Recording in progress. >> Good evening. My name is Sean Igo. I'm the chairman of the zoning board of appeals. We will now convene the July 24th, 2025 meeting of the Yama zoning board of appeals. This is a hybrid meeting and is being recorded. We will
begin by taking a roll call for quorum. Mr. Martin here. >> Mr. Frey here. >> Mr. Manon >> here. >> Miss Murphy >> here. >> Mr. Scanland. >> Yeah. >> And I'm present. Having a quorum, we
will now begin the meeting. The first matter on our agenda tonight is petition 5184, the town of Yarmouth, property location 6 Pleasant Street in South Yarmouth. It's in a B2 zoning district. And the applicant seeks a special permit
per 301.2 andor a variance from section 301.4.6 Six for inlot trees requirement to increase from the inlot trees requirement to increase the number of parking spaces. The applicant requests a
waiver from the requirement for a certified site/plot plan less than 2 years old. Good evening, sir. Could you identify yourself for the record, please? >> Good evening. Yes. Uh my name is Dave Condan. I'm the director of natural resources for the town. And uh if you'd like, I give you a little quick background on the project, what got us
here, and then what we're asking. >> Please. Um, so Packet Landing, obviously a multi-use marine facility. Oh, I'm sorry. I should say I'm also joined uh Cole Baitman if maybe he could be uh presented or upgraded to speaker or whatever. He's our consultant from Tai Bond.
>> Okay. >> Anyway, so Packet Landing, a multi-use facility. Um, it's a a commercial and recreational marina and also where we store uh usually three town response boats, a fire boat and two harbor master boats. Um
uh the town applied for a coastal zone management grant from the state and was awarded uh currently we're just entering year two of a two-year grant for um permitting and 100% uh design for a
resiliency project at Packet Landing. So the long and short of it, um the plan for packet will be to effectively raise the parking lot three feet. Um build a sheet pile bulkhead on the the what is the east side, the marina side and also
on the southern side against the abut's property there. Um a fiberglass reinforced sheep pile bulkhead and um raise the parking lot and then also raise the timber pier remove and replace the timber pier. raise that
approximately like a foot and a half. Um, and as a result of that, there ends up being a small ramp from the parking lot down to the timber pier. Um, and because of that, we kind of have to redesign the parking lot a little bit. So, we lose uh I think we lose like three or four spots that are currently
in the middle of the parking lot and then we gain those back on the other side. Uh so currently there are 18 spots plus one ADA spot and the plan is I believe uh the plan is 20
uh standard spots and one ADA spot. So we we do reach that 20 lot uh 20 parking space threshold that you guys have for the inlot trees. Um so again, we're seeking relief from that requirement. uh the way that parking lot is, it's it's already a small parking lot and I think
uh any any inlot obstructions would only make things more difficult for for the traffic that we already have there. They're all, you know, large pickup trucks. We have trailers, um you know, fish trailers occasionally. Um the commercial guys offload there. We have box trucks, you know, even 18 wheelers
we've seen in there. Campers we've seen in there. Uh boat trailers usually by accident, but they end up in there. So any um any any more obstructions in the parking lot would be a a bit of a burden for that that specific spot. >> Okay.
Anything else you'd like to add at this time? >> Uh no. I mean the only other thing is we did include the planting plan for you guys. Uh so you should be able to see on the outside there's significant areas for plantings. I know that again the requirement says that they shall be in the lot but again there's significant room for plantings both for conservation
mitigation and also um you know obviously as many trees as we can we can stuff in there. >> Okay. >> All right. Uh I do have a memo from uh Joe Gerald Limo, our conservation agent. I hope I didn't pronounce your name
wrong. Dated July 15, 2025. Uh this is regard to petition 5184 6 Pleasant Street South Yarmouth. At its July 3rd hearing, the Conservation Commission heard a notice of intent for the proposed elevation and reconstruction of Timberwarf sheet pile bulkhead and paved
parking lot with drainage improvements for coastal resilience in the riverfront area. Coastal Bank LSCF land under the ocean and the buffer zone to the coastal bank. The commission voted six in favor, none against,
approving a motion to issue an order of conditions, including special conditions, including monitoring and DMF comments. Uh, the approved plan set Yarmouth, Massachusetts packet landing marina resiliency was last revised on June
18th, 2025. That's all I have in my packet for correspondence. I think we're going to go to the board right now for some questions. Mr. Martin, do you have any questions for the petition? >> Uh, yeah, I guess I do.
>> Uh, I got two plans here. They're both new ones, correct? >> Okay. Um, so there's nothing as showing the asis. >> I don't know that I have the existing with me. I mean, I have a I have a Google Earth photo I could hand you, but
I don't have an existing plan with me. We do have them. They do exist. I could share that too. Now you said 18 spaces and you were losing spaces in the middle. >> Yeah. So the way it is currently there's >> plans it shows 21 spaces. >> That that's the new design that you're looking at there, right? So So currently
there's uh one, two, three, six, seven uh in the middle of the parking lot. And the new plan drops that down to >> four apparent. >> So we're losing three there, but then we gain those back on the other side where we dig into the grass a little bit by the bath house. >> That's what we like to see.
What's there now too? Um, okay. I don't see. Uh, so this one is showing the planting showing red cedars on the southern border butdding up to the residences, right?
>> Uh, correct. Yes, >> those will be going in. >> Correct. Yep. >> All right. And apparently some smaller shrubs or something on the other side. Uh, okay. I I need to recognize this all needs to be done and I'm sure between
you guys and conservation, everybody else, you'll do a good job of it. I uh you know, normally I might like to have an extra tree or two there, but in this case uh with as you say with the trucks backing up and moving around and and
plus also from Route 28, people look down that way and that's where they get the view of the river. So I don't uh in this case I can I can see foregoing those. So I that's all I >> Okay, Mr. Frey.
>> Um just to the north of this there's a a series of trees along 28. None of that's coming down, right? You're not taking any trees down? >> No, nothing's being disturbed on on the what would be the north side there. Uh the concret or the uh paver walkway there is going to be removed like a
little bit for construction. Basically replaced with what's there existing. But we're not extending any further to the north than what's there currently. >> Okay. So you're keeping the trees in the in the park that are already there. And correct this is a change that that's all I have. >> Did I miss that? This Cole B professional engineer and project
manager at time bond just there's one exception. There's one tree being removed that which is in the proximity of the work area at the north end. It's a it's a small I think it's an oak tree, but it's it's at the bottom end of the bank. Um and it's in the way of the rec
the extended um seaw wall. So that is the reason for the removal. Um >> it's on the so the the northeast corner. Is that what you're referring to? >> Uh it's it's more along um and I could I have some plans included in an existing condition plan that wasn't included in
the submission here, but we're we're part of the notice of intent application. If the um board would like I I I could show on a on that plan where the tree exists. Is there room to replace a tree in spot or somewhere close thereof just so we don't lose the
number of trees in the area? >> Um >> you're starting to sound like me. >> I know. Sorry. >> Possibly. Uh maybe not not in that specific location like I said because the the reet or the seaw walls going there, but in that um in that general
area, I believe there would be some space on on the bank. But yeah, that that is one tree coming down. >> Yeah, we'd hate hate to have the number of trees reduced if possible. So, if you could somehow work that appreciate it.
>> That's all I have. >> Okay, Mr. Manony, >> no questions. >> Murphy, any questions? >> Um, yes. Um, when when will this construction start and how long will it take? Um, well, so again, we're in year two of
a two-year grant for the permitting and design. Um, and then we are as soon as this grant cycle is over, we're going to be applying to CZM. Again, they're very favorable of this grant of this project, and we believe it's going to be funded. Um, and I plan, again, we're in the the process of this now, but I'm planning to
go to town meeting in 2027 asking for the town match. So, I'm I'm planning to roll right from this two-year grant, which, you know, we have another year to go, rolling right into the next step of of construction. So, we don't have necessarily a timeline of the construction at this point, but um there
are a few variables there. Of course, the bridge is a big question. So, and we none of us seem to know what the deal is with that quite yet. So, um we don't plan on delaying anything. We just want to roll right into it if we can after this cycle. >> So, once once it starts, how long do you
think it would it's going to take you? poll. I think you had a pretty good idea on that, right? On the actual construction time. >> Yeah, I think generally the the Well, there's inwater work and out of water work. We were fortunate enough with some of the DMF conditions to allow inwater
work even during some uh um winter flounder season. So, with that, I think the construction schedule could be shrunk down and maybe within like a six or nine month, six to nine month time frame um probably total including, you know, plantings as well.
Just >> thank you. >> All right. Thanks. >> That's all. >> Uh yeah, go ahead and then I'm going to go to Mr. Stanley. >> Are you limited based on what the work that has to be done on 28 and the bridge or is that not >> No, we don't believe that that's going
to be any sort of an impact to us. I mean, the only concern would be if they're both happening at the same time, if the state's going to try and use packet for any sort of staging, which to my knowledge, they're not. my knowledge they're supposed to stage off site, but again I I don't have enough info about that yet. >> There's no date now for 28 in bridge.
>> Not that I know of. >> Okay. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Scandlin. Any questions? >> Uh just one, Mr. Chairman. Um so when I went down visited the site, they have the pavilion to the rear of this proposed work. There's a large tree next
to the pavilion. Are you familiar with that? >> On wondering >> on which side of the pavilion? the one >> that would be on the west side. >> So, >> um the west side of the work. >> So,
>> tree with the memorial, correct? Is the one that you're referring to? Yes, that one is intended to be protected in place. >> Okay, great. Thank you. >> Okay, thank you. I have no questions. I think all of them were addressed by the other board members. Uh I don't have any
correspondence from anything in my file. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in favor of this petition? Please come to the microphone. Seeing none, is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to this petition? Please come to the microphone.
Seeing none, do we have anyone with our hands up? >> Uh, no, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. Is there anything else that you'd like to add at this time? >> No, I just thank you for your consideration. I I think it's an important project to the town and I think um I think you'll find that this project so far has got some incredible
support. Um I should mention that CCM is actually very rarely does CCM fund a hard structure like this, but they found it so important that they're using it as kind of an example for some of their other projects and other when they put grants out there or grant opportunities
out there, they're actually referring to this one. So it's a it's a project we're excited about and you know >> Well, that's great. >> Appreciate your consideration. Okay. Well, then what we're going to do is we're going to close the uh hearing to the public and we're open it up for board comment. Uh, anybody wish to uh
begin a discussion or is anyone prepared to make a motion? >> I'll let the vice chair do that. >> I'll be glad to make a motion to approve the special permit um for the uh as proposed. >> No conditions. >> No conditions.
>> Okay. And I do think we can just get away. I know you're asking for variance relief, too, but I think that's probably just for the inlot trees. I think we can do that also by special permit as well. So, I don't think you're going to need a variance on that. Uh we have a motion on the floor to approve the petition uh by
way of special permit with no conditions. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Second. Any discussion on that matter? The only thing that I would add is uh I think it's a very important project. I
think Packet Landing is a very very important site for the town. It's the gateway from Dennis. Uh I think you guys have done a spectacular job there and what you've done so far. I don't see this as to be any type of undue nuisance
hazard or congestion. It's certainly not going to be more substantially non-conforming than what's there right now. So, I do think you meet the requirements under the bylaw for special permit and I uh intend to vote in favor of it. >> Um, >> anything?
>> Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I just note um when you say without condition, there are a number of conditions imposed by the the conservation committee that uh >> the uh the only condition is well that that kind of stands by itself, but obviously if we want to mention the uh
conservation commission's uh >> order of conditions in the >> order of conditions, we'll incorporate that into our uh decision. >> Great. And that's acceptable to the motion maker and the second. >> Yes, it is.
>> Okay. All right. That's good. Okay. >> Any further discussion? Hearing none, we're going to go to a roll call. Mr. Scandlin on a voting member. How do you how do you how would you vote anyway? >> I would vote in favor. >> Okay. Thank you. Miss Murphy.
>> Hi. >> Mr. B manton. >> Hi. Thank you, >> Mr. Fraford. >> I, >> Mr. Martin, >> I. >> And I'm an I as well. That passes five in favor, none against. Uh, there is a 20-day appeal period after the decision
is clocked with the town clerk. After uh that elapses, Dolores will contact you, take that over, and if you would uh record it at the registry of deeds and bring a copy back for our file. >> You got it. >> Okay. Well, thank you very much. We look forward to seeing uh the new project.
>> Hold on, Mr. Condor. >> Oh, and uh if you could uh Thank you very much. If you could just uh withdraw your request for variance without prejudice. You don't need it. >> Yes, I would like to withdraw that request. >> Okay. Do we have a motion to allow that? >> So moved.
>> We have a second. >> Second. >> Mr. Martin, how do you vote? >> I vote uh I. >> Mr. Frapery. >> I. >> Mr. Manon. >> I. >> Miss Murphy. >> Hi. And I'm an I that passes five in favor. So that's withdrawn without prejudice. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you again. Appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> Okay. All right. The next matter on our agenda is petition 5185. Joe, is it Lou
View and Karen Wang Leu of 78 Memorial Property Address of 78 Indian Memorial Drive. It's in an R40 zoning district and the applicant seeks a special permit per 104.3.2 sub paragraph 2 andor a variance from
section 203.5 for front setback relief to construct an 800 square foot extension. Good evening. >> Good evening. Abdul Khal. I'm the general contractor representing >> General Contractor. First would like to apologize. I'm
>> late. Um, >> that's okay. No problem. Actually, you're right on time. >> My wife had to pick me up. The truck broke down. >> That's all right. Now, you don't even need an excuse. No, no, no, no. Don't worry about that. No, no, no. >> I hate being late. >> Okay. So, uh you have uh you have
permission to speak on behalf of the owner. >> Um yes. Do you have any correspondence from the owner giving you permission to speak on their behalf? >> Um, not on hand right now. >> Okay. But it's your representation to the board that you do have permission to speak on their behalf. Okay. Very good.
All right. Go ahead. Why don't you tell us what you're doing? >> Um, the owner have um proposed the uh set of drawings to build an extension for the house. not the front um pair of the plans um we have uh submitted um and
I think uh the issue we had uh was the 26 the 25.6 set back at the front which is 5 ft under zoning borders and that's what we're requesting the variance for. >> Okay.
All right. >> Anything else you'd like to add at this time? >> That's all. We're going to go to the board for some questions. Mr. Scanland, do you have questions for the petitioner? >> Yes. Um, what is the status of the property at present?
>> Uh, it's it's a residential house. >> Well, I mean, when I drove by, it looks like it was under construction at at the present time. >> The the front? Yes. But, uh, construction is on hold since um the inspector showed up and he advised to go with the board of appeals.
>> Okay. So does the the current uh structure as built now is that uh how far is that from the from the run setback? What >> it's compared to proposed 25.6.
>> So that is the 25.6 right the way it is right now. >> Right. The original plans were presented um as is uh for the voting for the footings only and um he decided to go for the second floor and that's what
he's presenting the appeal for. >> Okay. But the the the first floor is also 25.6 >> first floor and second floor. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And where was it where was it before the uh work began? uh footing footing was proposed as uh as as
it is right now as you see it on this uh plan. >> Um but it was supposed to be a mudroom, not a full exterior wall. >> Mhm. But uh before the construction began, where was the uh the front of the house, >> the original? Yeah. >> Um
>> I believe it was 8 8 foot out from the original plan. So 8 foot foot further back from the street or for the to >> so from the original to the uh um property line. >> Yeah.
>> Uh we pushed the house out 8 ft. >> Mhm. >> This is the original plan. >> Yeah. No, I'm saying the the original house before construction began, how far was that from the uh front uh front of this uh property line?
>> Uh 32 30 325. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Anything else, Mr. Scan? >> No, none. Thank you. >> Uh, Miss Murphy. >> No, I don't have anything that was helpful,
>> Mr. Manony. >> Um, so that's my question, too. So, originally you were 32 1/2 ft. You had frontage 32 and a half ft frontage. >> 32 and a half. Yes. >> And then you you you're putting on an
addition that is now 25.6 and was a no building permit was requested for that. >> A building permit was requested for the 25.6 as footings only uh to be a mudroom. It would be enclosed but as a
mud a mudroom. So instead of just a mudroom for first floor, it was built as a full wall. >> But you didn't come before this board. >> The I I the designer who presented the original set of plans uh presented it. I
took over the project as execution and there was a change of of the of the plans that that's presented to you. >> Okay. I don't have any other questions, >> Mr. >> Well, first of all, I think this must be
a variance then, but uh I'm guessing >> it sounds like it sounds like it's a new >> if it was a brand new if this was a >> Well, we can have a discussion about that. the history of this particular
property back in 1986 is they constructed a foundation too close to one of the appears one of the sidelines and they were granted a variance back then >> a garage to the sideline >> a garage yeah um this is a new
nonconformity so >> I'm concerned about not just this I'm not sure what the sideline side setbacks were before I don't know what was going on so >> what would be benefit beneicial is if we had a plot plan that showed what it was
originally versus what we are right now going along the lines of Mr. Scandlin's questions. Uh so >> we don't know what it was originally. I was in the building commissioner's office a couple of days ago uh looking at this on a um on his computer and it
appears that you were more than 30 feet set back before this began. So now you're We are five feet closer to the street. Um, >> and I am being told now that you did not have a permit for the work that you're
doing right now. You had a building permit, but for certain work, but not what you're doing right now. >> U, we did have the original per building permit. >> You have the original building permit with you? >> Um, I do have a copy. >> Yeah, if you allow me, I can uh get my
computer. It has the original plan of the house and a copy of the permit on it, too. >> Wouldn't they wouldn't the building department still have an issue with a mud room that went out into the >> Well, I I would think so. Yeah, I would think either way this um this could have
been just it it got by people here, but um >> apparently your front uh got relief back in 1986. Is that correct? Okay. uh to the 25 something feet. >> Okay.
>> So, I think the only reason you're probably >> Yeah. The only reason is because you went up. >> Cuz you're going up. >> Okay. >> It's it's the the main reason is because the house is a little bit rotated. >> So, uh on the other on the far corner, I think we're like very close to the 30.
uh which like when the first architects who presented the first set of drawing built it all the way and this is how it created that those five five uh five feet of variance that we requested for this this is what this is the whole reason requesting the variance for um I
I under I totally understand that this is was not per my conversation with Tim when we had the conver uh when he was doing the inspection he said the set of drawings that were presented to us is vague. We couldn't really get to tell exactly where it's going to be, which I
totally understand. Um, this is why I presented a whole full that's when I started the job. I presented the full new set uh showing exactly where the house is. And based on Tim's um uh request, I have uh got a surveyor who surveyed every point of the house to to
be able to present this case as it is on on the something real. >> This is the one. Oh, if you allow me, I can grab a copy of the original where the house was before. >> Say they got 25 pieces.
>> You had it on paper or just uh on your computer? >> It's on my computer. >> There was no conforming even. >> Okay. >> Okay. But are you telling us that you added on to the front of the house to the foundation or are you saying that
foundation was already there? >> The foundation was already in the original plan. That's what we thought. >> Okay. All right. Right. And I think we can do this by way of special permit. Um >> sure would have liked to have seen the
original site plan. I understand that. >> Yeah. I you know you read this decision and it's it's kind of big. >> It it's a little it says to allow an addition to the front of an exist. This is the 86 decision. uh var special board of appeals to allow
an addition to the front of an existing non-conforming dwelling and to allow an existing garage to remain too close to the sidelines. So it appears I I think there was a question when they laid it out whether it was a what a 42 foot road
or a 50ft road. I'm think I'm reading here. Mhm. >> And so when they measured from the town layout, they measured wrong, >> which >> So So is it >> does happen? >> So is it my understanding you're using
the same foundation? You're not changing the foundation. >> Just going up. That's why they need the the special permit. >> Yeah. >> All right. Okay. >> That's different. All right. Okay. Um where were we in the questioning? Jay, did you have questions?
>> That was my question. That was your question, Mr. Martin. Questions for the petition? >> Uh, so you're adding a second second story, right? To the house. >> They're they're renting a second they're extending a second story. The second story is already >> extending the second story. So there's
two looking at the uh field god thing here. It looks more like Well, maybe it could be two. So there's already existing upstairs. >> Exactly. >> Okay. Yes. >> With how many bedrooms are they now? >> I'm sorry. Sorry. >> How many bedrooms there now?
>> Um, two on the second story. >> Okay. >> How many on the first floor? >> The first floor? Uh, there's one in the back. >> Just one? >> Just one. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Cuz the town does show three bedrooms. Not that that's not a board of hell
thing. Uh, you know, I'm just I'm not having a big problem here. I for but what about these diagrams? I mean I hope it doesn't look like that. Uh if you look at this
let's see one of the side diagrams I guess here and the low pitch to the roof and the uh I hope it's not looking like that. >> It's uh it's going to look better than uh >> it's going to look better than that. I hope. Okay. All right. because at least
the diagrams I know diagrams can be weird in terms of >> um how they come out in the end result but uh I don't like those >> not that that matters I guess but >> I can I can disagree. >> Yeah. Okay.
>> Uh all right. I don't think I have anything else. >> We have anyone online that wishes to u chime in? >> Uh no, Mr. Chairman. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak in favor of this petition? I know you have one person that would say speak in
favor. >> She's partial. Um but that's okay. Do we have anyone that wishes to speak in opposition to this petition? >> No, Mr. Chairman. >> Nobody raise their hand. Okay. >> Anything that further that you'd like to add?
>> Thank you. >> All right. Um, does anyone else have any questions for the petitioner? >> These you can't trust. >> None. Okay. Then we are going to close it to the public and open it up for board discussion. Anybody want to uh
begin a discussion on this matter or make a motion? Um, I sure would like to see the old plot. I mean, the lot plan and the current and the new one, they don't line up very well.
So, I'm a little confused. It looks like they this all the way across and then extended out the back. It's not any closer if they use the foundation. But they did extend the whole front
across that whole >> Yeah. >> the whole area, which I I think created the nonconformity because >> you see to the you see all the way to the right right there? >> Yep. that is that sideline >> makes this and now I don't know if it's
legally >> pre-existing non-conforming because there was a variance issued in 86. So one could say uh I remember person who sat on this board many years ago said
once a variance always a variance. So if you're here by way of variance, anything you do in the future, you need to do it by variance as well. So we could address this by way of variance. We could address it by special permit. Obviously
the criteria for a variance is different than that of a special permit. Um I mean I I personally don't have any problem with the height change. The height change, if that's all it is, that >> that's really all we're looking at right here. >> If that's all it is, then then you know,
that's within our guideline. I don't think that's a problem. But it looks like the >> already rooms up there, right? So, the height change is just >> making it a little taller or bigger in general or >> there's no change to the original house height. >> There's no change to what?
>> Just the original house height. >> The original house height. >> Well, isn't that what you're looking for here? >> Uh, what we're looking for is the extension built from the original footprint. >> Okay. >> It was extended up. So it's Are you
saying it's horizontal, right? Yes. >> Not vertical. >> Yes. >> Extension. >> Horizontal, not vertical. >> Cross, not up. >> Well, there is no change to the There's no change to the overall height.
There's no change to the overall >> you add a second story >> when you when you don't meet the current setbacks. floor. >> Current setbacks. >> Current setbacks. >> Okay. >> You add a second floor. You must come before us. Even though you're within the footprint,
>> you go up. >> Adding a second floor. >> Well, they're going up though on that front face >> for the front face. >> Front face. So, is it coming up? >> It's a one story. >> Colonial instead of a cape. Is that it? Or >> Yes. >> Excuse me. >> Yeah. Okay.
Although actually and I could be wrong as I occasionally am um if the peak is not going up any higher I was under the understanding that is as
long as you're not going any higher than the existing peak doesn't matter if you're doing like another like expanding the second floor out a ways as long as it wasn't going any higher than what was there. I may be wrong. >> Well, my understanding the way this
actually got here and and it's we may not have everything in the packet is they began work Yeah. >> from the original builder and they went beyond the scope of the building permit. >> So, they didn't have the permit to do
what they've done and that's what facilitated the stop work order on the house. And so, the fact that they went up uh required them to come here and that's why they're here.
And I would agree that what I'm looking at what Jay said was when you look at the front of this and you look at the property card, they don't look like the same foundation to me. But um I mean I guess it gets down to it is what it is.
Um so we've got couple ways we can address this. We can address it by way of special permit. We can say it needs variance. Uh and then we can discuss whether it meets
the criteria of one or both. Well, from the if I try to interpret the two plans, what was and the picture of what was and what is, >> it looks like they're bringing the front of the the front of the building all the
way across to meet where the garage is now. >> Just above. >> And that that extended further into the frontage >> by doing that. That did >> that extended in further into the front uh setback >> which I'm assuming and I could be wrong because I don't know if I don't have
dimensions on anything that's what caused the nonconformity in the front. >> There may have already been some there looks like it's probably less than I think that's already less than 30. >> Okay. >> So So it's a it's an extension.
It would be considered an extension under the 10432. >> Yeah. >> So, and then in that regard, would it be a special permit? >> Mhm. >> Okay. That's what I was kind of trying to get to. All right. I understand what
they're asking for and Okay. I don't have any other questions. Well, have any comments about what you think we should do with this? >> Well, First of all, first of all, I hope you got a new special I mean a new building permit because I think you you obviously
need that. You're going to need that for sure. >> Update that with Mr. Grills. >> They they should have whatever you're doing. Yeah. So, um that's the first thing. As far as a special permit, it's not doesn't sound like it's really going any higher than the previous peak. So, I
really don't have a problem with the height >> in that regard. Um, if I had a problem with anything, it would be that flange. >> Mhm. So, that's my >> Okay, Mr. Martin, >> what are your thoughts?
>> Well, I'm still a little confused. As as Jay said, it would be nice to have a little more info here. Um, and to be honest with you, I'm still not quite sure about the whole the only reason they need it is cuz they because they're going up, but they're not going
up any higher than what's there now. So, I was always told that that was not necessary. If you want to um go up in your garage, for instance, and it's not any higher than the peak of the house, uh, you could do that. So I >> well the the reason they they have to
come before us is because they're already >> they're in the front setback. They're not conforming. >> Yeah. That's why >> and they're not legally they're not legally pre-existing non-conforming. >> Okay.
[Music] >> I'll go I'll go with you guys. >> Okay. What do you think, Sean? I I I'll I'm just I want to hear your thoughts and >> Mr. Bon, what are your thoughts? >> Well, the issue is it's already there. Okay.
So, I mean, we can discuss this till we're blue in the face, but it's already done. >> Well, it's it's certainly along the way. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. Well, the siding needs to be put up, but the struct pretty much the structures there. Mhm.
>> So, you know, wish it would have done in another method here and but like you said, it is what it is and I don't see really,
you know, much we can do or should do. Well, I I I think it would represent a substantial hardship to the petitioner if we were to deny the relief. >> And if we were to do that, I think we really need a compelling reason to do that. I'm not quite sure if there's a
compelling reason. We do see these from time to time where things get >> built beyond the scope of what the building permit is right now. We have to deal with them. And uh you know I I again I I I think there needs to be a real strong reason for us
to to just say no, but we'll we'll see how it is when it comes down to a vote. Miss Murphy, what are your thoughts? >> Well, I kind of think we're boxed in. >> Well, you think it'd be okay? >> Yep.
>> Okay. Mr. Scanlin, your thoughts? >> Um, well, I'm not a voting member, so but from my own perspective, I think um that uh allowing a situation to proceed uh outside what was uh allowed in the in
the zoning uh with the setback and uh allowing them to go forward with it uh sets a bad precedent. Now I understand what as you say uh he's already substantially along in the construction and uh the setback is you know five feet
which is you know I wouldn't say material uh but um I I do think that allowing uh in general people to violate the the zoning laws and then you know asking for an excuse me after the fact
uh presents a dangerous precedent. uh it would be a a hardship on the petitioner to redo that. Um I recognize that and I will say that the setback's not material. Uh so I'm kind of uh
talking my way into your position but with the proviso that you know um that um I don't like the taste of it. I I agree with you and and just in defense of the petitioner, there was a
building permit that was uh given to the petitioner >> uh relative to these setbacks. >> So the building department did look at this >> and they did approve it. What they stopped was when he went up in the front. That's when they said, "Wait a
second. This isn't >> the same as what you asked to do, but in terms of >> where the setbacks are." Yeah, >> the building department did issue the original permit >> and that gives that gives them the color of law that you know he was operating in
good faith with uh what was required of him >> and I do agree with you by the way about setting precedents and I think the board feels that way as well. >> Yeah. Um I I you know I I got to say I agree with
everything that I've heard here. Um, as I said before, I think this is a situation where the building department did issue a building permit. Whether there was a mistake by issuing it uh in the beginning, I'm not
quite sure of. Um, but you're you're going up here, so you're required to come to see us. I do think it would be a substantial financial hardship for us to tell you to change it right now. Um, >> yes. >> And
I think that probably outweighs violation of the setbacks that you're you're dealing with here right now. And 25 ft is not nothing. And I'm not quite sure if we did setback averaging in the neighborhood that we might
>> and I don't even know how deep this lot is. >> Yeah. I don't think you'd think you'd find that with the front setback, the side setbacks. You would >> Yeah. And I don't know about the 30% rule being no further than 30% of the depth of the lot. I think he's got a deep lot
here. So I don't think worth it either in the back. >> Um but I think in this case um I I I think it's something that we should grant and uh I plan on supporting it and I and I hope the rest of the members do as
well. >> I guess Go ahead, Jay. I guess my question is are we voting on just the height addition or are we voting on the fact that they they uh because I don't see that they even asked >> we're only voting on what's they asked for in the legal notice.
>> That's the only thing that we can vote on. We can give them less than what they want but we can't give them more >> a front setback relief. >> So we're only granting them front front setback relief to construct an 800 square foot extension >> which I do think you don't think it's a
variance. Do you think that's that's a special permit? I think it's a special permit >> your opinion >> or we can or well I just contradicted what I said about once a variance always a variance but uh then let's why don't
we talk about the variance criteria well in order to grant a variance as we all know we have to have a hardship that hardship has to be owing to circumstances related to the shape topography or soil conditions of the not
um has to be financial or otherwise. And in granting the variance, we should not deriggate from the purpose and intent of the bylaw which was passed by the voters of town meeting >> and is uh state law
um or should I say adopted by the voters of town meeting. >> Now I think when you look at this lot right here, I think it's a I think we could argue that the shape is
a consideration. It's not a square lot. Uh the way the house is designed, it's designed front to back. So you really can't go back. I'm not even sure where his septic system is. Where is your septic system in this? >> So right in the back, right? >> Right in the back. >> So you couldn't push the house back.
>> No. >> So the house couldn't >> be building on the septic system. >> Couldn't be pushed back. And there was a grant other variance previous to this where they addressed setback relief and so it's kind of been there for a long time. So I would
suggest to the board that we could grant a variance here and that they do meet the criteria and I don't think by doing so given the fact that they're 25 ft plus back and it doesn't look that bad as far as a setback goes relative to the
neighborhood. I think we could probably I don't think we'd be derrogating from the purpose and intent of the bylaw. I do think it's would be a hardship as well to the petitioner. Those are my thoughts. They paved an awful lot of the lot, too.
>> Anyone else? >> I agree. >> Barbara, what do you think? >> I don't have anything down. I agree. >> Okay, >> John. >> Yeah, I mean, we can do the variance, I think. >> Okay. I think that's probably a better
way to go since you've had a variance, >> Dick. >> Yeah, still a little befuddled, but I'm I'm okay with that. >> Okay. >> And Jay, I'm in the befuddled category also.
>> Autumn no. I'm having a hard time with it, so >> take your time. um the way it was approached and well, like I said, I I think there may have been
I I I think the building department has I I think they issued a permit here that maybe they should have taken a closer look at. I think that's where this originated. >> I guess the thing that I'm struggling with is not having an original plot plan for what was there
>> and and not having a plot plan of what was approved by the building department. That would have helped too because they talked about a mudroom and if they made them if the building department made a mistake with a mudroom and they let it
get that close to the front, then I understand that this is something that makes more sense. But the fact that the plan now is not even what was originally submitted to the building department and extends wave, I'm having a hard time with it.
What do you have on your computer? >> We do have an original set that was submitted per the original permit in the city's record for the original. Let's take a look at this. Okay. >> Sorry to draw this out. >> That's all right. No problem at all. >> Take a quick look at this and see what
it looks like. >> Right. It'll help. [Music] [Applause] Okay. So, what we're going to do here is why don't we all come together here and we can just take That's all right. >> Should have got it. >> No, no, we'll just take a look at this.
Okay. So, that's the original plan footprint. >> This is what we're adding is the yellow. >> I see. >> Which the foundation was pre-approved, >> right? >> As as this entrance is a mudroom, >> that's not going to be part of the house. What happened is we went second
floor on it. Mhm. >> So instead of a mud room, which is going to be built. >> So So you added to this right here? >> This you added to the foundation right here. >> Yes. >> Okay. So that's the reason why it looks different. >> Yeah. >> Okay.
>> You can see it slots right here. >> There you go. Right. You see this? Yeah. This comes So now this all makes sense. >> So that's what was approved by the building department. So >> and beyond that, it's only just a height. >> So really in terms of the front set that Yeah. And then it's just they're coming.
The height is going up. So they need to come see us. >> I'm sorry, Sean. It's not the height as if we're going over the the height of the house. It's just the height of the mud room to go up. >> Yeah, you're just going up on that second. Yeah, that's that's right. >> I apologize again about not >> No, no, no, no, no. That's okay. No, no.
This works fine. Is everybody satisfied? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> You want to take this back then? >> No, no. That that can clear up a lot of stuff for us. This this is all filled in >> and they were going to have a mud room here and it was all going to be one floor and then they put it they made it a two floor wall.
>> Um >> that's what I understand. >> So okay. So now my uh friends to the right. >> Okay. Did you see that? Okay, Dick. >> I did. I saw. >> So gentlemen,
>> well it went it went uh the original building permit was allowing that frontage. >> Exactly. So, you know, the if there's a mistake on that part of it, it's comes from both sides. So, I'm more comfortable with it. >> Okay.
>> No, the height's fine. That's that's maybe I think it's 20 feet tall. >> So, I think it would be uh it would be unfair and hardship to be able to not to not approve it at this point. >> Okay. You feel the same way? Yeah, I can
uh I can live with that. You know, I'm still having issues with the whole height aspect of it and whether it needs relief at all actually. But, um I guess that's something relevant then.
>> Yep. >> All right. So, um since we've discussed this, is anybody prepared to make a motion to approve a variance as requested? >> So, moved. Got a motion made by Mr. Martin. Do we have
a second? >> Second. >> Seconded by Mr. Manony to grant the variance >> with no conditions. >> Any further discussion on the motion before we take a vote? >> Um on the condition he has to submit
another get another building permit. >> Yes, he's going to have to the building department's making him do that anyway. But yes, that's so you have to comply with all of the >> Yes, absolutely. >> building requirements there from the uh building commissioner's office >> and he they the building commission has
made him aware of that. I did meet with him the other day concerning this. Yeah. Okay. So, we have a motion for variance seconded. Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, we're going to go for a roll call vote. Mr. Martin, >> I.
>> Mr. Fraper. >> I, >> Mr. Banton. >> Hi, >> Miss Murphy. >> I >> And I'm an I. That's five to zero. It carries. Um, you've also asked for special permit, which I don't believe you need. So, we'd ask that you request
to withdraw that without prejudice. >> Okay. So, we we'll deal with that in just a m while we took the vote. So, anybody prepared to make a motion to allow him to withdraw without prejudice on the special permit request? >> So, move. >> We have a second. >> Second.
>> Okay. Any discussion hearing? None. >> Miss Murphy. >> Hi, Mr. >> Anton. >> Hi, Mr. >> Rabberry. I >> Mr. Martin. >> Hi. >> And I'm an I. That carries five to nothing. So, now there is a 20-day appeal period once the decision is
clocked with the town clerk. After that 20 days elapses, Dolores will contact you. You can pick up your uh decision, the variance, take it over to the registry of deeds in Bhstable, record it, and bring a copy back for our files. >> We'll do.
>> Do you have any questions? >> Well said. Thank you. >> Okay. Well, we wish you the best. >> Thank you so much. >> All right. Thank you. >> Do you have any minutes we need to approve? >> Uh we do, Mr. Chairman, from July 10th. >> Have minutes of July 10th. Yes, sir. >> Make a motion to approve the minutes of
July 10th. Have a second. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I >> I. >> Any opposed? Hearing none. Any other business? I just wanted to if I have a second.
Thank everybody. It's been a pleasure. >> Pleasure was ours. >> Hard to leave, but I can tell you. No, I got to tell you, Jay, it's been a pleasure having you. You've been a great member of this board. You've brought a lot of uh good thought, constructive
input. Uh you're very reasonable guy. You're very good to petitioners. You make them comfortable. You're going to be missed. >> Thank you. >> Y >> good luck. >> Plus, uh everybody I know that moves
south moves back anyway. So, >> he's moving north. I'm going north. >> Yeah. He'll never come back north. >> New Hampshire. >> Oh, even more reason. >> Yeah. >> Well, we we're going to send you off with some cookies and a little booze and uh you should be good to go.
>> Good. >> All right. Thanks again, Jay. >> Thank you. >> All right. >> All right. Motion to adjourn. We have a motion to adjurnn. Second. >> Second. >> All those in favor? I. >> Any opposed? Hearing none, we are adjourned.