remember? I do. I do. Recording in progress, Mr. Chairman. I believe you're muted. Good evening. Can everybody hear me? We can.
And we're ready to go. Yes, sir. Okay, great. Uh, good evening. My name is Sean Iiggo. I'm chairman of the Yamama Zoning Board of Appeals. We will now convene the July 10th, 2025 meeting of the Yamama Zoning Board of Appeals. This is a hybrid meeting and is
being recorded. We will begin by taking a roll call to establish a quorum. Mr. Martin here, Mr. Freick here, Mr. Manony here. And Miss Murphy here. and I am here having established a
quorum. I will now call the meeting to order. The first matter on our agenda. Oh, before we start, I understand we have a new member, a new alternate member with us tonight. His name is Tim Scanland, and I want to welcome him tonight to the board. Thank you, Sean.
You're welcome. Very nice to meet you. I look forward to meeting you in person as well. As I understand, you'll be observing tonight. Yes. Okay. Very good. All right. I'm going to call the first petition. That is petition 5181 Mary Jane Yman's. The
property location is 40 Lena Road, West John, Mass. It's in an R25 zoning district and the applicant seeks a special permit per 104.3.2 to subsection two andor a variance from section 203.5
for setback relief to increase a deck size and or a variance from section 203.5 for setback relief to relocate a shed. Good evening. Could you identify yourself for the record, please?
Stanley Crawford. I'm sorry. Could you identify yourself for the record, please? Stanley Crawford. Okay. And uh Mary Janie, you uh appearing on Zoom? Yes, I am.
Okay. Do you have a video um you could turn on? Let me see if I can do that. One moment. Should be on your lower leftand corner. Okay. Thank you. I'm looking for it.
Lower lefthand corner. Second one over. There'll be a little red Diane cross. If you just hit that where it says video, I think we might see it. Okay. I'm I'm looking where you're saying and unfortunately it is not there.
Okay, that's fine. That's okay. If you if you can't turn it on, that's all right. We can still proceed. Okay. Okay. Well, why don't you tell us uh a little bit about what you want to do here? Okay. So, um upon meeting with the building inspector,
um we did do the calculations for the shed and it we did determine that it was nonconforming pre-existing and I believe I mean that was for the deck. I'm I apologize that was for the
deck and I believe we need a special permit for that. Um the shed, the shed we have brought two plans of proposal of where we can relocate the shed to. Um we
have a um option A and an option B. The preferred by the um homeowner is option A, I believe. Yeah. Okay. Sorry. So, just so I understand on option A with the shed, the shed is
currently 2.1 ft off of what is you might call it a rear lot line, but it's actually a side lot line because you're on a on a corner lot, but right now it's 2.1 ft off that line. And you propose to push it back to right on the property
line. Um, yes, that was the homeowner's first suggestion. Okay, that's her preferred location. Okay. All right. Well, we'll proceed with that
one first. Um, now the deck. Um, I I I think we can grant you a special permit on the deck because it's going to be an extension or alteration from the existing non-conforming structure. But in terms of the shed, I believe you're
going to need a variance uh because you're not in compliance with your setbacks and your proposal is to actually decrease or actually increase a nonconformity. Um, so I think you're going to need a variance for the shed.
Yes, the shed currently I believe is placed on a leeching field. So it must, you know, regardless of the setbacks themselves, it has to be moved off of the leeching field. And I believe option A was getting it off the leeching field completely, but still maintaining the
ease of access for the homeowner. Did the health department tell you you had to move that off the leeching field? is that's not a structure. I believe it was in the many meetings that we had with the building department. I'm not sure
I'm not sure the individual that determined that, but it was determined in many of the, you know, meetings going along that it had to be moved or or if it can stay where it is and have a variance for this decreased setback,
that would be preferred. Okay. All right. So, I guess we have another option. We have option we get your first option to move it to one side of option the other option. So,
we'd have a third option. That's just leaving it where it is. Yes, sir. Okay. Okay. Very good. Um All right. Is there anything else that you'd like to add right now? Um, no. I don't think so at this time. Okay. I tell you what we're going to do.
We're going to go to the board for uh some questions. Um, Mr. Martin, do you have any questions for the petitioner? Uh, I don't think I have any questions. Nope. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Freick.
Um, yeah, I probably have a couple. Uh, first on the shed, um, can you tell me what the square footage of the shed itself without the deck is? Um, yes. One moment. Let me get to that point. It's 120 square ft. I believe it's 10 x
12 if I'm not mistaken. Let me just confirm that, please. Okay. Stanley, could you speak to that, please? Yeah, it's 10 x 12. 10 x 12. And when you add in the deck on the shed, there's a deck in the front of it. How much does that add to it? That's uh
10 by eight. That's another 80 feet. Yeah, they were proposal taking that off if it was a problem. Yeah. And I think that's what we talked about last time is to remove that remove that deck. So hopefully that's that's agreeable.
Yep. That would be I guess that would be one of my questions about the shed. Not just the size, but the deck the deck on it. Um, is it possible that without that deck that it could
I mean if you're worried about putting it on the leech field? I don't know if that's a problem. Um, I don't believe it is. I've never I'm not aware that Yeah, I haven't heard. You can't have a shed over a uh any leeching field. So, I think you're all set on that. Um, so if we
if that's if we remove the deck to keep it down below the 150 square ft, then could we just request the variance to keep um for the setback? Yeah, you can request it. Um,
yeah. Yeah. I don't know if we'll we'll have to see if we grant it, but you can request it. That's for sure. Um, so that's that's my question on the shed. As far as the deck goes, I was looking for the old version of the deck, a picture of it. I don't see it. Um, how
much larger is the deck now versus what it was before? One moment. Two feet wider wider. Closer side. Closer to the side lot line. Yeah. So, right now it's going to be 189 or
something like that. Mhm. Yes. No, I I I'm sorry. 98. Yeah. So, where it was about 11, now are you talking about getting it under 10 ft? Yes.
Some of these letters that are here, have you seen any of them from your neighbor that is on the side from the deck? Yeah, I'm pretty sure one is. Do you know which one it is? I don't know. No, I don't either. Marilyn would know about that.
Everybody pretty much gave her a letter. All right, that's all I have for questions. I'm just want to make sure that the abuter doesn't have a problem with it. There's a fence there, too, isn't there? Okay, that's all I have. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Uh, Mr. Manon, do you
have any questions for the petitioner? Uh, Jay asked most of them. Um, but I guess my the only question I would have is uh if we're going to move the deck at all, I mean the shed, why can't we remove the deck and just move it to 6 ft from the lot line
like it's supposed to be? Then you're going more onto the less field. We were told we got to get off the lead. Well, yeah. I thought we just determined that that's not an issue. I think it may be. I think it came up. Oh, one of these meetings.
Oh, yeah. Well, that wouldn't that wouldn't be us. That would be the board of health. And I'm not aware that you can't have a shed on top of a leeching field once the deck is off. But I think it's only on by, you know, inches. Yeah.
But I guess since Mr. Manon asked that question, let's let's explore that. If you don't have that deck, couldn't you just pull that away six feet and then you wouldn't need relief? Yes. If if it's not um going to be um a
problem putting it six feet away where it is on the leeching field and I'm not sure of that ruling or not if it's a problem or not. Be barren on the four corners where the cinder blocks are. Right. Sound like the whole thing is barren on
the lead. Right. Right. Just the two front probably the front two front cinder blocks. The other two will be off it. I mean, I would prefer to see that if possible, too. So, okay, that's all I had.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, Miss Murphy. No, I think that's a good suggestion. Okay. Okay. All right. I I I had a question on and did I cover everybody? Anybody have any other questions?
No. Okay. I I What is the the deck? When you say expand the deck, are you talking about expanding the deck from what it is? No, the deck as it exists right now was expanded.
Okay. Prior to our ex our meeting right now here today and we're doing this retroactively. I see. Okay. I thought so. So, the last time you were here, it's the same deck that was there. Correct. Okay. Yes. Absolutely. All right. Okay.
All right. Well, I think again to reiterate, I think that can be granted by special permit should the board uh decide that that relief is uh reasonable and you meet the criteria of the bylaw. Um so in terms of the shed, so is that
agreeable that you could just take that deck in front of the shed, just pull that thing forward four feet and then we'd be all set? Yes. Okay. If if you go somewhere and the board of health writes you a letter and says you can't do that, then just come back and see us, but I'm not aware that you can't
put that shed on top of a leeching field. I think you can. That's a great option. Thank you very much. And I'll do that. Okay. So, we've handled the problem with the shed. Um, is there anything else you'd like to add at this time? No. No, there isn't.
Okay. Um, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in favor of this petition? Uh, no, Mr. Chairman. No. Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in opposition to this petition? If so, please come forward.
No one, Mr. Chairman. Do we have anybody uh with their hands raised virtually? Uh, no, Mr. Chairman. Okay. All right. Well, if the petitioner has nothing else to uh add at this time, I'm going to close the hearing to the
public, open it up for board discussion. Uh, Mr. Freak, your thoughts? Well, I think first of all, if they're willing to take the the deck off of the shed and to move it six feet, that's that's a that's by right. So, that should be fine, unless the health
department has a problem. As far as expanding the deck by two feet into the the setbacks, I'm okay with that as long as the neighbors are okay with it. There is a fence there. Um, and it's already done. So, from a hardship perspective, I think it would be difficult. So, I'm
okay with that. Also, okay, Mr. Matt, your thoughts? I don't really have too much uh issue with the large deck. Actually, when this subdivision was approved, it would have been six foot sideline setbacks.
Um, both uh uh which would have been the two other lot lines not along the streets would have been sidelines. So, I'm sure there's plenty of properties in that neighborhood that are at least that close, if not closer. Um,
and uh I I guess I'm okay if they I can recognize that the if the other little deck comes off the shed and the shed can stay where it is. I'm fine with that. I hate to have you come back again if they tell you it's not, but uh
which I guess could happen, but uh otherwise I'm I'm good with stuff. Okay. All right, Miss Murphy. What do you have? I don't have anything to add. Okay. And Mr. Manonyi,
I I'm in agreement with the other board members, so nothing to add. Okay. I'm in agreement as well. I think we've uh covered the issue with the shed. And again, I'm not aware of anything that would prohibit you from putting that on top of your leeching
field. Um sheds are considered movable. Um, so, um, I again, I've never heard of that before, but hopefully that doesn't come up with us. I I haven't seen anything in writing, so we'll just go on the the idea that that's okay. In terms of the
deck, that was the same deck that was here. It's very low to the ground, so I don't think when anybody's standing on it, they're going to be too close to the lot line and be able to look over the fence at their neighbor. So, I don't think that'll be intrusive at all. Um,
and I do think they meet the criteria under the bylaw. So, I don't think it's going to be substantially non-conforming, nor do I think there'll be any undo hazard, nuisance, or congestion. Um, so the only condition that I might suggest
uh on the deck because it is right now low and really on the ground is that if anyone in the future wishes to raise that deck to a different height, then they would have to come back before the board for further relief.
Certainly. Absolutely. What are the thoughts of the board on that on a potential condition? Would that be something that would be acceptable to any motion maker? Yeah, I think that's reasonable. Yeah. Okay. Um, anybody prepared to make a
motion? Um, I'll be glad to make a motion to approve the special permit for the deck expansion um with the condition that uh it uh if it is ever raised that they'll have to come back to the the board for
approval. And um you know I don't think it causes any hazard or nuisance and there is a financial burden. So I I would uh make that motion. Okay. All right. We have a second. I'll second it. All right. We have a motion made with
the condition that if the deck is ever raised, you have to come back for further relief. Uh seconded. Um any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none. We're going to take a roll call. Miss Murphy. I
Mr. Manton I Mr. Freight I Mr. Martin I and I'm an I to approve the special permit uh as you're aware 20 days must elapse. Uh once the permit is filed with the
town clerk. After that you can pick the special permit up from our administrative assistant Dolores and register it at the registry of deeds. Record it and bring a copy back for our records. Uh you have two other forms of relief that you've asked for variances
uh for your shed. We've determined that you're going to not need that variance because you're going to take that deck off and pull it forward. Correct. Correct. Uh so I'd like to withdraw that um application for that without prejudice. Correct.
Without prejudice. Yes, sir. Okay. All right. So we have uh do we have a motion to allow her to do that? So moved. Second. Second. Okay. Uh, Mr. Martin. Uh, I
Mr. Fre I. Mr. Manon. I. Miss Murphy. I. And I'm an I. So that's five. Uh, in favor to withdraw the variance without prejudice. We have another variance that you asked for for the deck. You don't
need that one because we just grant you the special permit. So would you like to withdraw? I would I would like to withdraw that application as well. Do I need to withdraw that without prejudice as well? We Yes, we we would request that you ask to withdraw it without prejudice.
Yes, sir. I do request to withdraw that without prejudice. Okay. And uh do we have a motion for to that effect? So moved. Second. And second. Okay. All those in favor? Mr. Martin? I.
Mr. Fre? I. Mr. Manon. I. Miss Murphy I. And I'm an I as well. So that carries. Five in favor, none against. Okay, you're all set and we wish you the best of luck. Thank you. Thank you very much to the board.
Oh, no. Appreciate your help. Best of luck. Thank you. Okay. Okay. The next matter on our agenda is petition 5182. Kent A. Stout and Andrea T.
Grablin, trustees of the Grove Street Nominee Trust property location at 7 Grove Street and 9 Vernon Street in West German. Uh it's in an R25 zoning district. The applicant seeks a special permit for 104.3.5
number two to combine, redivide, and reconfigure lot areas between two abuing residential properties to make each lot identical in square footage. Good evening. Could you identify yourself for the record, please, sir? Yes, uh, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, I'm Paul Tardiff. I'm an attorney
in Yarmouthport and I represent the uh, petitioner, the Grove Street Nominee Trust. Um Kent Stout, who's one of the trustees uh in in the audience here tonight. Um as you indicated, we are seeking a special permit to allow for the redivision of multiple
non-conforming lots where there is insufficient land to permit the resulting lots to comply with the current dimensional uh requirements of the bylaw. Specifically, uh the applicant proposes to redivide the properties at Seven Grove. I'll show you where those are. I hope Mr. Chairman,
you can see this. All right, Ken. I've got it right in front of me as well. Thank you. So, um, we start with at 7 Grove is is, uh, right here. This is Grove Street. This is Park A. Uh, this is the water down into Lewis Bay. Um, this property
comes in as a rectangle, cuts across here, and goes back up this way. uh 9 Vernon, which is the uh parallel street over here off a park, is about the same size except um this entire area
in the front here is all um owned by the the property at 9 Vernon Street. So, uh it's one big rectangle um owned by the same trust uh with a house here that was built in 1900 and a house here that was
built about 2 three years ago. Um, and what they're trying to do here is to just equalize the square footage by uh instead of coming like this, a big L, they're just going to cut that right down the middle. This piece will go with this lot. That piece goes with that lot.
They'll have identical size lots. That's what we're trying to do. Um, so, um, we look to the zoning bylaw. We look at section 104.3.52. Um it says in there that the zoning board of appeals can grant a special
permit when the owner um whether or not such lots are currently developed wish to combine or redivide such lots in this case redivide but where one uh or more of the existing lots do not conform to the current dimensional requirements
and where one or more of the resulting lots will not conform. Well, we have a R25 zoning district. Um, and so neither of these lots will comply. In fact, currently none of them neither of them comply with the 25,000 requirement.
Uh, each will be 18,400 square ft. Um, there's no proposed changes to the structures in any way. It's just a um a remapping if you will. So, we look at the criteria under 104 uh 3.52. The first thing says that the project
must meet the following conditions. One, the combination or redivision does not increase the number of non-conforming individually buildable lots over the number of such lots as presently exist. We currently have two um lots that are
already improved. We're going to end up with two lots. So, we're not increasing it. So, I think we meet criteria one. Mhm. Criteria two says, "The combination or revision will not increase any pre-existing nonconformity nor create
any new nonconformity as to any existing structure or use of the lots involved or affected. So I don't even think that this uh section applies in this matter. So, uh, as you probably know, Massachusetts has an odd
quirk, uh, when it comes to lots created by the Division of Land under the subdivision control law. Um, there is a section that deals with existing structures. So, if you had a lot with two buildings that existed prior to the adoption of subdivision control law in
this town, the uh the planning board is allowed or or authorizes someone to draw that line between those two structures and create two lots. And it's nothing but an approval not required. It's a very simple process. In fact, they don't
approve it. They just endorse it. Uh I don't even think that they can object to it. The problem in Massachusetts is that although it allows the planning board to do that, it then says separately, is this a zoning problem where you drew that line? Well, you drew the line too
close to the structures, neither meet the setbacks. Now you have a problem. Now you need a variance. We've had a couple of cases over the years um that deal with this very issue. Um, in this case, however, we don't have that issue because the lot is already
divided down the middle up to this point and the structures are already located on there and the structures both comply with front, side, rear setbacks anyway. And so, we're not redrawing this line. We're just redrawing this one, which is not going to affect any of these
structures. So, I don't think section two or B applies in this case. The the third one uh also does not apply. It says if more than one adjoining vacant non-conforming lot is created. Um I I stop right there because we're not
creating vacant lots. We have improved lots on both. So um and then we go to D which is um the usual special permit requirements such as uh it's not going to create any undue nuisance, hazard or congestion in
the neighborhood. uh it's going to promote the intent and purpose of the bylaw. In this case, each structure has access from a separate street. Uh the driveways are on those separate streets. There's nothing that's going to change in this um in any way. Um it's just a
matter of owning a piece of the beachfront uh on either lot so that they're equal. And that's that's the intent here today. So um and and remember that um under 104351 which talks about the purpose of this
section it says the intention of this subsection is to accomplish maximum feasible compliance with the intent and purpose of the bylaw where full compliance is not possible. So, it's it's admitting that there are situations such as this where the only thing we can
do to redraw the line uh and as long as there is no effect on other properties or in the neighborhood um it will all stay the same and it's it's it can be approved by a special permit. So, for those reasons, I think that we meet the criteria under 104352.
Um if you have any questions, I would be happy to uh uh answer those if if possible. I thank you for your time. Okay. Thank you very much. All right. Um, Miss Murphy, do you have any questions for the petitioner?
No, I don't. Okay. Mr. Manony. Yeah. Um, Paul, if it's owned by the same entity, both properties, right? What's the what's the need to create a a
new lot? just is there any intention of selling it? Is um the beneficiaries of the trust are family members and it is anticipated that at some point in the future that the lots will be separately um titled and we just want to have that already
set up so that they can take equal parts of the trust property. And then um you might have to explain to me again on on section B. Sure. how we're not increasing any
pre-existing nonconformity. Well, you the the way it's written, let me get to it. I'll have it right here. It says, "The combination of redivision shall not increase any pre-existing nonconformity nor create any new nonconformity
as to any existing structure." So this section is dealing with that very section we were talking about where we have a case where you're drawing a new line and creating a setback issue um to a structure here. These structures
all comply and the the redivision of the or re retitling of this line down this way is not going to affect those structures at all. That's what that purpose of that section is in my estimation. Okay.
Um, let me think about that. I I'm all I'm all set right now. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Freick. Do you have questions for the petitioner? No, I understand what they want to do and I don't see any nonconformity, but I do have questions on I know in that same
section, you know, we're able to put some conditions or restrictions or limitations as a result of any approvals. And I'm just wondering if if there's some restrictions that, you know, it does it goes right across right up against the beach. I don't know if conservation has I guess there's a limit
of the coastal dunes. They can't develop it within that space anyway. Yeah. Everything down here is probably untouchable. They can't touch it. It's got to be kept natural. Um Yeah. And and if you go just behind that, it's like that's where the lot old lot
begins. So I I don't know. I don't see anything that we would even want to or need to put u any restrictions on. So I I think I'm good with this. Okay. Very good. Uh Mr. Martin?
Nope. I think uh I think it's uh Mr. Tardiff did a good job of saying what's what relevant to that bylaw and I see that as far as I'm concerned that it can meet any and all criteria necessary. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you. And I feel the same way. Uh I think it was well explained. Thank you councel. Welcome. And uh I do agree with your analysis and your uh your understanding of this uh section of the bylaw and how
this pertains to your petition. Um is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in favor of this petition? If so, please come up. Um Mr. Chairman, may I speak?
Are you speaking in favor of this matter? I have a question. Okay. Could you identify yourself, please? Yes. I'm Timothy Scandlin. Okay, Tim. Go ahead. Uh, so, Mr. Tardiff, you mentioned that uh one of the conditions on that uh the
bylaws is that the subdivision does not increase any existing nonconformity. uh with the respect to the uh plot on Vernon Vernon Street uh that is currently uh uh nonconforming in terms
of the total lot size. Is that correct? That's correct. So by subdividing it uh to making it smaller, would that not create or exacerbate the existing nonconformity? Uh it would except that this section of
the bylaw allows that to happen by special permit. There is another section that says you can always add land to a lot to make it bigger. Okay, by right. And that's section four. And it says as long as it doesn't create any additional non-conforming buildable
lots. And that would be if we wanted to do that by right. But we can't do that by right because as you indicated, the lot size on this property is going to reduce. That's why we have the special permit in section 10435. Yep. Thank you. You're
welcome. Anything else, Mr. Scandlin? No, thank you. Okay, thank you. Okay. Uh, anyone in our audience uh wish to speak in opposition to this matter? Um, there's no one in the audience, Mr.
Chairman, but I believe there's a a letter of opposition. It's a very brief letter. Put that in my packet. Um, would you hand that to Mr. Mr. Fre? Do you have that? I do. Could you uh
tell us uh it's short what that letter says? It's uh subject is 5182 um petition 7 and nine seven grove and nine Vernon letter of opposition
from Don Ham Hammet. Um July July 9th um petition number 5182. Hello. My email regards This email regards petition number 5182. Kent A. Stout and Andrea Gralin.
Location 7 Grove and nine Vernon West Yarmouth. Sorry, I can't read tonight. Anyway, we own the property at 11 Park A in West Yarmouth that abuts the above property. We appeal this their request. Don Hamlet and Dana Hamlet. I believe
they mean they oppose the request. That's correct, Mr. Chairman. I confirm that they have a letter of opposition via email. Is that the extent of the email? That's the extent of the email. Yes. Okay. And Dolores, do we have any any other correspondents?
No, Mr. Chairman. Okay. All right. All right. Um, so, uh, Attorney Chardiff, is there anything else that you'd like to add at this time? No, thank you, sir.
Okay, then I'm going to we're going to close the uh hearing to the public and begin board deliberation. Anyone like to uh begin a discussion or make a motion? Um yeah, I I I I think it's fine what they're trying to do. They're just
trying to create equal lots. They're both non-conforming today, so it doesn't change really nonconformity. So to me, it's a reasonable request. I'm not sure what the opposition is referring to or why. There's no um there's no rationale to it. So, as far as I'm concerned, this
this would be I see it as being a fine uh proposal. Okay. Anyone else? Anyone prepared to make a motion? Uh I would uh
uh make a motion to approve petition 5182 uh for a special permit per section 104.3.5 number two uh as requested. Okay. No conditions. Correct. No conditions.
Okay. Uh motion is made by Mr. M. Do we have a second to the motion? I'll second. Barb seconds it. Okay. Any further discussion on the motion? The only thing I would add is I think uh based on the
uh petitioners uh council, they've established they've met the criteria under section 104.3.5 number two and all subsections uh attached to that. Um and that it will not create any undue hazard, nuisance or congestion. And it's
in keeping with the purpose and intent of the bylaw. Uh all right. Any no further discussion? I'm going to go to a roll call. Mr. Martin I. Mr. Freak I.
Mr. Manony I. Miss Murphy. I. And I'm an I. That carries five in favor. None against. Uh, council, as you were aware, that there's a 20-day right of appeal after uh the
decision is clocked with the town clerk and that we would ask that after you record it at the registry of deeds, you bring a copy back for our records. Yes, sir. Uh would you I be expecting a draft decision from you, council? You will.
All right, then we will uh wait to hear from that. And that's the only form of relief I believe that you've requested tonight. There's no varant alternative. I don't believe. Oh, we're all set. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. All right. Thank you very much, Attorney
Tart. Thank you. Okay. The last petition on our agenda tonight is petition 5183 that of Matthew Snoke doing business as 88 West Architecture
property location 50 Powers Lane West Jamoth Mass. It's in an R25 zoning district and the applicant seeks a special permit for 104.3.2 two subsection two andor a variance from section 203.5 to increase the ridge
height of a pre-existing non-conforming structure. Good evening. Hello. Could you identify yourself for the record, please? Yes. Uh I'm Matthew Snope. I'm an architect uh representing 50 Powers Lane
in West Yarmouth. And I do have my video turned on, but I'm not sure you guys are able to see it. And you might be seeing There we go. Looks like you on vacation with um my daughter made that for me. So, I hope
you appreciate the the color. Um let's see. Actually, uh Dolores, could you send that again? Um do you want me to join as panelist? Um actually the technician has joined you as a panelist. I think you
the only way he can turn his video on is if he joins as a panelist, right? Have Have you uh joined as a panelist? In fact, I invited if he wants to turn on. So you should be able to turn your video on now, Mr. Snow. I'm the owner of
Here you go. You're all set. He's here representing. And you just need to unmute yourself. No, but permission for my daughter to speak. Okay. Can everybody hear me? Maybe a little louder, please. Much better. Yeah. Okay. Thank you uh for hearing our
case. We also have a representative of the owner uh who's the eldest daughter of Melanie Sang. Um and she's online as well. I don't know if she'll need to speak if but if we do, we could also allow her to uh be unmuted. Well, the
only thing I'd like to do with her u because I I just want to establish who's requesting the relief tonight. Uh because uh the way the petition reads it I don't
I'm only reading the legal notice. It looks like you're asking for the relief. Correct. Uh are you an owner of the property? I am not. I'm I am the architect. and and how what standing do you have to ask for relief on behalf of the owner of the
property? Uh I believe as a licensed architect in the state of Massachusetts I have standing to represent them in this matter. I am also uh related to the family so I am an in-law but I'm not
sure that that's relevant. Well, I just want to be I just want to be on solid ground here. That's the reason why I ask um because you're not an owner of the property and we would actually be granting the relief to uh
you as an architect. Yeah, this is my first time going through a zoning board of appeals in West Yarmouth. Uh it's it's common process uh in other jurisdictions. So if uh and and I understood in my conversation with the building
commissioner Mark Bis that um that was an acceptable way to make this application. Mr. Chairman, I mean go ahead Dolores. Yes, I he could be listed as the petitioner and then the property owner listed on the decision if need be. Just as with the uh first
petitioner who were the contractors have been the petitioner, but obviously the property owner would be listed separately on the decision if a decision is is m um is made tonight. Is was Mary Jane Yman's not the property owner of that first petition?
Uh she she was the petitioner just as she has been in the past. But isn't she one of the owners? Uh, no sir, she is not. Okay, that's interesting. I don't mind proceeding. I do have a letter. I just wanted it to be noted. Okay, just in
case anybody were to uh question it, okay, or appeal it and the way the decision would be written, uh, would the decision attach to the owner or would the decision attached to the architect?
They would both be listed on the decision and the certificate of granting, but on an application they may be listed as an agent. Um, which is not Okay. Well, I do have a letter here uh from um
Okay. Uh from Melanie Sang as current owner of 50 Powers Lane West Jam. Grant permission for my daughter Laura to speak on my behalf before the zoning board of appeals. didn't really get in. Uh I'm certainly willing to go forward.
I just want to make note of that. Okay. Um that potential question of standing here as to whether the petitioner in front of us is the correct petitioner, but I'm willing to go forward on this matter. All right. Um Okay. Sir, would you like to start
and tell us about your petition, please? Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for proceeding. Um uh so and I'm hoping this will be short and sweet. Uh we have an existing non-conforming structure at 50 Powers Lane in West Yarmouth and uh we'd
like to do a remodel to the to the property and according to the Massachusetts State Building Code, if we are remodeling more than 50% of the value of the structure, we need to comply with the current FEMA uh
requirements being in a flood zone. So uh in our case that means we will need to raise the structure approximately 2.3 ft. Um and in so doing we are raising a nonconforming structure. So the ridge
line of the twostory single family home will also go up by 2.3 ft. We will be reusing the existing foundation um and just extending it that distance. So, in order to comply with the state
building code, uh we request relief either via special permit um which is section 104.3.2 or a variance per section 203.5. Um we are uh we are altering the
structure both uh in the inside there's some reconfiguration of rooms and there is an addition on the rear of the building to add a bedroom for the owner um who's elderly and uh requires a
bedroom on the first floor. So that that is as of right. Um we're adding a ramp um for access to the first floor because obviously as we raise the structure to comply with the FEMA flood zone requirements, we're making it more difficult for her to access. So we have
added a ramp on the west side of the property that is also as of right. Um we're adding dormers on the second floor, none of which are being added. um to the I should say the the
nonconforming issue is the fact that there is a setback uh a sideyard setback on the east side of the lot uh which the existing structure crosses. We are adding dormers but we are not adding uh
we are not altering at all the envelope east of that setback line. So we've done all the improvements will be within the the proper setback distance. Um and then we're adding also uh the
there's an existing attic story which we're building out uh which is a sort of coupoopa in the center of the property which will be also added. Okay. Okay. Um, so I'm happy to answer
any other questions if I have failed to explain anything. So, as as I read the legal ad here, the only the only thing you're asking for tonight and the only thing we can grant you is relief relative to the ridge
height. Correct. Now, I'd like to just go over that ridge height with you because um the way I read it, and I'm looking at uh well, you've got a number of um sheets
here, but I have one of one uh from Strong Tree Engineering. Uh, it shows an existing plot plan and it shows the nail set at elevation 6.18.
I turn to your page. Let me find it. A2.1 and you have the top of your you call it a Koopa, but I'm not quite sure I would go along with that definition. That looks like a room up there to me. Um,
you have your ridge height at elevation 42.5. So we normally go off natural grade from street. In this case it would be 6.18. You're at 42.5.
You you subtract that and I come out with 36.32 which would put you 1.32 ft over the allowed 35 ft in height in the town. Do you see the ad the same way?
Um so I had a conversation regarding building height. Um actually the first thing I want to say is the this Kuba structure which will represent the tallest point of the building is within the setback. So just so that that's
clear. And then uh the second point is I had a conversation with Mark Krillis and we talked about what was the proper elevation um at grade to take our measurement and uh so he suggested that the correct
elevation would be grade at the foundation facing the street. So you can see in the drawing on A2.1, we're taking the building height from natural grade of 7.5
and that gives us 30 ft which is the as of right limit. Okay. I don't think Mark is probably present at the meeting tonight, but I think Dolores was part of that conversation as well.
Well, okay. All right. I'll tell you what. I'm going to come back to that. What I think I'm going to go to now is if there's nothing else you'd like to add, I'm going to go to the board for some questions. Mr. Go ahead.
Yeah, I was I was going to say I don't know if I have the ability to screen share or if it's uh if it's something you would want to see, but I do have some images of other properties in the neighborhood. Um this kind of third
floor attic story is very common as is uh are many of the structures they've been lifted for FEMA as they've been remodeled over the years. Um, many of the structures have added fill in the front yard. Um, and uh, you know, I think I think most
development I can show that. Yeah. I I think most of us are pretty pretty familiar with that whole subdivision. We approve a lot of stuff in there. Oh, okay. Yeah. But thank you very much. Um, yeah. Right now, I think we're going to go to questions for the board. Mr.
Martin, do you have questions for the petitioner? Um, no, I don't think so. Uh, there was, uh, we didn't hear from any neighbors on this, right?
Apparently. Okay. Uh, I don't, I know it's all confusing in terms of where we start with measuring height these days because of how a house has to be built up to to meet flood regulations. And I and I I think what
I'm hearing is is appropriate, but I'll leave that for better minds, but I don't have any other other uh questions. Very very attractive house. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Freight.
Uh they certainly are pushing right up against the limit if if this is correctly measured. Um I can't say that I mean other than the diagrams here um if natural grade is they're considering it is 7.5 then this does look like it would
right bump up against it well what I'm relying on is I'm relying on on my bylaws on page 27 they show a an illustration of where we measure And it says average natural grade at the
street. It doesn't say on the lot. And so I'm relying on a benchmark from a prior certified plot plan that shows that at 6.18. Yeah. Because I I drove by today and the
house is the yard is elevated a little bit. Yeah. Oh, no. He may have to elevate that. But I'm just saying where we measure understood. 35, right? Yeah. So, I'm I'm questioning the height also. Um, is is the footprint the same
footprint to going forward? I guess I have that question. Yes, the the footprint uh I'm sorry, the footprint in terms of the area that is nonconforming is not changing.
Um, we are adding a first floor bedroom to the north side of the structure. So, is that adding additional foundation space, I'm assuming? I'm sorry. Is that adding additional foundation?
Yes, it is. Okay. So, that that will be a a ra that'll be raised with the rest of the house. And that's the back room on the first floor only. Is that what is that? I'm trying to understand illustration. Yes. If you look at the civil drawing
C0.1, it shows an existing plot plan to the left and to the right of the page, it shows the new addition to the back. I have one that says A0.1. It shows a a
I think a room in the back, single story with a deck on top. Is that the one you're referring to? Yes. So, that's the part that'll be bumped out the back. And that won't be any closer than that'll be it looks like approximately
16 something feet off of the side level. What counts as a side lot line, I believe. Is that correct? Yeah. Because uh so we've taken the interpretation uh that we have two sideyard setbacks because we're on a corner. two.
So, we're using the 30 35 foot um front yard setback on both P Lane and um Island Road. And that side is going to be greater than 15 is what I'm asking. Yes.
16 ft. Okay. I don't have any other questions. I'm just not sure that the calculation in the front and the height I guess it's in question. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Manony.
No questions other than um you know the height. I had the same concerns as you did, Sean. So, other than that, I'm okay. Okay. Okay. Uh Miss Murphy,
yep. Questions? Um no. How where's the access to this coup? Uh from the interior. So there's a stair in the center stairs up there. So it's just what just going to be an open room.
Correct. Yes. It's doing what everybody wants in this neighborhood, which is trying to grab a view of the ocean. The ocean. Right. So that's why we're looking to maximize the the height of the structure. Okay. No, no other questions.
Okay. Let me ask you a question. Yes. We're we're talking about a foot, a little more than a foot. Could you trim a foot off the height of that and still be okay? Um, we could I think probably um you're
taking grade So I I've been taking it at 7.5 and you're the number you mentioned was 6.18. So um yeah, just a a little over a foot. I think it is possible that we could do
that. Um either I I don't want to uh lower the slope of the roof because we're already at a at a fairly low pitch for a shingled roof. We want to stay within the character of the existing homes in the neighborhood.
Um the ceiling height in that space is is just over 8 feet. So, it's not extravagant by any means, but the existing home is built with less than 8t ceilings. So, it would not
be completely out of character for the home, although I would argue it's less than ideal. Is that Are you cathedraling the inside of that? Uh, there's a slight cathedral to it. Yes. Okay. So, you're going to have like exposed beams up there. It's a
um some type or something there on the ceiling. Yeah, it's not exposed to the roof because structurally uh there would be an outward thrust. So, we need to we do need to install when you look up. It's going to have a cathedral ceiling look to it.
Yeah, it'll have a slope to it. Correct. Okay. All right. Okay. Yep. It'll be nice. We'll be happy to have you over. Okay. Well, I I I if you ask me my opinion, my
opinion it's from the natural grade from the street. Now, the only mark I have to go off is a 2024 plot plan. I don't see any new one. So, I'm taking that as an average grade of the street. That nail that a previous engineer
used. Um, that's the only thing I have to go off of. Uh, I understand where you're coming from. I I I'm not sure what Mr. Grill's interpretation is of that. I mean, if you I guess I guess my
point would be this is if you drop it to 35 or a foot, if you if you're not going to be more than well, take 42.5 and drop it down to 41,
say, your finished elevation up there. If if you do that, you're at 35. uh then we're looking at a special permit. I think if you go over that and you're asking for above 35, I think you
meet you need a variance. I think if you're asking for a variance, I'm not quite I don't think you meet the criteria for a variance in this case because it's not really a hardship and it's not really owing to circumstances relative to the
lot. The lot's nice and flat. Um yeah, I maybe my response to that would just be that, you know, we're raising the building to comply with the state building code um being in a flood zone and the amount that we're raising the
building is 2.3 ft. So we could add this Koopa and still be a foot under the height limit if we did a a renovation or an addition that's less than 50% of the value. So I
know what people do. They do things in phases. So we could add the Koopa and we could say it's less than 50% of the value. We could do that next year and then we could come back to the building department the following year and say okay we're going to renovate the rest of
the structure and now we have to raise it to FEMA's uh guidelines. So, it seems to me um you know that maybe and especially in this case because we did have an interpretation from the building commissioner
um that maybe we would be allowed to uh build the structure and renovate it and lift it so we meet the state building code. And I tell you what, I tell you what, if you'd like uh we could have a discussion
with the board. You could go back and get something in writing from Mr. Grills as to how he came to his conclusion as to what the average grade is, but I'm only going off what my bylaw is and what my understanding of how we determine it.
And that's the average natural grade from the street. Yes. And I had the same question initially, which is why I reached out to Mark and we had the conversation. Um, so I I mean I guess if you want to drop it down 1.32 feet,
then you're at 35, then we're talking about a special permit. And other than that, I have no problem at all what you want to do relative to a special permit. But when you go over the 35 ft, that's when I have a hard time supporting it. And I think you need a variance. And
then I think you have trouble meeting the criteria for a variance. Whereas I think when we're talking special permit, I I think you do meet the criteria for special permit. So um again, we can have a discussion amongst the board, but if you want to
have Mr. Grills put something in writing as to how he made his interpretation and come back, we could probably continue you. If not, then we could talk about uh have a discussion with the board as to whether they think you meet the criteria
for special permit and not exceeding the 35 ft. Um that which would require you to drop that roof down about 1.32 ft. Right. And so if we elect not to drop
the roof, then uh we're not we we cannot be considered for a variance tonight. You could you could you you could I will tell you I mean I'm only one of five votes, but I don't think you meet the criteria for a
variance. I I can only remember one other time that we granted relief for height to exceed 35 ft and that was the result of a mistake by the building department
after they issued a building permit. They read it wrong. The contractor went in, he was about a foot or two over the height. He had to come back to us. We granted him a variance. Obviously, it would have been a hardship. he relied on the building department's interpretation
of his plans, okay, what the actual elevations were. And so that's the only time uh because it was an honest mistake. Um and I've been here for a while, so but I'm only one. I mean, it's
um yeah, I guess I'd be curious to hear from the rest of the board if uh they think that okay, a variance is is acceptable. Um if not uh then the the two other routes that you identified are both um I'll be happy to consider them
and okay answer right away. All right. Well, why don't why don't we go to the board and why don't we have a discussion about this just so see if we're all on the same page. Sean, I agree with you. So that's two votes and that would be a problem. So So that that would be a problem. If you
have two negative votes, you need at least four in support. So Mr. Freight seems to agree with my interpretation. So if it went for a vote, uh you would fail and uh Okay. So we we we don't want to we don't want
to do that. What we want to do is we want to gift you hopefully what you want. Yeah. So, um, and then the another possibility if we decide to lower it, um, and proceed with a special permit,
if, uh, we had difficulty with, you know, working out the elevations, um, we could then come back to another meeting and request that that variance. I'm thinking you could you could you'd have to reapply for a new request for relief. We
would presuming we granted you one. I'm right. I would only if I had that letter from Mark that supported us, right? And if I if I didn't have that letter, it wouldn't come back. But presumably he would he would provide it. Um but uh I
think in in our interest of moving the project forward from the way it's laid out here tonight, I think that we would agree to lower the roof. Um, and use a base elevation.
Uh, you suggested 6.18. I did. That's what I'm going off of based on what you have submitted and it was not your Oh, wait a minute. Is this your This is from Strong Tree Engineering.
Um, can you tell me John Sean? Can you say which page you're referring to to when you Well, this is uh I say open to the third page. Um you're going to see a existing plot plan.
Yeah. From Strong Tree Engineering up in the right hand corner. It's dated 12924. Yep. And if you look at the foundation
in the lower right part of the lot, you'll see a BM nail set. That's benchmark nail set. E elevation 6.18. Okay, I got you. Yeah.
Now, we have another one over to the left that's got a benchmark elevation of 5.94, right? So, that one's even lower. So, I think what we would do is take the average of those two, but I can work with 6.18 because I don't want to try to drop you
any further than that. Yeah. Okay. Because then we're kind of changing the look of the house and with scale and all of that other stuff. I think you could probably steal a foot or so. Yeah.
So, that that's that's that was my calculation. And then when I went to the petitioners plan A2.1 which is a half a dozen or so pages
after that it shows the elevation of the house and the top of that what they call as a coupo which I'm not quite sure that would be my definition. and it looks more like a room to me. So that's how I would interpret it. Um, that elevation
is at 42.5. So if you take the 42.5 minus the 6.1 benchmark elevation on the previous plot plan, which is the only one I have before us, I don't have a new one. uh
you come to 36.32 which is 1.32 over the 35 foot height limit. Right. So that's why we're talking about shaving off 1.32 off the height of this. Yeah. So approximately 1T4 in
Yeah. Does everybody understand how we got there? Yep. Yep. Okay. So, let me ask uh let let me have a brief discussion with the board here.
Is everybody if if this petition were to proceed at the 35 foot height, which would mean taking off some off the top foot 4 in. Would everybody be inclined to grant the special permit?
Mr. Martin, I want to poll you. Your thoughts? Yeah, I would. Okay. Mr. Fra? Yes, I would. Mr. Manony? Yes. And Miss Murphy? Yep. That'd be fine. Okay. All right. So, and I'm in
agreement with that, too. I mean, it's a very nice looking house. It's going to fit right in over there in the neighborhood. We've seen a lot of these come before us. Um, so there's no question you're keeping uh with the neighborhood over there. And I
presume uh there's no object. Do we don't have any objections? Do we have any letters of opposition to this? Uh no, Mr. Chairman. There's only a memo from conservation and I believe they have met an order of conditions. Is that correct? That's correct, Mr. Chairman.
Okay. And and Sean, I think in the past we've been pretty I mean the height limit is something that we've been very stringent upon, I think. So, you know, it's only being I think you're being fair on your approach on trying to make this work. Okay.
Well, um if if that's acceptable to the petitioner, um then I I I think that what I'm hearing from the board is they would approve a special permit for this project tonight, but not a variance. So, would you like
us to proceed on the special permit with the condition that you're going to take 1T4 in off the top of the roof? Yeah. Yes. I I would like to proceed. I would love to make a comment at the end, but I'm not going to uh prejudice
anybody uh right now. Okay. Well, why don't we do that? Okay. Um so, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in favor of this petition? Please come forward.
Uh no one, Mr. Chairman. And is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in opposition to this petition? Please come forward. No one, Mr. Chairman. And do we have anybody with their hands raised online? Uh, no, Mr. Chairman.
Okay. All right. So, um, is there anything else that the petitioner wishes to add at this point? No. Okay. Thank you for your time. Okay. Then we're going to close this uh to the public and begin board uh
deliberations on it. Um, Mr. Martin, your thoughts. I'm comfortable with what uh what you're you're intending to propose. I think that's a a logical uh
um way to go and uh I think it's fair to the petitioner as well. Okay. All right. And Mr. Freyri, I I agree. Um, I mean it it's the
biggest Koopa I've seen in a while, but it's uh it's certainly uh it's certainly something I would agree to. Okay, Mr. Manon, your thoughts? I agree. I'm also I'm okay with it. All right. And Miss Murphy, your
thoughts? No, I I agree, too. I think it's a good solution. Okay. And I'm in agreement, too. And I I think uh you know it does meet the criteria of the bylaw for special permit and it's going to fit very nicely in the neighborhood. It's very tastefully done.
Um all right. So we have do we have a motion? Anyone prepared to make a motion? I'll make a motion to approve the a special permit um as prop proposed with the condition that uh it be lowered one foot 4 in from
the current plan. Um and I think it that then it meets the special permit criteria. Okay. All righty. Do we have a second to that motion? Second. Yeah. All right. Any further discussion on the motion? All right. We're going to take a roll
call. Miss Murphy. I. Mr. Manon. Hi. Mr. Freight. I. Mr. Martin. I. And I'm an I. So that passes five in favor. No opposed. So there is a 20-day
appeal period. Once the decision is clocked with the town clerk's office. Uh after that you can contour Dolores will contact you. You can take your special permit over to the registry of deeds and record it. And please bring a copy back for our records. Do you have any
questions on that? Uh, when I modify the drawings, do they need to be resubmitted to this board in any way or just submitted to uh Yes, we would we would like to have you modify the uh drawings and submit an
updated plan for our records. Okay. And that can be done through Dolores. Yes. Yes. Anything you need, just ask Dolores. U Mr. Chairman, there is also the variance which I'm sure you're going to Okay. Yep. I'm going to discuss that right
now. Now, you've asked for uh variance relief as well. What we would ask you to do is to withdraw your request without prejudice, which means that if you did want to bring it back, you could in the future. If you don't, then we have to vote on it tonight. Uh because failure
to do so would result in constructive approval, which you're probably aware of. Um, and so if you would like to request to withdraw that form of relief, I'm sure we grant it to you. Yes. Okay. Do we have a motion to allow the
petitioner to withdraw his request for variance without prejudice? So moved. Do we have a second? Second. Okay. We'll do a roll call vote. Miss Murphy. I. Mr. Manton. Hi. Mr. Frey. Hi.
Mr. Martin. Hi. and I'm an I as well. So that variance request is withdrawn without prejudice. So you're all set tonight. If you could just submit that updated plan to the board, uh we'd certainly appreciate it. We wish you the the best
going forward. Um thank you everybody for their time and I don't know if you want to want to hear this additional comment, but uh I can't help myself. Um, in regards to the
building code, next month, uh, the requirements for freeboard in a flood zone are being raised by 12 in. So, if we were, uh, submitting for a building permit, actually, I think that deadline has already passed to the 1st of July. So, if we would have submitted the
building permit one month later, the requirements for FEMA flood zone um AE, which is where we are, would go up by one foot. So, the exact same design would have required another foot in
height per building code and then there there would have been no way that this uh project could happen. So, I it's just something to consider in the future. I think in our case, we're just like like you mentioned, you know, we can probably
squeeze out 16 in and still make this space work, but just barely. Um, and had this been filed a month later, we wouldn't be able to make it work. So, the state building code requirement, in
my opinion, would provide a hardship to future applicants. Um, so just just something for the board to think about um, you know, maybe the town when bylaws are considered in the future. Okay. Well, thank you very much for your input. We appreciate that
and thank you for your time tonight. Yeah. Thanks again. All right. Good night. Okay, we have further business with the board tonight. We're going to elect officers. I'd like to nominate I'd like to nominate Sean Iiggore as chairman.
I'll second I go. I go I go I go. Sorry I had an R. You know who you are. Your boss. I'm sorry. Okay, we will take a vote on that. We
have a second on that. Yes. Yes. Oh, please. Mr. Chairman Tony seconded. Okay, we're going to take a roll call vote on that. All those in favor? Barbara in favor? I John I.
Jay I. Dick I. And I'm an I for myself. Okay. You always have to vote for yourself, right? Of course.
Um Okay. We now we need a vice chairman. Any nominations? Whoever wants to Dick Martin. I'll nominate Dick Martin. Well, only because Jay's leaving us. I'll second.
When are you leaving, Jay? Next meeting is my last one. Next meeting is my last one. Next meeting. Yes. Yes. When do you have to be out of the house? Are you still satisfied? Lots to do.
No. He said he's going to join the board of appeals up there. Okay. So, we we have a uh we have motion made to Who did we who was just nominated? Uh Mr. Martin.
Mr. Martin is vice chair. We have a second to that. Yes, I seconded it. Sean, you seconded it. Okay. Any discussion on that? hearing none. Ms. Murphy. I vote in favor of that. Hi,
Mr. Manson. Hi, Mr. Freick. Hi, Mr. Martin. I reluctantly and I'm an I as well. So, that carries 5 to zero. Mr. Martin, yeah.
Would you consider taking your position after the next uh hearing date? Oh, yeah. Yep. You would? Yep. Okay. I'd like to nominate Jay Frey as vice chairman until such time as he he's
got one he's got one uh hearing left with us. He can put it on his resume that way. Yeah. I'd like to nominate him for one more hearing until such time as then Mr. Martin would take over.
Second. Yeah. Second that. Second it. Yeah, Mr. Martin. Yep. So, we have a we have a nomination. I have a second to that nomination. Any
discussion hearing? None. Mr. Martin. I. Mr. Freak. I Mr. Manony. Hi. Miss Murphy. Hi. And I'm an I as well. So, Mr. Freight,
you are the vice chairman uh through your the next hearing date at which time unfortunately uh we're all sorry to hear that you're going to be moving away and we're going to lose you. But you've been an uh an unbelievable
asset to this board. I think everybody agrees and your input has been uh not only constructive and welcome uh but you've certainly made uh this a better board uh from your presence. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay.
I still hope you'll be at the next meeting. So, I'll be at the next meeting. That one I will be uh in person. This is my last Zoom hearing. Uh so, I will be around. Um do we have any other officers we have to
uh deal with tonight, Dolores? Uh no, Mr. Chairman. No. Okay. We don't do the secretary anymore. We we don't have a treasurer and we don't do zony administrator. We haven't filled that yet. Uh okay. So we
do have minutes. Um what are the dates of those minutes? Dolores June 12th and June 26th, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Do we have a motion to approve the minutes? I'd like to make a motion to approve the minutes from June 12th as well as June
26th. Okay. Do we have a second? I'll second. Second by Mr. Manton. Any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. I. Action. We'll do a roll call vote on those two. Miss Murphy. I.
Mr. Manton. I. Mr. Freick. I. Mr. Martin. I with the exception I don't know if I should say I on the 26th meeting. You can recuse yourself. We got a quorum
on the others. So we'll we'll take you. You you can abstain on that one if you uh weren't there and haven't brought yourself up to speed. Y okay, we can do that. All right. Um and I'm an I as well. All right.
Uh I don't think do we have any further business? Uh Dolores? Uh no, Mr. Chairman, that is all. Okay. I'd like to thank everybody. Uh Tim, it's great to have you on board. We look forward to uh working with you in the future. No. Likewise.
Okay. Uh Jay, we will see you at the next meeting. You're not leaving us, correct? That's correct. One more. Okay. All right, then. Uh do we have a uh make a motion to adjurnn? Okay. Do we have a second to that? Second.
Second. Any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? Sharing none, we stand adjourned.