conduits and things like that but as far as the
building structures themselves go they will remain um untouched for throughout this project. Um the primary purpose of this project is to install some uh activated carbon filtration vessels uh
at the well 10 site which is the site that's accessed um off of Forest Road. Those vessels uh will hold activated carbon and uh are used to to filter out
POS and and um meet the EPA's new regulations on those contaminants. >> Okay. There anything else you'd like to add at this time? >> I don't think so. If you would, if you
need me to pull out plans and walk through anything, I could do that. Um, but >> I don't know that I think I covered it. >> I don't know that we do at this time. What I'm going to do is I have some correspondence that I want to read into
the record. Uh the first one is a memo from the um conservation agent Joe Gerolimo addressed to the board of appeals. Date is November 24th, 2025. And it says as follows. Regarding
petition 5203 451 Forest Road, West Jarmath at its October 16th, 2025 hearing, the Conser Conservation Commission heard a request for determination of applicability for proposed seasonal PAS
treatment facilities for wells 10 and 11 within the riverfront area and the buffer zone to a bordering vegetated wetland. Commission voted five in favor, zero against approving a motion to issue a -2
andg -3 determination. Therefore, said work does not require the filing of a notice of intent subject to following conditions. Any disturbed areas be restored by planting native woodland ground cover. The determination
of applicability was issued on 101 102125. Um, I also have a site plan review comment sheet of which uh you were kind enough to file
responses to. So, I'm going to go over that just in case anyone if everybody has that, we're going to go over that right now. Um, again, this is regarding the subject property site plan review comment sheet.
Uh, comments from building Uh, per table 202.5 P10, use in a residential zoning district will require a special permit from the ZBA. Um, response. An application for a
special permit for P10 use in a residential zone will be submitted to the zoning board of appeals for a hearing which was taking place tonight. community development. Uh their comment ensure adequate screening from Forest Road response.
There is ample fo foliage to provide screening from Forest Road. See attached photos one through three taken from Forest Road looking towards the well 10 site. Engineering comment inspect and repair
24in CMP culver as needed. response. See attached photos four and five of the 24 in CMP culver. The culprit will be supported during the proposed water main installation. Replacement of the culvert
would require excavation work in the tupu wetland areas it that it connects. These wetlands are federally regulated as waters of the United States. This work would require permitting from the USACE,
which is outside of the scope of this project. Additionally, the timeline required to obtain these federal permits would jeopardize the town's SRF funding by extending the current schedule beyond the required SRF deadline. So, by that,
is it fair to say you're not planning on doing anything with that culbert? Is that correct? That's correct. >> Okay. All right. Um, we have a comment from water department. Water department to provide maintenance of infiltration
basin. Response. The Yamoth water department will maintain the infiltration basin once it's placed into operation. Right. Fire department.
Um comment proponent pro propane storage will require a permit from the fire department. Emergency pull station will be required for KOH and maintained along with signage for chemical storage
KO response. The project specifications require the contractor selected during the bidding phase to apply for all necessary permits from the fire department. The KOH chemical feed infrastructure is being partially replaced in kind as part of this
project, not substantially changed and emergency procedures are not being modified as part of this project's scope. We do not believe that modifications to the emergency systems are required.
Health department comment will any of the buildings have any bathrooms or handwashing or eyewashing stations? If so, what kind of wastewater treatment will be will there be? Response: There are no new buildings being constructed
as part of the project. Health hazardous materials comment. Are we correct in understanding that one, the fuel source involved is propane? Two, there are no additional hazardous materials involved with the project other than the 90galon
KOH tank. Three, the existing 1,500galon Kao tank has secondary containment in the form of the counter sunk concrete floor of the building. Response: Yes, the emergency generator will be
fueled by propane. Two, the 90galon day tank previously existed at the site but had been relocated to another facility since well 10 was removed from service. The replacement of the 90galon day tank does not represent a new or increased
storage of hazardous material. It is required to restore the facility to its original operating condition. Number three, yes, the existing 1500galon KOH bulk tank has secondary
containment in the form of the counter sunk concrete floor in the building. See attached photo six for the existing secondary containment comment. Does the new 90galon KOH tank
have secondary containment in the form of a double wall tank or replacement within the counter sunk concrete floor of the building? Response: Yes. The replacement 90gallon KOH day tank is located in the counter
sunk concrete floor secondary containment adjacent to the existing 1500galon KOH bulk tank which has sufficient volume to contain the full volume of both tanks in accordance with mass D guidelines. See attached photo
six comment. Will there be any waste materials generated by the project other than spent filters from the PAS treatment system? Response: No other waste will be generated by the project.
Comment: Are the spent filters from the PAS treatment system hazardous or non-hazardous waste? How will they be disposed of and how often will they be changed and disposed? Response: Absorption media used to
remove PAS is not considered hazardous waste under current federal regulations. GAC adoption absorption media is typically not disposed of. It is regenerated at licensed facilities and returned to the site for repeated
use. It can also be disposed of at appropriate landfill facilities. However, this is not a coste effective approach. If you have any questions about this information or wish to discuss, please feel free to contact me. This was signed by uh Mr. Bernier.
Okay, so that covers the uh site plan comment sheet. Um I think that's all I have right now. Um if there's nothing else you'd like to add right now, I was going to go to the board for some questions. Is there anything else you'd like to add at this
point? either one of you? >> Nope. I think you covered it. >> Okay. Uh Mr. Panabiano, do you have any questions for the petitioner? >> I do not. >> Okay. Mr. Manony, do you have any
questions for the petition? >> No, I don't. I think this uh site plan review committee uh memo covered most of my questions, so I'm all set. Thank you. >> All right, Mr. Neats. >> All set. Thank you. And Mr. Martin,
>> I'm also all al >> I want to thank you for preparing that response. That uh probably just covered a lot of uh a lot of time because I'm sure we would have had those questions had we not had those responses already. So again, we thank you for that. Um is
there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in favor of this petition? If so, please come to the microphone. Seeing none, does anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in opposition to this petition please come to the
microphone? And seeing none, does anyone have their hands raised? Dolores. >> Uh, no, sir, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. Then if there's nothing else the petitioner wishes to add at this time, we're going to close the
um petition to the public and open it up for board discussion. Is anyone prepared to begin a discussion or make a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve the petition as presented.
>> Second with no conditions. >> No conditions. >> All right. Have a motion made by Mr. Manony to approve the request as presented with no conditions. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Okay.
Second made by Mr. Meets. Uh, any further discussion? Hearing none, we're going to take a roll call. Mr. Martin, how do you vote? >> I vote I. >> Mr. Ne, >> I. >> Mr. Manon,
>> I. >> Mr. Panabiano, >> I. >> And I'm an I as well. That passes five in favor. None opposed. Um, Mr. Bernier. Um, as you may or may not know, there is a 20-day appeal period
after this decision is clocked with the town clerk. Uh, after that time elapses, uh, Dolores will contact you if you could just one of you pick come over and pick it up, take it over to the registry of deeds and record it and bring a copy
back for our records. Do you have any questions, either one of you? >> No, thank you. Okay. Well, thank you very much. >> Nothing for me. Thank you. >> Okay. We uh we thank you for your uh town service. It looks like you're doing
a good job. Looks like that's going to be a great project. Keep the water nice and clean. >> Okay. >> That's right. Thank >> you. >> Thank you very much. Have a good evening. >> All right. The next matter on our agenda is
petition 5204 is Daniel and Rebecca Gerard. Property location is 43 Webster Road, West German. It's in an R25 zoning district. The applicant seeks a variance
from table 203.5 for risk setback relief to construct a 10x20 pool. We have a petitioner here. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh could you identify yourselves
for the record, please? >> Sure. Daniel Gerard. >> Okay. >> Uh Dave Cavort. >> Okay. Um, for purposes of full disclosure, um, my brother actually built this
house. He did not sell it to the petitioner. He sold it to the, uh, previous owners who in turn sold it to these people. So, I don't believe I have any conflict of interest. Does anyone have any questions regarding that? Okay. Hearing none. All right. We will
proceed. Uh why don't you go ahead and tell us about your uh petition sir? >> Sure. Um so we bought the home back in 2023. Um and we are is our goal to we the last
summer uh my two daughters lived and work down here for the summer and our goal is to use the home more and more and make it our own. Uh and with that, uh we have uh would like to put in a 10x20 small inground pool, one level,
meaning one one depth and um to make our home more enjoyable and so we use it for years to come with as our family gets to enjoy it. >> Okay. All right. Um All right. Uh is there anything else
you'd like to add at this time? Um, I have spoken to two of my neighbors and I believe they have commented in a positive manner. Um, so we're doing our best to make sure we're um, you know, is
as being as friendly as possible to our our surroundings. >> Okay. Um, all righty. All right. Um, all right. We're going to go to the
board for questions. Mr. Panaviano, do you have questions for the petition? Um I I I do have questions about the intended use of the property um and what has been
stated by the some of the abutters in opposition about the rental listings and um allegations that it has been a a larger than it has been listed for a fourbedroom when it's not a fourbedroom
and the intentions moving forward on that and what occurred previously. Sure. Um, so when we first bought the home, we weren't sure what we were how we were going to use it. Um, the first year we owned it in 2023, it was used as a rental. Um, the following summer it was
we used it for 2 weeks and it was used as a rental. Last year it was not. It is still listed on We Need a Vacation because they have a contract with them. Um, however, if you were trying to rent it through that website, it'd be impossible because every week is blocked. When that contract expires, we
will not be renewing it. It is not our intention going forward and at this point going forward to rent it at all. It will no longer become a rental. Did that answer your question? I'm sorry. >> Yep. I answer my question.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Anything further, Mr. Can Biano >> not at this time? >> Oh, Mr. Manony, do you have any questions? >> Um, does the patio is the patio part of the construction or is that currently
>> There is a there are two patios there. So, where it says on the plans patio and patio, those are existing. >> Um, where the pool is, we will build a patio around all of that. Uh, I believe Dave, there will be a retaining wall that will be part of that also. Um that
will tie those two patios together. >> Okay. So that that the hatch line >> the hatch line is gonna be the new part. >> Okay. >> Yes. Yes. >> And then and then so currently the the house is how far from the the rear?
>> So it's 30 it's 30t 5 inches. So technically we're trying to put a 10 by 20 in. And the reason why we're asking for that variance is basically for a safety thing as well. Um, we technically could put the pool in because there's no setbacks
for a pool off a house in Yarmouth. Um, so but we're trying to pull that back so we can have accessibility to go around the house, you know, for for safety reasons for if there's a fire, if somebody needs to get by or whatever the
case may be. So, we're looking for that that easement. Um, it's 15 feet on each side and then it's 20t in the rear. So, we're asking for that that extra. Um, it's not a very big pool. It's only about 5,500 gallons.
>> Now, is is that um that that hatch is that uh elevated at all? >> No, it's not. It's going to be in the ground. It's also going to have an automatic cover on it. Uh the ATSM U one that it's it's, you know, turnkey automatic cover that goes across it.
There'll be nothing out of the ground be flush with the ground. >> Okay. Um That's uh all I have right now, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Okay, Mr. Nez. >> Um there was mentioned in one of the
letters um some concern about the depth of the pool of 4T is it 4T consistently? >> So yes, this one will actually be 54 in. Uh most normal pools in their shallow ends are 3 ft as you know. Um and then
it goes to a depth end of eight. There's no depth on these. These are considered like a plunge pool. Um, so it's one depth all the way across. It's just a set of stairs coming in and that's it. >> And you've been in the pool business a long time. Is there any concern about safety concern about having a pool with
a limited depth like that? >> Um, we just have to with commercial pools, you have to tell everybody no diving. Um, obviously the homeowner is going to be um doing that as well, but no, there's no issues with that. We can put three foot, four foot. It doesn't, you know, there's no code on that.
easier not to drown. >> You could stand up if you're over four feet. So, >> it's more of a lounge relaxing. Yeah, that's get wet type thing. >> Anything else, Mr. I I think also that
there was some concern about um uh unnecessary outside noise because of the numbers of people that were renting the property. Um is that a legitimate concern with your family usage? >> No, I mean my two daughters I have two daughters living there all summer. One
of them will be back again this summer um to live and work down here. Uh she but you know and my family will be using it you know we're a family of five. Okay. >> Um, so no, I don't No, my belief that is not an issue.
>> No big rowdy parties every week or >> No, not at all. No, >> I didn't think so. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's all. >> Okay. Uh, Mr. Martin. >> Yeah, I think uh so the first year you rented it and last year you didn't rent
it. >> Correct. And and going forward it will not be >> not to rent it anymore. >> No, that is correct. uh because that seems to be the main concern of some of your neighbors. Sure. Some of your neighbors are fine with it as as requested. And anyways,
um I uh I mean we've given relief similar to this down to even less than 10 ft for pools in the past. Um I don't see why that should be an issue here. some of the questions that were brought up and some
of the um letters particularly from Mr. Pa uh are not really relevant especially if it's not being rented and um the
driveway is plenty big enough by the way even under that um concern that he had there. So I don't uh I I'm not seeing any real uh real problem in here based on past uh
experience of what we have done in this bo on this board and um and the fact that uh we're not going to have lousy I mean uh noisy groups renting the place on a weekly basis or daily basis even I
guess you know >> I'm not sure We can control that either. >> We can't. >> No. >> No. >> Anything else, Mr. Martin? >> No. I mean, as just Dick just just mentioned, I don't think that I think that's beyond our control. >> Um, anyways, at least in this town, some
towns seem to be changing those, and I I understand the uh um concerns about all these short-term rentals and and how they can affect a neighborhood negatively. But I don't think that's uh
what we're looking at here anyways. And uh this is a you know, it's a decent sized lot. It's got a two-car garage there. Uh looks like a double lot compared to many lots in the neighborhood. So I'm not uh too concerned here.
>> Okay. Um I have a question and that's concerning the lack of fencing around the pool. >> Has to be has to be. >> Would you speak to that? >> Um, I mean, there is a fence existing on
the back side of the pool between myself and uh the Thompson property at 48 Webster Road. Um, and but as of as of right now, there is no additional fencing, but there is a safety cover that will be installed.
>> Yes. And per the code for the building department in Yarmouth, you only need to use a automatic cover in lie of a fence. They see that um >> you don't have you can have either or you can either have the fence or >> do you have any do you have any
documentation from the state of Massachusetts? >> Yes. >> I don't have anything with me on that but I can get that for you and it is the state does look at it as uh an automatic cover is suffice instead of a fence
around a pool and only certain towns have adopted that. Um, I know Yarmouth has adopted it. Barnesville has not. Uh, Dennis has. There's certain Chadam has. Um, basically they're saying that you can you only need that automatic cover because it's a safety cover as it goes
over. There's nothing going through that. No, you can walk right across it. So, >> but we uh we have actually denied pools in the past. Oh, >> you have that safety covers on it. Um Okay. That don't have a fence around it.
>> Oh. I didn't know that, sir. >> Yeah. And the concern was that the cover only works when the cover is closed. >> Cover has to be closed all the time. >> Yes. >> And um >> but if you don't, >> if if you don't close the cover, >> I I see your point on it 100%. And that
was our concern in a neighborhood where there were smaller children. And I, you know, I think the from a liability standpoint, the petitioner kind of agreed with the with the thought that >> it might be a good idea for liability if nothing else to have to have the additional fencing as required.
>> If if this is something that you would like, I'm sure we could >> work something out on that. That's >> we'll figure that out because we can actually because there's a fence in the back that's pool code. M >> we can come across >> either way and then close it in right with a >> patio to be six feet either. So
>> no 4 feet is the minimum. Correct. >> So that's something we can we can talk about with gates and all that stuff. I I don't have an issue with it. Obviously that would be u Mr. Gerard's pro um >> decision. Um but that's also a decision on the board as well. So, >> I mean, I can I can understand the
concerns, the safety concerns just from the from the standpoint that, you know, if somebody goes to work in the morning and they were swimming in the pool either before they left or we're going to go in after they came home, they wouldn't want to close the pool. >> I'm I'm with you on that.
>> So, um, is that a condition? Um, >> I think I would propose it as a condition if the board agreed. Um, I >> I think it's required under chapter 127 of the general bylaws. >> Pardon me. >> I think it's required under the bylaws.
I'm I'm just looking at chapter 127 of the >> I think the the from what we were told before >> these new covers supersede that. So it it's it's not it may be required but it's it's it's uh not required by a
higher authority. So, which prevails, I think, unless we determine that we want to have it. >> Correct. >> And whatever the board decides, just let us know if that's if it's y, >> you know, if you'd like a fence, then we'll we'll we'll abide.
>> I'll propose it and see if it flies. Mr. Chairman, um I would move to grant with with the provision that the the petitioner agrees to uh uh at least a 4ft fence um to protect the pool from neighborhood children or what however
safety reasons. >> Okay, >> I'll second that. >> Can I ask a question? >> Sure. >> There aren't any children that I know of in the neighborhood. >> There could be visiting children across the street or down the street. Uh, you
know, that's and this is a resort area where there are lots of people going back and forth to that beach every day, too. >> Correct. >> So, I mean, I I I I would think from a liability standpoint, you'd you'd really you'd really want one. And both Dick and I have pools, so,
you know, I I I think we're a little bit we live with them. >> We both have fences. >> Okay. So, we have a motion made by Mr. Meets, seconded by uh >> Mr. Martin. >> And we do have I did want to just say
before we do have some letters from some Butters, but um >> we have uh a letter of support from Mr. Michael Thompson who's in the rear of your property. >> Let me just read these into the record and then we're going to address uh Mr.
Ne's motion. you want to specify? >> Uh, this is addressed to uh Dolores. >> I think they can go across here. >> I'm reaching out regarding my neighbor Dan Gerard of 43 Webster Road, Michael Thompson, who along with his wife is applying for a permit to install 10x20
inground pool in their backyard. Dan mentioned that they are requesting a variance from the current bylaw to reduce the rear property line setback from 20 ft to 10 ft. This adjustment will allow adequate space for safe
access such as for a stretcher or ladder to ensure proper emergency response if needed. As an abuted to the rear property line, I would like to confirm that we have no objection to the diff of course providing that the construction design for the pool considers downward
grade to be lower elevation of our property relative to Mr. Gerard's property. We want to be comfortable that there are proper controls around any drainage and backwash activities such that there is safeguard against pool water encroaching on our property. Thank
you for your time and consideration. Best regards, Michael Thompson. Um I I take it you're going to make sure that there's no drainage into the rear lot. >> No, sir. >> Oh, let me just run down these. I have a
letter from um Helen Marabellis and she lives at uh well she's got a 90 Orchard Street in Boston, Mass, but I believe she's one of your neighbors. Um hello regarding the uh petition above.
I'm a close of Butter three houses down at 55 Webster Road. My family has been vacationing at this address for about 27 years. I have three adult children and three grandchildren now also adults. The neighborhood has always been a quiet one
with se several long-term owners. It has not become a beach zone with associated noise disruption, rowdiness, etc. This is surprisingly true for Webster Road, which is so close to the water. I feel a pool, especially one of this size, will
be a negative addition to our neighborhood. I fear it will invite the problems above noted. It also results in diminished green space. I also do not appreciate the trend of property owners not respecting the zoning laws, thinking they can do as they wish. Here in
Boston, my primary residence, the zoning board bends over backwards to accommodate appeals primarily to benefit from increased property taxes. As for changing the character of the neighborhood, well, that is secondary.
Too often we end up with McMansions with little yard space. Therefore, my family is against granting the variance granting this variance. Okay. Um question
Okay, this is from Don Pa who lives at 44 Webster Road. Thank you for allowing me to express my concerns regarding the petition for a variance to allow an ingground pool at the 43 Webster Road. My name is Don Va. While I
don't ab butt the rear of the property, I'm a butter to the front. And having owned 44 Webster since 1988, this part of Webster Road, characterized by small capes and ranches on smaller lots, has long been a peaceful
neighborhood. However, the construction of a large rental property at 47 Webster Road in 1995 disrupted this tranquility and the addition of another rental property at 43 Webster in 2021 only added to the concerns. Despite
assurances that 43 Webster Road would not become another hotel house, it is now listed as a four bedroomedroom rental property that sleeps 10 people while 47 Webster advertises it and sleeps 20. I oppose the variance for several
reasons. The town of Yam the zoning bylaw for short-term rentals aims to protect the residential character of the neighborhood. Yet this has not been the case. Noise disturbances have been frequent and I know am no longer willing to overlook them. Additionally, a 4ft
deep pool poses safety risks especially to unfamiliar tenants. property owners live out of town and the addition of a pool only attracts more short-term renters, exacerbating parking issues and affecting the neighborhood's quality of life. So, referencing the town zoning
bylaws for short-term rentals, I am not in favor of this variant. Um, I guess what he's saying is he's against this as a result of short-term rentals.
Um, I'm not seeing anything relative to the pool, but I think we've already addressed your intention uh relative to the rental. So, >> yes, that is correct. >> He is opposed to that. And I know you you've made a an explanation. I've read
read the other one. Um, and there's the one. Okay. I have one more. Uh, this is from William Talcott. I'm reaching out regarding our neighbor Dan Gerard of 43 Webster Road in West James
along with his wife are applying for a permit to install a 10x20 inground pool in their backyard. Dan mentioned they are requesting a variance to reduce the rear setback from 20 ft to 10 ft along the rear property line. We either butters to the northwest or adjacent to
the right when facing from facing it from the street. Uh we understand this modification will allow the pool to be placed in a manner that maintains proper access to support safe emergency response if necessary. We support the variance for a plunge pools that should
have not have any detrimental effects on the neighborhood. We also support all attempts to make the property more vacation home to the applicant. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best regards, William and Wendy McGovern Town representing 37 Webster Roads
Trust. That's the extent of our correspondence. >> U Mr. Chairman. >> Yes, >> there's actually another letter from Miss Diane Dah. She's the property owner at 46 Webster. >> Okay, let me just check that one out. Do I have that one?
Yes. Okay. I have this one in front of me. This is from Diane Doon. Uh, I am writing to express concerns regarding petition 4205204 proposed plan to install a pool at 43
Webster Road. As the owners of 46 Webster Road, we have been we which has been in my family since 1996. I have seen the petitioner's property developed from a small vacant lot of many years to a lot with a large home,
including this separate media game room listed as a short-term rental. The original construction plans came for this board in approximately 2020 as a three-bedroom home with a three-bedroom septic system, which plans drawn up by
Richard Cadillac. That should be Ronald Cadillac, I think. Uh it is currently advertised as on we need a vacation number 38568 with pictures as a fourbedroom which can sleep 10. In the past two summer rental
seasons I have observed and reported overflow street parking of three to five cars in front of the property overnights for days in addition to these parked in the driveway. This practice obstructs an already narrow street has prevented me
as well as my immediate neighbors from readily accessing our own driveways and could impede passage of emergency service vehicles. When the rental at 47 Webster advertised capacity 16 to 20 is
fully occupied, overflow street parking sometimes doubles and makes the road almost impassible. Without contact info for the owners at either rental, my only relief is to call the police. I feel that the addition of a pool to this property, which is within
easy walking distance to a beach, it's going to invite even larger gatherings, more noise, and even more cars to a relatively peaceful neighborhood. And I am therefore opposed. Sincerely, Dand. Uh that is the extent of our
correspondence. Um I think we have covered um most of this. We have heard uh the response to the concerns from the petitioner. Um we have a motion made by Mr. needs
to allow the variance as requested with the condition that a 4ft fence be placed around the pool area or around the >> a 4ft fence be placed around the pool
area. Now, where you place that, I think you have some options. >> Mr. Chairman, I think we have some folks in the audience that would like to speak on behalf of this petition as well. >> All right. Do do we have anybody in the audience that wishes to speak in favor
of this petition? If so, please come to the microphone. Seeing none, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in opposition to this petition? If so, please come to the microphone.
>> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, sir. So, identify yourself for the record. >> Yeah, I just got to get comfortable with this so it's not reverbing. >> So, yeah, my I am Don Paya. I live at 44 Webster Road or I don't live there, but
I own 44 Webster Road and my driveway is directly across the street from Dan's front door. Um, >> did you did you write a letter? >> Yes, I did. I submitted the letter. >> I just read your letter into the record.
Do you have anything additional to to add? >> Yes, I do. So, when I when I submitted that letter of opposition, I was not aware of this affidavit that had been filed with the town as nobody reached out to me for support. So, I did not
know that this property is I guess converting possibly to family use. But after reading the affidavit and still seeing on the internet that uh
the house is still up for rent and it's advertised as a four bedroomedroom sleeps 10 and I'll bet you there's been more than 10 in there at times. I I'm not going to count them but I guarantee you it's been same with the one next
door. I mean you guys got your hands full with these new zoning laws. you got to come up with for short-term rentals. However, when I look at the affidavit, there's nothing on this affidavit that tells me when this was filed that was it was signed on Sunday, August 3rd. I
don't see any date stamp on this affidavit. I don't see a town seal on this affidavit, nor do I see a witness on an affidavit. So, it really doesn't in an affidavit, at least in what I understand an affidavit to be.
And so when it when it when the >> affid document you identified the document that you're describing as an affidavit, >> that's what it's titled as. >> Would you like me to hold it file? >> Yes, >> we do.
>> I've never seen one before. >> I'm not sure if I have that. Who's the affidavit from? >> It's it's from Mr. Gerard. It's of the board of health. >> Anybody want this so they can see where it's affidavit? And and what does that affidavit represent? >> What's the date?
>> I ask a question to the petitioner whether this was prepared. >> So So if I could continue >> of health >> when >> could I ask you if this was pres prepared by the board of health or is it just an affidavit that was put on top of
your arm letterhead? >> Sir, I I I don't know what you're I I don't have what you have. >> Can I come? >> Sure. I I presume that's your signature on it. Find that. >> Oh, I see. Yeah, I have it here.
>> Residential property not offered rent. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Was that provided to you by the board of health like this >> or did you prepare it? I prepared it and submitted it because they requested I submit
>> that we're no longer. >> Okay. So, did you do the wording in it or did the board of health do the >> I >> you did the you did the >> I No, no, I just filled in I just did I >> Okay, you just filled in. >> You just filled it in. >> Okay. >> Sorry. I'm >> representing Mr. Chairman that it was
prepared the affidavit was prepared by the board of health. >> Well, this this appears to be and I have it in front of me. This appears to be an affidavit basically saying that you're not going to rent your property and if you do, you have to come into the town and
register with the health department, obtain a recent rental occupancy certificate, right? >> In accordance with chapter 108. >> Yes, that is correct. Yes, I >> says um so >> not binding forever,
>> right? It it just it doesn't say you can. And it says that if you plan on doing so then um you have to come in and register. That's that's what that is. >> Is it registered for 2026? >> No, it is not and nor will it be.
>> Okay. All right. Uh go ahead, sir. >> So my point is that that I did not know that this had been filed when I first submitted my opposition.
However, when I read this and I read where it says, "I hereby confirm that the dwelling unit apartment is not currently rented or being offered for rent." And I go online and I see it offered for rent. I have questions. So,
I'm here. I don't have a I don't have a problem with what my neighbor does in his backyard. I'd recommend number one, if you do have a safety cover, get rid of it. They don't work. Put the fence up.
I've had them. They're not worth it. It's a lot of money. Your service calls are going to kill you. And your your contractor is shaking his head. Yes. Listen to him. The second thing I have a question of is
what's to prevent this from becoming a rental again once the enhancements are done? Nothing. So my concern I got no I got no problem with a pool. More power to you. Put in a real pool, not a 10 by 20.
My problem is the parking and the capacity. Because if this goes back on the market as a rental, what's the capacity? Is it six people like the expired? I have a copy of the expired rental
here. This says maximum occupancy six. So, what's going to be the occupancy if it does go back on the market or Mr. Gerard doesn't like his neighbors and moves and somebody else moves in? >> So, I would like to I would like to
>> actually have Okay. >> I would like to get the occupancy question ironed out and I would like to get the parking situation ironed out. >> When the street is lined with >> I can help you. I can help you with both of those. >> Well, when this Okay. How? How?
>> First of all, we don't have any control over that. That's not our department. Uh well, it's not we only control special permits and variances for pools. We don't we don't deal with occupancy. That's the building and the health
department. So my suggestion to you is that if you see an excess of cars and people and what appears to be parking beyond what is allowed,
then you should contact the uh health department or the building department and voice your concerns to them and that would be the proper authorities for you to address those concerns. >> Yeah. and then and then I become that guy worse. All I'm asking that you folks
do before you grant this variance is to please please do a site evaluation of this place before you grant it knowing what the parking situation is. I measured tonight I got 10 ft between the end of my
driveway and where a car is parked in the road. And believe me, there's been cars parked in the road and there have been loud parties and you can't get out of the driveway.
So all I'm asking you to do is do a site visit and remedy the parking situation. That would be the best thing. >> Did you as I as I told you would that >> I understand sir >> under jurisdiction. >> Yeah, I get that. So, have you folks,
>> if it were, we would certainly address it. >> I I would just suggest for you to keep an eye on things and and contact the board of health >> uh or the uh building department who are the zoning enforcement agents uh and
they can they can help you with that if if that becomes the case. But that's where you'd have to go. We we really can't do that for you tonight >> or the police department >> and we have made site visits to the property. The police department has been called.
So that's all I'm asking you to do. Take do a site visit before you grant it. That's what I'm asking. Please. >> Thank you, sir. >> Is there anyone else that wishes to speak in opposition to this petition? Do
>> we have anyone Dolores? >> Uh, no, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. All right. Then we are Is there anything else that the petitioner wishes to add before we close the hearing to the public? >> I do not. >> Okay. Well, we got a a little bit
offkilter here, and that's my fault. Uh, but Mr. Nez did have a a motion on the floor. Um that's your that you wish to proceed with your motion. Correct, Mr. Nees? >> Yes. And with the provision for the uh
minimum 4 foot fence around the perimeter abuing the house or the pre the other fence that's there, >> correct? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> So, in other words, you just want a fence so no children can get into the pool area. It can be anywhere on the
property as long as it's >> containing the pool, >> right? Okay. All right. Is there a second to that motion? >> Second. >> Was that Mr. Martin? >> Yep.
>> Okay. Motion made by Mr. Neat, seconded by Mr. Martin. Any further discussion on the motion before we take a vote? >> Uh, I'll add a little two cents on here. I I would be uh a no on this. I don't
think it meets the qualifications for a variance. I don't think there are hardships of uh to the property that are unique to the soil topography or or the conditions of the building. Um I don't think the lot's all that unique. It's a square and granting a variance in this
particular respect. Um if you look at the listing documents for the property when it was sold in 2023 or even what's online, it is really tight in the back there and putting a a pool which is not a hardship in there
or you know the the lot lines as they exist. I don't think it meets the qualifications for a variance. So while I appreciate their desire, I don't think it I don't think we have the ability to do so based on what our purview is. So I would be a no that regards regardless of
whether or not there's a fence around it, which I would make it more complicated. I I I do think they need one. If you were to grant one, I think grant the variance. I do think they need it under chapter 127, but I'm a no for this because doesn't meet the qualifications that we're entitled are
required to enforce uh under a variance. >> Right. >> Anyone else wish to have a discussion on this? >> I I am inclined to agree with Anthony. I I think it it's very tight back there.
Uh, I did see the property and um, and considering they're looking for a variant, I I think he's right. I I don't think there is any uh, any justification for a variance. >> Okay. Okay.
>> All right. So, your your position is they don't meet the criteria for variance as well, Mr. Manony. >> That's correct. It's addition. An addition new structure, I think. >> Well, Mr. Gerard. >> Yes. Yes, sir.
>> In order for you to prevail this evening, you need at least four out of five votes. You've heard concerns from two members who are not in support of a variance. >> Yes, I've heard that.
Um, we can do one of two things. We could take a vote. Um, at which I don't believe even if the three of the rest of us were inclined to support it, it would not pass because you need what's called a super majority,
meaning four out of five. Or if there's only four members sitting, you'd need all four of us. >> Mhm. >> Um, if we took that negative vote, it would preserve your rights to appeal. our decision. Um, but you would be prevented from coming back for two years with a light
petition. Or if you wish, you could request a withdrawal without prejudice. Um, and that would give you the opportunity
to maybe try a different variation of this or I'm not sure. Okay. I think what I'm hearing is is there's there's no hardship here. I I think there may be an ability for you to actually place this
pool where you get 20 ft of setback and you might not even need to come to us. >> I I I can sir. However, the pool would be on top of the house >> close to that. >> Yeah. And you know, God forbid I need
emergency services, which is why we originally placed this >> to come back to the home or there was a ladder that needed to get to the second floor. The ladder would be in the pool. Yeah. >> Uh it's I think it would be more dangerous next to the home
>> than 10 feet off the back of our line that my back neighbor supports, my buddy neighbor. >> Okay. Okay, >> Mr. Chairman. >> All right. So, what is your uh
>> Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question >> before you before he locks in on a a decision? Um they they have asked for a variance but in the previous decision it was a special permit for the addition
for the for the reduced setback. What's the difference? >> Um I'm I'm talking about the Rainbow Road. >> Oh, the Rainbow Road. >> Yep. the one that we just approved. >> The one that we approved with a special
permit. >> I know these this petitioner has asked for a variance rather than a special permit, but could you explain to to me and to the petitioner and >> the last one the reason why on the last one that two petitions ago why it was a
special permit because it was an extension of an existing nonconformity. There was already a front setback. Oh, that was less than the prescribed. Okay. >> Correct. >> Yeah. It it wasn't creating a new nonconformity.
>> Okay. >> This is a brand new nonconformity and it requires a variance. >> Yeah. >> And I'm not sure if he even asked for special permit relief also. >> No, he he asked for a variance. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> That's the reason why.
>> So, we couldn't we couldn't grant it as a special permit because it was advertised as a variance anyway. So, no. We can give you less than what you asked for, but we can't give you more. >> Um, >> so can we change that? Can we go for
five instead of 10? Is that because 15's on the side? Both side setbacks are 15 and 15. The only thing that's is in the back is 20. >> We gave five feet to the house instead of 10 feet. >> Would that suffice anything? I'm just
it's just a I mean we literally could file for the permit and and obtain it by putting it against the house. We're trying to do something for a safety reason as well, but I >> Right. >> I'm just trying to see if there's a happy median that we could all come to a
decision with, you know, an agreement with. Would that help? >> Not from my perspective. No. >> Okay. I just figured I'd ask. >> Fair enough. >> That help you?
>> I appreciate you trying to work with us. It's just there's strict regulations of what we can enforce uh and the qualifications that would meet and a rear yard setback like that for a pool wouldn't qualify in this particular instance with this particular property
for me. So, just so I understand, and again, I apologize for asking, but I this is my first time I've ever done this, so I the more I know, the better I I will be. If we applied for a regular pool permit and we put it next to the house, you
think that that would be safer than having it 10 years? >> It's not up to make that decision. >> Okay. All right. I I I'm just trying to understand the process. >> We deal with dimensional zoning rather than safety issues. >> Understood. Thank you. Somebody else
does that. Thank you. >> Well, what is your preference, sir? Do you wish for us to take a vote or do you wish to request a withdrawal without prejudice? >> If if we take the vote, can we still
apply for a permit? >> So, we're not going to take the vote. I mean, >> yeah, we're going to we're going to If if we take a vote and you lose, you cannot come back with even a >> if with a significantly the same
petition for two years. >> Y >> if if you withdraw, >> you can revise it and tweak it and come back >> if you choose to do that >> or not come back if you can find another spot where you can do it without
>> Well, there is no >> septic on the side. So the septic on the side and the 20 ft is the 20 ft in the back. >> Front yard's available. >> Front yard is available. Yes. >> A neighbor wouldn't like that. >> I got gentleman back here may not like that. >> Probably not. Probably not. >> Um
>> yeah. >> Um I wish to withdraw without prejudice. >> All right. We have a request from the petitioner to withdraw his request for variance without prejudice. Is anyone
prepared to make a motion? >> I move to grant that motions. >> I'll second. >> I'll second. >> Motion made by Mr. Panabiano, seconded by Mr. Nez to allow the petitioner to withdraw his request for variance without prejudice. We're going to take a
roll call. Mr. Martin. Hi >> Mr. Neats. >> Hi >> Mr. Manon. >> Hi >> Mr. Panabiano. >> I >> and I'm and I as well. So that's five in favor, none against to allow the
petitioner to withdraw without prejudice. Thank you very much for your time tonight, sir. I'm sorry we couldn't accommodate you. >> Thank you, sir. The next matter on our agenda is petition 5205. That's the trustees of Kingsway
Condominium Trust. The property location is off Noddingham Drive, Mass. It's in an R40 zoning district and the applicant seeks to modify decision 1321 dated October 16th,
1975 to remove the open space restriction placed on the proposed lot which is the subject of a proposed sale to the town of Yarma. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Good evening. Uh my name is >> Good evening, sir. If you could identify yourself for the record, please. >> Yes. Uh Michael Kenneth. I'm an attorney over at Moriardi Bal and Gamash. I represent the Kingsway Condominium Trust. Excuse me. I have uh Michael
Maniatis uh who is the property manager and David Young. He's a board member. Uh they're here if you uh have any questions of the actual applicant uh rather than me. Um >> uh and well actually I guess through the
chairman this is this is a pretty extensive uh permitting history and and quite a bit of materials have been uh submitted in support of it. So, while I'm going through this, if you want to interrupt me, ask me any questions, absolutely feel free to do so. Like I
said, this is this is a law. >> Well, I I've taken a look at this. Can I ask you a question here? Is this pretty much a restriction on a piece of property within King's Way? >> Yes. >> That was required to remain open space. And at this point, you want to eliminate
that restriction to allow you to sell that piece of property to the town of Yarmouth. Yes. >> Who proposes to use it as conservation space? >> Yes. >> In a nutshell, >> yes, there's a there's an offer to purchase. Uh I believe it was executed
on August 27th. >> That's what I asked. >> Um then there was a um the town meeting vote, which is what I uh provided to the uh board members here uh in the meeting room. Um, so yeah, we're we're here basically to uh this is I I guess you
would say the first step in the process of us trying to uh sell the lot to the town. Um we need uh uh we need the restriction removed which uh you know as we outlined in our packet uh I think you can do without any um concern with with
the the uh 7030 ratio uh required by the uh the uh village permit um bylaw. uh after this we would have to uh do an ANR filing with the uh planning board uh which we have teed up uh in the event
that the board approves this petition. Uh and then we have some land court filings that we have to go through as well. So >> there's quite a bit of work to do. Um this is the first step. Uh but we're really looking forward to uh you know moving forward and and selling this piece of property to the town. Uh I know
that the the town is uh you know eager eager to uh to pursue this as well. Uh this is part of a I think it's called the the town's oh boy sorry uh town's open space and open space and recreation
plan. Uh my understanding is Yarmouth is looking to buy um open space through that plan. Uh and this is one of the properties that they've obviously focused on. Um, >> okay. Okay. >> I I can go I can go through the permitting history. It's It's kind of boring.
>> No, we don't need you to do all that. We're pretty familiar with King's Way. >> Okay. >> Um Okay. So, if and and I'll we'll I'll go to the board members for questions in just a moment. But if we were to grant
you relief, so if we were to remove the restriction on the condition that the proposed lot is sold to the town of Yamoth and preserved as conservation land, >> is that sufficient for you?
>> Um, yeah. Well, I guess yeah, I I think that would be fine. um the uh uh we're looking for you know I I think we need to release the
um release the restriction. Um, I don't know if just thinking I I I don't know if it could be conditioned upon the sale because I think that would actually kind of gum up the uh the process with the land court. Um, because they would want uh some sort of a final
decision be before they uh uh >> Well, we certainly don't want to cause you any problems up there. You may never get out of there. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> The the the engineering department in the land court can be pretty tough. Um, >> well, what if we let me let me just kind
of work with you on this for the language part. >> What if we were to >> allow the removal of the restriction on the condition that it remain conservation? >> Um, I think that would be fine.
>> Okay. Would that you think that's clean language for the land court? I think it probably would be. >> Yeah, I think that would be fine. That would prevent the town from using it as recreation. >> Yeah. >> Um >> Yeah. >> Well, once the town acquires it by statute, um it it it would
>> if it's coming from if it's coming from conservation, doesn't it require state legislation to remove it? >> Uh uh well, no. If it's conveyed to the the conservation commission pursuant to the statute, it stay it remains in perpetuity. Open space, recreation
space. Um >> I know >> pursuant to the statute. Yeah. >> I I'm not sure that recreation is a part of conservation, but >> it's not. >> Well, the Yeah, the statute is >> conservation. No, conservation would be strictly conservation. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Um just the language of the statute is that it would be open space recreation. So they I mean I guess they could potentially open a walking trail or something like that, but they there could never be any kind of a development
of this lot under the statute. >> They do intend to use it with Bray Farm. There are some walking trails, so maybe that's the recreation side of it. Bray Farm has a U >> but they also have a lot of other activities too, >> right? No, no, I just >> that are not recreational.
Well, what is it the what is the intent of the town of Yarmouth to do with it? >> Are they >> um >> meeting article conservation in perpetuity? >> Yeah, it's conservation in perpetuity. Actually, I think it's
>> that's what it is now. >> It's just open space under it's just Yeah, right now it's just open space which complies. Yeah, >> Kingsway wants to sell it to the town. The town wants to buy it.
>> My understanding is they want to maintain it as conservation land. I think it's it sounds to me like a win-win. I mean, if Kingsway wants to sell it, Kingsway wants Yarmouth wants to buy it and essentially keep it preserved for
conservation. But didn't the didn't the term didn't the terms of the permitting um depend upon a certain amount of open space? >> Well, we could we could certainly we
have the ability to uh to do that. I mean, I suppose someone withstanding who wishes to object to this might have an argument to be made, but if it's the wishes of the petitioner and wishes of
the town to purchase it and maintain it as open space, I won't speak for the other board members, but I don't really see a problem with that. I've never seen any um development or condominium that was required to have open space that was
allowed to sell it regardless of to whom. >> Well, there have been some there have been some properties which uh rather rather than be taxed for their >> well space they did give it to the town.
>> They were old parks or something or old um smaller than >> Right. smaller than legal lots that were designated to be preserved, but uh they were usually they usually went from the
from the condominium or or neighborhood association >> to something else. >> Yeah, >> I would agree with Dick to some extent. It seems a little >> crazy to be paying $600,000 for money that was for for to buy land to protect
land for that was already protected. Well, I I think if it had been explained at town meeting, there would have been a lot more discussion, but I was there and I don't remember hearing much except just a a brief outline that it was being sold. The town wanted to buy the land and they wanted to sell.
>> Can I purch if if I could just speak for a second about the you had mentioned the the percentage. So what happened was uh back in 1973 the town through uh its uh spring town meeting annual town meeting uh adopted what is called the open space
village development bylaw. Uh there was an amendment in 1974 which um preceded the petition uh the original petition from um uh uh Oaks Harbor Association which was the original owner of the
property. Um, reading through the uh history, it looks like that bylaw was probably adopted in 1973 or 74 to actually accommodate the Kingsway development. Uh, because everything kind of happened almost all at once. Um, one
of the uh conditions in the bylaw, the 73/1974 bylaw is that at least 30% of the of an open space village development remain uh open space. Uh, in this case, uh, they
developed uh, pursuant to the special permit that was issued in 1975, uh, they received permission to develop roughly 50% of the land. So they were way way uh way over the 30 the 30 30% minimum.
Um in 1975 when they issued the special permit uh it's a little quirky. It was 51 almost 51 years ago now. U they had what it looked like um they had reviewed maybe concept plans and there was a condition in the special permit that
said listen we know this is essentially the way that you want to build this out. Um but final sighting of the buildings uh you know the the residential units and then you know there's a clubhouse and everything else and there's a golf course uh you'd have to come back uh with more definitive plans which ended
up happening in 1986. Uh Green Oaks uh they were contemplating buying the property and there was a condition that you know they receive uh further um approval from the zoning board. So you have a second decision that was issued
by this board in 1986. It's uh decision 2268 uh which basically said okay this is these are the final plans. This is where the buildings are going to go. Um and actually this board found that in 1986
uh there was actually more open space there that there would be more open space left uh in the development uh than what was allowed in 1975. Um so following that in 1988 the trustees of the Kingsway Trust uh deed
the property well certain properties um it deeded them and dedicated them as open space. This lot was considered one of those uh one of the areas that was dedicated as open space. Uh that deed specifically says that um it was a total
of 90 99.1 acres. Um so if the petition tonight is allowed uh you're looking at 96 acres uh that is that will remain uh open space dedicated open space pursu pursuant to
the special permit in 1975 and the the subsequent decision in 1986 which comes out to for I think it's 49.5% of the land still is an open space right now. Uh we have a a certified letter from our engineers, Mel Engineering, uh
Dina Bumitri, uh I believe it's exhibit 9 in our packet. Uh she runs the calculations. So if if this petition is allowed, uh there's still 49 I believe 49.5% of the land still remains open space.
So the the the B you you can uh allow this petition and there would not be uh any issues at all with with the uh uh with the bylaw because you have we're still you know far >> which you say was 30 30% at the time. >> It it's a minimum of 30%. So if if you
allow the petition tonight we're down to 49.5%. Okay. >> And there um I don't really want to speak on behalf of the town, but my understanding is that there's grant money uh that's going towards the purchase of this property. I've been in touch with a conservation agent. Uh and
I know there's a a deadline that we have to meet. Uh there's um uh we have to consummate the uh the sale by a certain certain date because there's a grant money on the line hereation trust participating in the grant.
Um actually we is conservation trust related have any part to do with this? >> I don't think so. They just >> I'm not sure. Um, I think it's exhibit 3. Hold on. >> I know we talked about it, but I don't think >> I've got exhibit 3 in front of me. I
don't really see anything that speaks to how it's going to be used. It's just a sale. >> And I think it would need that that uh uh subject to added to it.
Well, what we could do is we could grant them we could lift the restriction conditioned on that it remain conservation or open space and if any subsequent purchaser wishes
to come in and request otherwise then they have to come back to the board. >> Yep. Town's been known to sell sell sell properties that were
not expected to be sold. >> Well, this one's kind of This one butts a neighborhood though, right? So, >> y >> at any rate, that's what they're asking tonight, gentlemen.
So I >> we have any >> Oh, I'm sorry. Um yeah, so paragraph 3E just states, you know, seller shall obtain relief from the zoning board from the original open space requirement. So,
what we need to do is we need a vote of a a vote tonight saying that there's no um uh restriction pursuant to that bylaw, that 1974 bylaw, section 18.07. So, so there's no
So, what you're asking us to do is to release that requirement. >> Yes. And >> that remain open space. >> Yes. So, the the offer to purchase um which has been executed was drafted by town council. Um so, we're just kind of
going through the checklist. uh everything that your town council has uh required of us uh is spelled out in that paragraph three of the offer to purchase. So this is step one. >> Well, I wasn't at town meeting. Um perhaps the others could chime in on
this. What was the representation at town meeting as to how this land was going to be used? Um >> Mr. Chairman, Attorney Kenneth might want to reference the paper he gave us with the article. >> Yes.
Um, well, I provided it to the members here. >> Okay. I may have it with me, too. You've got a pretty >> No, he just did it tonight. >> Article 11. >> He Yeah, I believe the attorney just supplied it tonight. Is that correct?
>> Yes. I just re I just received it from Britney Dhenzo this morning. Um it was obviously this is dated far after we had submitted our application. I think it's November 28th >> 26.
>> So what is she saying? >> Um you could buy one and I'll buy one at the time. >> Yeah. just references that it's going to be land held by conservation in perpetuity >> exclusively for open space passive recreation and land conservation
purposes consistent with the provisions of general laws chapter 40 section 8C uh 310 CMR22 uh in article 97 of the Massachusetts con constitution um
it's a common statute uh conservation uh conservation commissions throughout the Commonwealth buy open space and own it uh for for conservation purposes. It's pretty common. >> Well, well, so I guess getting back to
my question, >> if we were to grant you the relief that you if we were to release the condition >> but condition it upon it remaining conservation
plan, is that problematic to you? Um, >> are you the seller? Uh, >> the attorney for the Keys Trust. >> You represent the seller, correct? >> Yes. Yeah. Yes. >> Well, I would think that wouldn't be
problematic for from your perspective, would it? >> That's what the Tom eating article requires. >> Yeah. Um, I I don't think it would be an issue. Okay, then let me let me just go back to the
board for a minute so I can kind of get an idea how everybody's leaning in this. Is the board inclined to support allowing this restriction to be removed with a condition that the property
remain conservation land? Mr. Martin. >> Well, I'd want that want that as a minimum. I mean, as >> that would be a condition in our decision. >> Yeah, there would have to be a condition that it stays open space uh
conservationally in one way or another because that's what it is now. And and uh you know, I mean, I'm not sure the town's getting a great deal here, but that's I guess another story.
>> Mr. needs your thoughts. >> Um, uh, my thoughts run more along the line of questions rather than a yes or no. Who approached whom? Did did Kingsway approach the town or did the town approach Kingsway? >> Um, so there was thoughts because we
were above the 35% open space requirements and there was a kind of a study done internally at Kingsway about selling the land. It wasn't initially thought to sell it to the town, but we did have a meeting with them kind of letting them know that, you know, there was a possibility we would try to get
the land released to sell to maybe a developer or anyone that was interested because we are so far and above that open space requirement. Um, and then there was kind of a a mutual and we came to this kind of same thought that it would be a perfect addition to the Bray Farm property and that the town would be
very interested in in buying it from us for a reduced price of what we had for an appraisal. And so that's how we landed on this kind of deal. So I guess you know did anyone we went to the town not with the intention of selling them to the land but just to discuss you know
we may sell to somebody and then they came to us saying we might be that somebody. Um and so we thought with you know being good neighbors in in Yarmouth and you know we have 666 homes this could be a win-win for the town of Yarmouth where they can keep conservation as the Bray Farm and
Kingsway which is an aging development and you know as many homeowners in there it could reduce the financial burden on them as well as fees the everything gets more expensive in the world. So, it's kind of thought of a win-win for everyone because there is a desire with this parcel of land that we we can't use
because of Nottingham Road. Um, and we are so far and above our open space where and we're actually not fully built out if you if you look at um you know the our capacity. We would never build more, but the thought from the board was we should try to do something with this
land to help our homeowners. So, um, that was the original thought to sell, not to the town, but this kind of fell in our lap, and we're very obviously happy about it. It's win-win for everyone, much rather than condos or homes going down there. >> Was there ever any Was there ever any um
um discussion or scuttlebutt as to why it wasn't developed to begin with >> when the condominium complex was under construction? Um I do know that the easement to Noddingham which leads to Saltwork Cove was a um easement in perpetuity given to them I believe after
the fact. Um it's on it above our 14th hole. It's not an ideal place for us to build. It could be an ideal place for somebody else to build homes. Um we would much rather see it in conservation for perpetuity like you guys. So we have no issue with the town's intention at the town meeting that was in the article
um that it would be in conservation. So our um belief is that this is going to stay, our understanding it's going to stay conservation. Um every discussion we've had with Bob and >> we have no position as to whether or not it should be conservation or sold to somebody else,
>> but it's a change of of of of the original permitting that King's Way had um which would need to be modified, I would think, Mr. Chairman. Um >> yeah, I I'm not I'm not sure that the >> that's what they're asking for. They're
asking that we release that >> uh restriction to remove the open space restriction requirement that's placed on >> well and allow them to sell part of the designated open space that was permitted >> over that designated amount. So there was legal
>> it doesn't matter whe you don't get back to you don't go back to do a redo after 50 years. I mean discussion at that time was because that the open space there wasn't a whole lot of open space in the open space. It was mostly golf course and uh so
that was one reason this piece was made it more amendable so to speak and uh so I don't think you can go back to when it was approved and we oh we have more open space than we really needed then so we let's we want it back. Uh I
>> we can't redo that. >> Yeah. I'm not saying I don't agree with doing this, but I uh I don't I don't think some of the reasoning is is is justified. And I do
think some reasoning that might make some sense in terms of getting the town getting this is that they could add it to the to the Bray Farm property. Um you know, but then it's not necessarily conservation. And
that may have other uses as well. Uh but conservation, I mean I mean we put trails through conservationally in all the time. So you could have a trail on here no matter what. Um and uh you know >> recreation, >> but it's passive recreation. Yeah.
>> And have donkey rides and stuff there. >> No, no, no. But you could have a a walking trail through here. And and in that sense, it it's it's good. I I don't I mean, I I guess I'm okay on it. I don't know if we're getting I
don't know if the town's getting screwed or not, but that's uh I guess I'm to be worrying about that. >> Well, I think if there was extensive discussion at town meeting as to this aspect, um I'm not sure that it would have gotten the positive vote that it did. Um because from from at first
glance it looks like we're we you know we've got a piece of property that's designated open space and it's going to be conserved because it can't be built on and then we have the town saying oh we want it as conservation open space and we're going to pay you $600,000 for that privilege
when it's already conserved basically. And I I think that's the thing that the town has to deal with. Uh as as word of this gets out to more people, they may have some input that they'd like to give us about whether or not they want the town to
grant the position the the uh allowance in the offer to purchase that gives the town the out if they don't get the permitting from this board to undesate it as open space. >> I don't know. Um,
>> I don't know that I'm prepared to make a decision tonight without giving it some more thought and maybe getting some more input. Mr. Chairman >> Um, >> well, I think it would be helpful maybe if we had somebody What? What? I don't
have that memo in front of me from Britney. >> What? What exactly does that say? Can somebody read that into the record? >> It's It's a certified town. It's a certified uh article 11 that was passed
at the uh your town. >> I see. And what what does it say? >> Um uh well I I I'll read it. um article 11 open space acquisition to see if the town will vote pursuant to
the community preservation act general laws chapter 44B and other applicable authority to purchase certain parcels of property totaling 3.14 acres more or less located off Ningham Drive at assessor's map 142 parcel 17 shown as
a portion of lot 55 as shown on a plan entitled boundary plan off Nottingham Drive made by Merrill engineers uh and land surveyors and dated December 30th, 2024 that said land to be conveyed and
managed uh by the Yarmouth Conservation Commission and used exclusively for open space, passive recreation and land conservation purposes consistent with the provisions of Massachusetts General Laws chapter 40 section 8C uh 310 CMR22
and art in under article 97 of the amendment amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution >> and to fund such purpose >> to fund such purchase uh transfer $35,000 from community preservation open
space reserve and transfer $300,000 from free cash and further to authorize the select board in the conservation commission to file on behalf of the town of Yarmouth in all applications deemed necessary for grants and/or reimbursements from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts under chapter 132A section
2 and further to authorize the select board and the conservation commission to negotiate any and all agreements and instruments associated with such purpose and to further authorize the select board and the conservation commission to grant or accept perpetual conservation restriction on the property and limiting
the use of the property as Afer said conservation restriction may be granted to the Yarmouth conservation trust or any other organization qualified and willing to hold such a restriction. Does that mean you have to >> Okay. And so that passed the town meeting.
>> So >> I guess what I'm hearing is the town wants to take it >> for conservation, open space, recreational use, maybe >> passive recreation.
>> Passive recreational use. But that's what they want to do and they want to buy it. And it appears that that was the intent of the voters at town meeting and it appear had sufficient support where
it was adopted. So I guess my question to the board is um do we really want to go back in time? I don't know that we should be renegotiating the price or the reasons it should be sold or not. um that seems
to have been voted on already. I I think I I I think my position on this would be if that was the intent of the voters of the town to want to purchase this property for the reasons so stated in
that article, I don't know why we would stand in their way. I mean, as a taxpayer, you might object to whether you think it was a good deal or not, but I don't know that this is the proper forum to bring to bring that up. I think that should have
been brought up at town meeting. That's that's already passed and they're merely here to ask that we lift that restriction um to allow them to go forward with sale. and and I think my own personal belief
is I think we ought to vote in favor of that >> but I will listen to others but I I think that should be you know the scope of what we look at here >> if if if I could if I could add just uh
Mr. chairman if if it's okay. Um the the uh the attachment that I had sent that I just read from also references the recommendations uh to the town meeting article. Uh the select board had recommended passage 5 to nothing. Uh
community preservation committee recommended passage six to nothing. Finance committee recommended passage six to nothing. >> And again this is part of the town's open space and recreation plan. Correct. >> There there's a there's a goal in in the
town of Yarmouth to acquire open space uh as you know as much as possible um to serve certain interests uh in the town uh conservation commission. They've you know determined that this is a property
that that meets one of those goals. >> Okay. Well, gentlemen, um, I we what are our thoughts here?
I'm in favor of this. It's obviously the intent of the town uh at town meeting to purchase this and use it as stated. So, I I have no objections. I'm for it. >> Okay. Mr. Panabiano,
>> same. >> I'm in favor of it. Mr. Martin, >> I'll be in David. >> Now, Mr. needs. >> Um, >> thought >> as I said before, I I just don't like the fact that it wasn't
>> explained properly >> explained at all on town meeting floor except that the town had the opportunity to buy additional conservation land to that abued Bray Farm. Uh it didn't
say I don't even recall it saying that the that the owner of the property was was the um Kingsway Trust um or that it was currently and that's this is the most important thing is that if it's conservation and open space now
and the town wants to own it because they want more conservation land, it doesn't make sense that that it would happen. I I can I don't think I can vote for it. And in all good conscience, I think that the town uh
probably did the voters a disservice by not explaining it fully at town meeting. >> So I I take it your no vote would be on philosophical reasons. >> Yep. >> It wasn't explained properly. and the the the purchase and sales agreement or
the offer to purchase is significantly um contingent upon uh this board's approval to relief release the uh the land from being designated as open space.
>> Well, I I don't I don't necessarily disagree with you. I I take your points is all valid but as I just previously said I think the forum to make that argument was town meeting and I think if we were to do that we would be going
against the vote is what they approved >> um and and I I don't think really we should do that as the board of appeals I I think they we are really here to facilitate
a lifting of this restriction as to what the town really wanted really wants it for and they may have other plans for it too. Maybe they need it for something. We don't know. But I think the town has spoken. I think there was it was vetted.
I think the selectman weighed in. You know, uh conservation, open space committee, all the committees weighed in. Um, so having said that, um, and if there's
nothing else that the petitioner wishes to add at this time, I will Is there anyone in the Well, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in opposition
to this petition? Seeing none, I'll I'll presume that the people remaining in the room, if they're going to speak, would speak in favor of it. We've already heard comments. So, um, if there's nothing else, I'm going to close the hearing to the public, open
it up for board deliberations. Uh, is anyone prepared to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve the petition as presented. as presented and that is to remove the
open second. We have a motion made by Mr. Manonyi, seconded by Mr. Panabiano to grant the relief requested which is to remove the open space restriction
placed on the proposed lot and that was uh to modify decision 1321 dated October 16th, 1975. So that's what the motion is. >> Correct. >> Am I correct?
>> Yes. I I think we'd want some uh conditions on that that it be for conservation and passive recreation only. I I you know I I I I do want to be careful on that because
they're I I I don't want to do anything that's going to place a a problem with this either by way of purchase or by way of land court.
So, I mean, I think I think we understand what the rec what the representation was of the of the purchaser because that was during an open meeting, the town meeting.
So, that's all on the record what their intention is to do with the property. So, I think really we are limited. Council, I'll let you weigh in on this. I think we're really just limited to
lift the restriction and not put another restriction on it. Would that be your opinion? >> Uh yes, that that would be my opinion. My concern is another restriction may raise concerns um as far as that, you
know, land court approvals. we we have to file an ANR through the land court uh after we file our ANR with the um um uh with the planning board. Um so I preferably what we would uh what we'd
like is just no restriction at all. Uh we don't want to run into any kind of a roadblock. Uh the there's grant money that could end up disappearing uh if we run into any kind of a roadblock uh going forward. Um so I think no
restrictions would be preferable. Um that we can you know we can avoid any kind of possibility of there being an issue that we'd have to you know circle around and go through the entire process again and uh at that point we we probably or the town would lose the grant money.
>> Okay. Okay. Does everybody understand that? >> Yes. >> Okay. So any further discussion from the board? Okay. So, we have a motion made by Mr. Manoni, seconded by Mr. Panaviano
to remove the open space restriction placed on the proposed lot by way of decision 1323 dated October 16th, 1975. We're going to take a roll call. Mr. Martin. >> Hi,
>> Mr. Neats. >> Nay. >> Mr. Manon. >> Hi, >> Mr. Pan. Biano >> I >> and I'm an I. That P. That's four in favor, one opposed. The request passes.
Um, as you're aware, sir, there is a 20-day appeal period. Once this is clocked with the town clerk, um after that time elapses, um Dolores will contact you and you can come get your uh
your release, I guess, or our decision and uh record it in the uh over at the registry of deeds. >> Perfect. Thank you very much. >> All righty. Thank you very much and we wish everybody the best.
>> Thank you. Merry Christmas. >> Merry Christmas. >> Merry Christmas. Okay, we have a few other items here. I think we need to approve some minutes. >> Uh, yes, Mr. Chairman. >> Just had my minutes in front of me, too. >> Have a good night.
>> For conservation purposes. >> Okay. The minutes stated the bottom line. It >> also does say Yeah. Okay. Where' my minutes go? Somebody have the minutes? Yeah, I got
them. >> October 23rd, 2025. >> Okay, do we have a motion to approve those minutes? So move. >> Second. >> Second. >> All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I >> I. Any opposed? Hearing none. We have
one more set of minutes. Dolores. >> Uh, yes, Mr. Chairman. November 13, 2025. >> I'm not sure I should have second that. I'm not sure I should have second that because I wasn't there. I don't think. >> Was I there? >> Uh, yes. The the first set of minutes October 23rd, 2025 was everyone except
Mr. Panabiano. November 13th, 2025 was everyone except Mr. Neats. >> Okay. So, do we have a motion on the minutes for the November minutes? >> Yes. So, move. >> So, move to accept. >> Okay. Moved by Mr. Panabiano. Seconded
by whom? >> Second. >> Mr. Man. >> Second by Mr. Manon. Any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Hearing none. Do we have a motion to adjourn? >> Yes.
>> I'll make So moved. >> Okay. >> Second. No one wants to leave. >> Second. >> Second that. >> That's a second. >> Okay. All those in favor? Hi. Hi. >> Hi.