##VIDEO ID:1bC91vbpLhw## e e e e e e e e e e e e e [Music] [Music] [Music] good afternoon everyone it's September 26 2024 and you are tuned in to the chadam zoning board of appeals meeting in chadam Mass pursuant to the Govern to Governor haly's March 29th 203 2023 signing of the acts of 2023 extending certain covid measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law until March 31 2025 this meeting of the chadam zoning board of appeals is being conducted in person in via remote participation every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the access the proceedings as provided for in the order a reminder that persons who'd like to listen to this meeting while in progress may do so by calling 1508 945 4410 conference ID 571 772 973 pound or join the meeting online via Microsoft teams through the link that's provided in the posted agenda while this is a live broadcast and simoc cast on chadam TV despite our best efforts we may not be able to provide for realtime access we will post a record of this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible in accordance with Town policy the public can speak to any issue hearing or business item on the agenda during the meeting when recognized by the chair the meetings are run as follows we take a roll call of all board members ask if any citizens or non-board members participating in the call via the phone or uh or online give our last four digits of their telephone number for identification purposes the hearing notice is read by staff :' on my right you or your representative will present your application anyone in favor of the appeal or application may speak for up to five minutes and there'll be a clock then I will read any and all um correspondents after that we'll ask if there's anybody that would like to ask a question or talk against the app application and then um we will have questions from the board the applicant May rebut any testimony that they've heard from questions from other people um board members will ask questions we'll close the hearing deliberate and then usually we vote on the applications all votes are taken by a roll call and at the end of the meeting we'll close via verbal confirmation and note the time of adjournment so we start the meeting with a rooll call me um of all board members we have eight members everybody's here today we have uh three Associates and five full members you need a four out of five um vote to to Prevail under the Commonwealth of Massachusetts voting today will be the full members which is Dave e David Nixon myself um Paul simple and Virginia Fenwick um so now we'll go through a roll call just to uh verify that you approve of this type of meeting starting with David V uh David h v i I approve Ed Acton I approve David S Nixon I approve Paul C simple I approve Lee Hy I approve Steve dor approves Virginia fck I approve and I approve as well I think first on the agenda today would be um a motion by Paul simple if he would uh about the meeting held on August 22nd yes I'll move to approve the minutes as drafted for meeting on August 22 second uh 2024 and Dave V seconds and votes yes D nion I vote Yes well yes yes and I vote Yes as well all right well the first two applications are going to be uh requests for withdrawals starting with application 24-16 um 789 wait a minute I'm s what am I looking at you want I'm looking at the wrong agenda some'll get yours okay 24- 095 go ahead Sarah application number 24- 095 Fitz Family Trust car of Cindy Fitz uh 951 Enchanted Oaks Drive Driftwood Texas 78619 owners of property located at 20 208 Cedar Street also shown in the town of chadam assessors map 13c block 16 lot one the applicant seeks a dimensional variance from the required setback for exterior mechanical system appliances uh the applicant proposes to install two AC condensers 15 ft from the Wester leab butter where a 25t setback is required the property contains 16,200 ft within the R40 zoning District a dimensional variance is required under Mass General Law chapter 4A section 10 and Section 8 d2c of the chadam protective bylaw who was here on that um some yes please Cindy Fitz Cindy Fitz I presume hi yes I'm Cindy Fitz um thank you very much I'm here to withdraw without prejudice okay is that a motion it's a motion Paul I'll move to Grant the requested withdrawal without prejudice d v seconds and votes yes I vote Yes well all votes yes jny votes yes as do I very thank you for coming thank you very much see you next one see you next time okay yep the next one we have is 24- 097 177 Countryside Drive Michael Ford Esquire but s will first read the application application number 24- 097 Robert Fuller and Natalie Coleman Fuller care of Michael D Ford Esquire PO Box 7 PO Box 485 West harch Mass 02671 owners of property located at 17 7 Countryside drive also shown on the town of chadam assessor map 6i block 15 lot n14 the applicant proposes to change alter expand a non-conforming dwelling and a non-conforming lot via the construction of a partial second floor Edition and covered porch the existing dwelling is non-conforming and that is located 32.4 ft from the road 4T from the coastal Conservancy district and 16.4 ft from the easterly butter where a 25t setback is required the proposed partial second floor Edition will will be non-conforming and that it will be located 30 ft from the coastal Conservancy District where a 50ft setback is required the proposed covered porch will be non-conforming and that it will be located 25.9 ft from the road where a 40ft setback is required the existing building coverage is 1,959 ft 12.6% and the proposed building coverage is 275 ft 13.4% or 15% is the maximum allowed the lot is non-conforming and that it contains 15,5 37 ft of buildable Upland where 20,000 ft is required and contains 27,0 85 ft of land area where 60,000 ft² is required in the r60 zoning District a special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of protected bylaw welcome attorney Ford well well thank you madam chairman and members of the board I appreciate the opportunity to appear uh remotely um as indicated in my letter to the board dated September 19th we were contacted on the 19th by our clients indicating that they had made a decision to rethink their plans and uh asked us to uh file a request for withdrawal without prejudice of this pending application is that a motion that's a request I think the board has to make oh there you go thank you for that you would know I will uh I will move to Grant the requested withdrawal without prejudice Dave V second and votes yes I vote Yes well all votes yes JY votes yes as do I thank you very much thank you for coming all right all right next up is 789 Fox Hill Road uh Robert and Elizabeth chanelli 24-16 Sarah application number 24-16 Robert and Elizabeth Campanelli 91 Wier Lane walam Mass 02451 owners of property located at 789 Fox Hill Road also shown in the town of chadam assessor map 6C block 50 lot J10 the applicant seeks to modify special permit number 24- 041 granted on May 9th 2024 which allowed for the construction of a deck the applicant now seeks to modify the special permit to allow for the deck to be located 25 ft from the road where a 40t setback is required the lot is non-conforming and then it contains 29,00 148 ft or 40,000 ft is required in the R40 zoning District a special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 40a section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw welcome thank you and I appreciate the bo letting me um be remote as I am one of those individuals that is sick so um I am coming to you from my desk and uh we're seeking to have this modification to our special permit because in completing of the deck uh the actual deck as in the asilt is literally 25 ft from the uh Road rather than 25.2 ft from the road which was the original special permit request hindsight being 2020 we probably should have just gone with 25 ft rather than being so precise in reviewing the criteria as outlined in section BB um in terms of adequacy it seems to not have any additional impact in terms of compatibility with the neighborhood no additional impact in terms of no non-conforming I think we're still um within you know the general Realms of reasonableness when we're talking about 2.4 Ines from a suitability standpoint I think it is actually and it continues to remain an improvement to the neighborhood I will defer to the board if there's any of the other criteria from 5 through 12 that they think are are important and relevant and so I would request consideration for the amendment to our special permit from 25.2 to a 25 foot setback okay thank you very much is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application if so please indicate seeing none um I will read the correspondences and we have none is there anybody here on Microsoft teams who wishes speak against this application has a specific question if so please make it known and seeing none questions from the board I'm just going to do this plenary are there any no good um Paul uh I will move to close the hearing and move into deliberations uh Dave seconds and vote Yes Yes Paul yes yes and I vote Yes as well okay okay deliberations dich well I I I I know there's no such thing as D Minimus in in our in considering the plans Etc apparently anyway uh no I don't see this this um uh 2.4 Ines close to the road is being substantially more detrimental in any way shape or form if it had been presented as as um 25 ft initially I I wouldn't have had no concerns so I will be supporting it very good Ed uh no no questions no it's deliberations you agree with dve I agree wholeheartedly well I don't agree but I will not vote no very good Paul I agree with Mr v um yeah I don't see any problem with this I don't have any issue ues Jenny I would have approved 25 initially and I remember someone very astute one time or actually our chair a woman saying that that's the criteria that you look at when you are evaluating these very come back so I would um approve and that's I thought you said that but anyway I agree with it no matter who said it it's true fact in my opinion so um Paul I'll move to Grant the requested relief as as requested uh Dave V seconds and votes yes Dave Nixon I'm V yes well all votes yes jny yes as do I it's unanimous successful we hope you feel better thank you I appreciate the board's time you're welcome all right moving along to the fourth application today is 24-96 844 Ridgeville Road John Timberman When Sarah's ready application number 24-96 John Timberman PO Box 92045 need a mass 02492 owner of property located at 84 Ridgeville Road also shown in the town of chadam assessors map 6D block 2v lot 28 the applicant seeks to construct a detached garage with habitable space above on a non-conforming lot the existing dwelling and proposed detached accessory structure comply with all bulk and dimensional requirements of the bylaw but is considered is considered a substantial alteration and under the second accept Clause of section 6 of Mass General Law chapter 4A such sub such substantial alteration requires the grant of a special permit the existing building coverage is 1,58 Ft 6.7% the proposed building coverage is 1,898 Ft 12.1% or 15% is the maximum allowed the law is non-conforming and that it contains 15,794 squ fet where 20,000 feet is required in the R20 zoning District a special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 40a section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw okay yes please make your way to the mic and uh State your case hi thank you um I desire to build this garage with could you state your name for the record please I'm sorry uh John Timberman the owner of 84 Bridgefield oh great go ahead um I desire build this garage to obviously for vehicles two vehicles but space above to be used for storage exercise area maybe a treadmill or something as well as some office space the existing house that I'm in is a cottage basically I don't want to make any changes to that I love it as it is but it's small no room for those other things that I mentioned okay do you have a copy of the criteria or do you want me to help you with that um yeah there's there's uh actually 12 criteria that uh allegedly is supposed to go through to be able to get this granted um would you say that you have an adequate size site for oh absolutely yes I know that it's non-conforming thank you um in that it's under 20,000 Square ft I'm aware of the frontage issue I'm shy of that by 3 feet I believe M and you think this is compatible uh with neighboring properties would you say absolutely yes there's been some new construction in the neighborhood and it would fit in nicely with what's going on there and uh the extent of the proposed is there any increase in non-conforming nature in your application that you know of no no very good uh you think the site is suitable yes doesn't impact the natural environment slopes vegetation Wetlands groundwater any of that none of the above no and uh what about the visual character how do you think it's going to look I think it'll look great I intentionally wanted it in the back corner of the lot as far back and as far over as it will go um I I think the plan actually calls for it for the 16 ft off instead of 15 um and that that's by Design as well um but set off the road to that point would be a nice complement to the property in the existing neighborhood and you you see it as compatible with neighboring uses absolutely yes and won't be an issue with noise litter traffic flow no utilities not at all and uh okay sounds good um anything else no thank you okay is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wish to speak in favor of this application if so please indicate seeing none I will read the correspondences there are three um Judith Georgio our health agent writes on 92424 that she reviewed the plant about the detached garage with space home office Loft above the property the proposed garage is located with the existing septic system is currently located a new system Sy must be approved and constructed the space over the garage will not be approved as a bedroom a deed restriction may be required prior to the issuance of the new septic system uh permit and then we have a note from Ronald York um 7 uh September 24th 2024 I am responding to your letter dated September 5th 20124 my wife and I live at 11 e um across the road on Ridgeville uh I have no objections to Mr timberman's proposed structure on his property that must have been the notice to all abutters because yes I I did take the occasion to speak with the abuts yeah most of them anyhow yeah great great and then we also have one more note from uh 94 Ridgeville Road Katherine and John strizzy um they are in support of the work Mr Timberman would like to do at 84 Ridgeville road that concludes our car correspondences is there anybody here or on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak against this application or has a specific question seeing none questions from the board Jenny um yes Mr Tim I have a question about the height um that you're proposing on the site plan we calculate height by average the average grade plane minus the proposed Ridge and when I look at that it's 27 5 but the application looks like it's 286 could you confirm which one it is I believe it's 286 because I did increase the height of the garage door um ideally at some point I'd like to keep a boat in there and I I believe that's the differential okay Steve oh sorry sorry sorry one more question do you know what the height of your current house is the height of your house that I do not I'm sorry all right thank you all right Steve I I have two questions two quick questions the the only or verification the uh the only utilities that that are going to be run to the garage are electricity and water I gu correct you're going to have a slop syn there or something yes okay um the the driveway appears to be new leading back to the garage yes I see there's a a shell parking area on the on the front of the property is that going to be removed uh no no it wouldn't be I have no intention to remove that you're aware that it's encroaching on the your neighbors yes um that we've had a couple conversations about that amicable absolutely yes those neighbors happen to be um John and Kathy strizzy who vot a letter in support okay yes okay all right that's it thank you thank you K Lee no other questions all questions no questions David Nixon questions just on the utility specifically what are you going to have in there specifically I'm sorry yeah specifically what are you going to have in there you like a toilet and a sink and yes half half a bath I'd like a slop sink on the first on the first floor uh in the in the garage itself and above again where I would ideally want an office and a little bit of storage I'd like to have a half bath there uh will you have a shower in there no thank you questions uh no questions and I have no questions um I think your house might be 578 based on the plan that we have um which is just a little bit shorter than is that right that's uh 570 is the top of foundation elevation and then the top of foundation elevation that's applied for is just a little taller so it just looks a little bit taller than the house is that sound right uh no so the the height of the house would be average grade up to the ridge elevation um the top of foundation is where the sill meets the concrete at the ground level I was just trying to get an estimate of the house just to get that other question answered what but that's okay sorry I messed that up um Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations dve seconds and votes yes yes all votes yes yes I vote Yes as well okay deliberations um Steve um I think it's it's a nice project um and if it's you know sort of preserving the the house the way you're you know it's not affecting you the house correct not affecting then I think it's fine I have no issues now jeny yeah I originally thought it might be a little tall but I understand the purpose what you want to use it for it makes sense um um you know being taller than the house but what I like about it is that it's situated kind of behind the house if it was right next to the house I I don't think it would it would almost be bigger than the house so I I um I like the way you have switched the driveway and that you've jogged it to the left yes so you see just really like half of the garage a piece of the garage that was my thought had I put it on the other side of the lot and I'm not familiar I'm not sure if you're familiar with the street in those two particular Cottages original matters Cottages I think they're called I didn't want to put it closer to Kathy and John strizzy it would just be so I I felt that that was the best spot for it I think you cited it very well um so uh yeah so anyway that that's those are my comments um I agree I think it's a nice project I like the relocation of the driveway I think it fits in there really um nicely um meets our criteria so I'm not voting but I definitely would approve it thank you and Paul yeah you've got a wide open lot there it's a good spot for it I I see no problems with it by our criteria and Dave Nixon I agree with what Jenny said about um the concern initially uh particularly when it wasn't stake when we first went out there is oh boy hope this isn't going to go right next to the house because it wouldn't work you know sure but at the end of the day seems to work thank you very good yeah I believe it meets our criteria and certainly won't be substantially detrimental to the neighborhood so I would get my vote yeah I agree with all previous and and agree about the sighting of it and um you know it is taller than the house but I think uh I PUD the efforts to preserve the house I mean you know because it sits there next to another one that you can tell they're former cottages and that there's a value in that and so I think he he came up with a very good way to achieve what he was looking for in a way that fits in the neighborhood quite well so um I will be supporting it yeah okay so I I agree I I also supported I guess it is going to when you think about it it's going to be substantially taller than the house because it's just a a small Cape but um I've heard it said that large garages are kind of funky and then they they can look really nice so so um I'm going to go ahead also and support it uh Paul um may I ask you what's your thought about when you're going to do construction here oh the timing well I was waiting for how this goes and then I have to deal with the septic and everybody is backlogged right so I'm I ideally I would like to start in the spring that's okay um well I I think that uh probably given the neighborhood uh we should do our standard conditions which would be that all construction activity and vehicles would be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner that between June 30th and Labor Day no exterior construction would be allowed no work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. only I understand that in full disclosure um I've known one of my neighbors on almost my entire life uh and the others have become like family and in a butter directly behind me has known me my entire life oddly enough I moved down here parttime from Needum and hence there are like 50 people in the neighborhood from NM so I can't get away from Needum but I've known all these people and I'm I'm extremely sensitive to those conditions okay and not infringing on anybody's enjoyment of their homes do you think the people in in your neighborhood would like to have those um restrictions do you think you don't need them I'm just curious oh that's something I would probably insist upon any truthfully yes just out of consideration for everyone Reon why I say that is because there were two houses that are very large right basically next to you and they didn't have to come here so they didn't have any specific restrictions and I'm kind of sensitive to that fact so I wanted to see what you thought of that yeah I I I went through that when they were building the house directly next door to me and I'm kind of a blue collar guy anyway so I'm a little more patient with that stuff however um I I even spoke at length with one of my neighbors about putting up a you know a snow fence or something so stuff's not blowing over into their yard so I I'm aware of all those things and okay that would be my main concern okay Paul you did you make the motion already you did I did I did so and and um Dave reach seconds and votes yes and D I vote Yes and Paul all vote Yes I vote Yes as do I thank you very much it's unanimous thank you all right good luck thank you next we have 24- 098 Rebecca Fuller here of Thomas Moore 47 Crosby Lane application number 24- 098 Rebecca Fuller care of Thomas a Moore PO Box 2124 Brewster Mass 02631 owner of property located at 47 Crosby Lane also shown on the town of chadam assessor map 8e block 15 lot 9 the applicant proposes to change alter or expand a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a new dwelling and conforming detached garage the existing dwelling is non-conforming in that it is located 5.8 ft from the Wester butter the proposed dwelling will be non-conforming in that it will be located 9.3 ft from the westly butter where a 15t setback is required the existing building coverage is 1,8 ft 6.8% and the proposed building coverage is 1,960 Ft 13.2% where 15% is the maximum allowed the lot is non-conforming and that it contains 14,880 ft where 20,000 square feet is required in the R20 zoning District a special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5 b of the protective bylaw welcome good afternoon uh Thomas Moore from Thomas Moore design company of repr representing Rebecca Fuller who's here in the audience uh and we're looking to get a special permit to raise and replace the existing house at 47 crosy Lane if you had a chance to go out to take a look at the house it's in pretty much disrepair and has been for a number of years now so it's time for the existing house to go uh and that existing house is you know pre-existing non-conformity for a couple reasons one because of the size of the lot which Sarah mentioned also the left side setback is 5.8 ft where 15 ft is required uh the house itself the new house in detached garage we feel it's uh not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing structure because we're one improving the setback uh on the left side from from the 5.8 ft to 9.3 ft the house that we're trying to put up there and the garage Cape style properties which uh fit well I think with that particular neighborhood over there um in addressing the criteria for the special permit uh the new house and the detached garage will be under the 15% lock coverage requirement the proposed lock coverage will be 13.2% and also there'll as previously stated there'll be an improvement on the left side set back the front right side and rear setbacks will conform in both the house and the garage itself the garage completely conforms as far as compatibility of the proposed structures with neighbor properties the the area is a neighborhood of single family dwellings the proposed structures are Cape style structures and yeah this will fit right in well well with the neighboring structures uh the use does not change it does conform to the current bylaw as far as suitability of the site the proposed house and garage will not have any effect on neighboring properties the natural environment vegetation Wetlands groundwater W water bodies or and all storm water runoff will be contained on the site as far as impact of scale and sighting the proposed house detach garage will not affect the visual character of the neighborhood it does not affect any views or Vistas as far as compatibility with of the proposed use well again the prop the property is a single family home in an area of single family homes there'll be no change in use there will be uh a new title 5 septic system for three bedrooms and the house will be connected to town water and drainage will be controlled Again by dut gutters and downspouts on site the proposed new house and detached garage will not impact any traffic flow or safety there'll be no the proposed house and garage will not create any noise litter the new house will in detached garage will will not affect any you know utilities or public services and there'll be no visual impact in the neighborhood or the neighboring uses and this house is not in a flood zone so uh you can see the pictures of what we're trying to put there uh we'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have about what we're trying to do thank you very much is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application please indicate seeing none I will read the correspondences there are three first from Christina Basset from the um historic commission they wrote to us yesterday September 24th 2024 the home has been found to not be historically significant thus they did not impose a demolition delay then we have a note from Judith Georgio our health agent also received yesterday 92424 I have received the proposed plan for this property the health department has issued a septic system permit for the proposed three-bedroom dwelling no living space is approved far above the garage then lastly we have a note from Tom Dutton who is the quote Westerly a butter he says uh on September 22nd 2024 it says 2014 but I'm going to go out in the limb say that was a typo um the existing house at 47 crossby is 5.8 ft from my property line and the new house will be 9.3 ft from the line sounds like an improvement to me I'm all for it I say Grant the special permit is there anybody here Microsoft teams that wishes to speak against this application or has a specific question seeing none uh questions from the board Lee uh no I I don't think I have any questions I was happy to hear that the um space above the garage was not going to be for um any living situation and I don't see any utilities going to that garage I I believe only electric electric yeah okay thank you um Paul questions I have no questions Steve can you I think I know the reason but can you just explain why the garage is detached rather than attached to the house it's you can tell it's a pretty tight lot yes so there's there was no real way to attach that garage to the house and try to get and have a turnaround area okay I understand that was what I thought thank you Dave Nixon questions yeah uh the the koopal LA bothers me I just don't see it in that neighborhood not at all in a note that uh we're actually going to remove the Koopa from the garage so you know that you won't have to worry about seeing the Koopa there so and you won't leave them in my front door right okay thank you sounds like The Godfather really any questions no questions and I have no questions R and JY no questions okay Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations Dave V seconds and votes yes Mixon I vote Yes PA all votes yes as do I okay deliberate deliberations uh lee we'll start with you again thank you m mam chair um I think this is a great project um it is a long and narrow lot I think you've done a great job with fitting both structures in there um it meets all the criteria I am not voting but I would be all for it J Jenny yeah I agree with Lee I think that um Improvement to the western western uh Western abutter as was mentioned um and it's just an improvement overall to the whole lot and to that neighborhood so um I agree with you Mr Moore and I think it's a nice project that the um that the homeowners have have put forth uh meets our criteria thank you Dave PE yeah I I I could when I went out there I could clearly see the reason not try to work with the existing building um and uh it certainly isn't it's a great nice design nice real Improvement good use of the lot um and it's certainly not substantially more detrimental in neighborhood it's an improvement it meets our criteria I'll support it and Dave Nixon well with the elimination of the Copa I'm 100% for it no I have no issues I'm I'm familiar with Tom's work and uh his designs and U uh in particular he's I've seen a lot of his capes in and around the cape and I think it's going to be a nice addition to the neighborhood y Steve I think it's an a very good project it's it's kind of a shame that that existing house got to the condition that it is in um but you know you're doing this looks like a great uh way to to replace it um you're improving some of the setbacks I think the neighbors would be happy um I think it's a nice project yep and Paul certainly not hard to be substantially more detrimental than the that it's there I mean it's in tough shape very tough shape but I think the project looks very good it certainly meets our criteria right um and I agree with all my colleagues so Paul um I will move to approve the application uh as submitted I guess the question is conditions what's your plan in terms of construction Tom do you know I believe they're looking to start as soon as they can okay well I think given the confined area that you're dealing with and the proximity of neighbors I would move to approve with the conditions are standard conditions of all construction activity and vehicles would be contained on site or at a neighboring property with a permission of the property owner between June 30th on Labor Day no exterior construction will be allowed no work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. only that work for you sir yep Dave V seconds uh and vote Yes Dave Nixon I vote Yes and all vote Yes I vote Yes as do I thank you very much okay thank you okay good luck all right last but not least um we have application 24- 078 Greg Butler um and Heather Butler 2022 Family Trust for 485 Shore Road SAR application number 24- 078 Greg F Butler 2022 Family Trust and Heather R Butler 2022 Family Trust care of Terren J hurry Esquire 15 cap Lane Brewster Mass 02631 owner of property located at 485 Shore Road also shown in the town of chadam assessors map 16g block 3 lot A1 the applicant seeks to construct an elevated stairway and landings under section 4 a3a on an access easement to which they are a party located at 500 Shore Road a special permit is required inass General Law chapter 4A section 9 and Section 8 D2 B of the Chad and protective bylaw this was continued from August 8th 2024 welcome please just state your name thank you Christopher seni I'm an attorney uh I live in Brewster and have a small land use practice I represent the applicant Greg and Heather Butler you have um met my associate TJ hurry and when you convene this matter the first time on August 8 uh my associate TJ was here TJ has left my firm and so I'm stepping in to finish this matter um and I'm glad to be here this afternoon and take you through uh some legal arguments that were raised during that first meeting by two attorneys for uh the owners of 500 Shore Road uh I'm joined today by my client Heather Butler and also engineer Don Bracken uh don will come up but I didn't have him come up right away because it will take me a few minutes to go through some of the legal arguments that were raised then I'll sit down and you can uh haveed on go over the engineering for this beach access structure that my clients are applying for and you'll be going over the criteria I take it because that's what's most important to us yes yes um I actually represent four homeowners that are neighbors in a 10 lot subdivision that was created in 1984 uh up on the screen you see uh this 10 lot subdivision uh six of the Lots are on the water side of Shore Road and four of the lots lots 1 2 3 and four in the upper left there did not have direct um Frontage on on Aunt Lydia's Cove their street is called Aunt Lydia's way and U when this subdivision was created the developer wanted to make sure that the four Lots across the street would have some access to the beach so lot five which is the top lot on the shore side was burdened by an easement a 10ft wide access easement pedestrian access easement to allow the four owners to go across that lot to get down to the beach uh you'll see that the access eement is actually to the north of that lot the northern Edge but the developer thought better about that before deeding any properties and in all of the Deeds to 1 2 3 4 and five this was corrected did even though the subdivision plan shows the 10ft easement to the north side it is in the Deeds it says not withstanding that it's on the South Side so that's where the recorded easement is and the idea here is that these four Lots across the street would have a little bit greater value if they had their own access it did render lot five perhaps a little bit less valuable because other people would be walking across the edge of their property to get down to the beach so the four owners of 1 two3 and for our Greg and Heather Butler who's here today and who is the official applicant we have John and Susan Perry in the next lot lot two Jeffrey and Danielle ether in the lot three and David Sheran in lot four um the Deeds to Lots 1 2 3 and 4 read as follows together with the benefit of a 10-ft wide easement over lot five on said plan for pedestrian access to Aunt Lydia's Cod and the D to lot five says said lot is subject to a 10 foot wide easement reserving for the benefit of the owners of lots 1 two 3 and four on said plan the easement for pedestrian access to Aunt ly's Co this is actually how an easement is created it doesn't necessarily mean there's a document record on the land records that's titled easement it can be encompassed within deeds and together with means you're benefited and subject to means you're burdened by the easement so the history here is that the owner of lot five who is represented by attorney Lichfield and attorney Zager both of whom spoke on August 8th sought from the Conservation Commission and the zoning board of appeals permission to build a structure to facilitate access to the beach this is caused by worsening erosion on the embankment and both your board and the Conservation Commission approved that application we appeared at those meetings we did not object and did not appeal but we had suggested that maybe we work together so that only one easement access structure is built and we share it and we even offer to move our easement out of sight down the hill a bit but turn left and join with where they wanted to put their access structure and that was refused so that led to applying uh for applications to both you and the Conservation Commission we are still in front of the commission we were supposed to go there yesterday and one commission member whose vote will be needed was going to be absent so I was invited to request a continuation that was granted and we'll be back in front of the commission on um October 9th we're here because there are two sections in the bylaws that are triggered one has to do with the Conservancy overlay district and that is section 4 a3a and under this protective overlay Zone which is really overlaid where people do access resources like like the beach and it's designed to make sure that a special permit will be needed if you want to do things in or to get to those resources and it's specifically mentions catwalks peers ramps stairs unpaved Trails boat shelters fences Wildlife Management shelters foot Bridges observation decks so it it is a a bylaw section that's intended to make sure your board is comfortable with the way someone is going to be in this very delicate environment it's very special those uses don't have to adhere to the normal setbacks like a building setback they can be close to to the property line just like a driveway can uh so it distinguishes itself from say a building or a barn a barn would would be an accessory use that would have to regard the setbacks but these under this zoning provision a special provision for special permits for this kind of use you don't need to observe the setbacks and the other section that's triggered is just your general section that gives you the power to um hear applications for special permits those are both in the notice and they are the two sections that we believe apply on August 8th I which I I have watched the videotape of that session so I I understand what took place there uh Bill Lichfield um presented a novel argument and so did attorney Zager again they represent Stefan and Stacy Brion who own that top lot lot five and Bill's argument is that this structure is an accessory use or building and he pointed the the uh both the commission and your board to uh the first definition in the definition section which is a definition of accessory use and building it doesn't say structure it just says building and um there it is said that we want accessory structures to be on the on the property where there is the principle use or by special permit you could go off uh the premises to an un unimproved lot uh by special permit I don't think either of those apply I don't think that's definition applies here I think this is uh much more appropriately considered under the Conservancy overlay district U I don't think a beach access is a use or a structure in the zoning sense um I think it's almost like a driveway if a driveway was going over over a resource area and you needed to improve a a small bridge over over a resource and the commission said it was okay you would build that bridge uh and that would be part of your access coming coming and going to and from your home uh that would not be a use even though we use our driveways for accessing and and it wouldn't be a building a building would have a roof on top of it so I think this is a bit of a red hearing I will say that in my September 6 memo which I submitted to the Building Commissioner I think I got it wrong and I started going down this path and I started claiming yes we we can comply with that but then I thought more about it and I thought you know I don't think this applies at all and I wrote a second memo September 24th and I said I just don't think this is a an accessory use or building at all attorney zagger had a different novel argument he said that because four Property Owners will use this structure this beach access structure this is a multifam use in a single family Zone and I don't think that's true at all I think when we're talking about access it's different than talking about whether this is one dwelling unit or multiple dwelling units so again I don't think these two legal arguments which did throw a real wrench into the process the hearing on August 8th uh carry much weight I do have one example that I think will help in 2007 your board approved a a special permit for a beach access stairway that was shared by two homes it was on um SE Mist Lane this goes back to 2007 I'm showing you just a copy of a plan that is recorded in a deed and what you have here you have two existing dwellings an application to your board to allow a structure to gain access to the beach and an easement area that would allow lot 85 to use it as well and the interesting thing here is that the applicant applied under the same two provisions of the zoning bylaw that we have applied under and did not submit an application for a special permit as an accessory user structure even though one homeowner is using a beach access structure that is not on the lot and your Bo board wrote some language that is very helpful here the board members reviewed the criteria for the granting of a special permit and found that the request met the criteria specifically the board members found that the site was adequate and suitable for the proposed project the property contained an existing foot path over the Coastal Bank which was in a state of erosion that's the situation here the board members found that the installation of the stairway would eliminate the footpath and eliminate the erosion process the board members found that no negative impact upon view or V is associated with the proposal the board found that the conservation oversight and elimination of erosion on the Coastal Bank The Proposal represented an improvement to existing conditions that's what happened is happening here this embankment is very steep it is eroding we had wanted to have just one structure but the Brion refused that so each of us is entitled we by virtue of our 10-ft wide access easement the Brier tends by virtue of the fact that they own lot five to access the beach um so in 2007 you looked at a similar situation where you've got a home owner in a home uh getting permits from your board uh where the structure is not going to be on their property it's going to be on another property and that property has a home on it it's the same situation now here we have four homes and not one home but if it it I think it it helps us get comfortable with my position which is this is not an accessory use or building and it's not a multifam use in a single family zone so I just I offer that I can put these in the record if you'd like um but this was a an application that I think has great similarity that you approved in 2007 there are four other ways in which the brons and their Council have tried to object to what we're doing one is that we don't have have standing because we're just easeman holders and they raised that pretty vigorously in front of the Conservation Commission the Conservation Commission um sought advice from legal councel and also sought advice from the DP the D wrote back to the Conservation Commission and said we treat easan holders as if they are owners of the land for permitting purposes and I believe legal council also gave an opinion that uh you have standing to prosecute this application the Brans have said they will not allow any changes in their fences so there's a pool here on this property and pool safety is a real issue there are fences that keep people from inadvertently going into the pool and um but and and these fences there are two fences that actually block our easement and thank you for putting this up for decades the way the four homeowners have accessed the beach is that they are confronted partway in by off fence blocking the the easen and they go around that and through a gate and then come back to the easen and walk further and then they are confronted with a second gate and they again go around and come back to the easan and go down to the beach we've offered what we think is a better proposal on on the next slide I think you'll see our our suggestion is we stay within our easement we will pay the cost to build a new fence that connects the two existing fences and we will have a clear path within our easement and pool safety is enhanced because under the current condition we can get to that pool there's no fence blocking us or children that might come to the beach with us whereas under this proposal it it will be safer and it will also provide more screening and more separation it will keep us further from the Brer tin um and you will see on the next slide our a closeup of our plan you can see the fence we propos connecting to the other fences and it says um uh remove section of fencing so we would like to remove the sections of fencing that block the easement but put a brand new fence that will ensure pool safety this has been refused by the britans I have said to you in writing in my September 24th letter that we will not touch any fences or structures within the easement without either the permission of the brittans or an order from the court so if you approve this project it is not going to open the door to self-help we will not use self-help there's a legal system that can sort out the the legal claims here and and I assure you that we are looking for an approval um but we will respect that at the moment the land owner is is blocking our access I would like to show you just a few photographs as my clients cross the street sorry sorry as my clients cross the street Shore Road to get to the other side there they first come to this Arch and that Arch has been there for decades and the reason that is in the middle of the Hedge is that it is acknowledged that we walk on this easement these orange Stakes show The Middle of the 10ft wide easement and you can see that we walk along and we come to a section of fence that we can't get through because there's no gate we go to the left we go through that fence and and then back to the easan area and then we come along and we come to a second fence and we have to again circumvent to get back we have to come through here and circumvent to get back to our easement so our proposal I think is better for the Bron and for us because it keeps us more separated I'm going to wrap up here I've taken too much time on this I know legal council may have weighed in I know the Building Commissioner may have thoughts on these tricky legal questions I'm sorry to take you through that much I know you you'd be much more interested in what Don will present to you as far as our design is concerned so I'll stop now and let don don come to the um Podium okay thank you thank you Don Brack and Bracken engineering we did review some of the construction of the stairway at the last meeting but to refresh your memories I'll just quickly go through some of the highlights on the design uh the stairway itself is 133 ft long in total length 4T wide uh the last section is made of aluminum so it can be removed uh during the winter or during a a project projected storm event um the bank area has been recently stabilized on number 500 um as as was mentioned we're going through the conservation process that was continued from yesterday uh an update on that they requested some additional planting plans and um more detailed information on the on the uh what was going to be on the ground service underneath the stairway and so forth um the plan itself uh there is a three-foot setback from the property line to the to the stairway in the in the zoning uh as indicated on the plan uh as you can see on the southernly property line where're proposing to be three and a half feet off that property line uh which results in about a two and a half foot set back along the Northerly edge of the easement itself um the construction will be all wood except for the footing system the footing system is going to be uh screwed in aluminum uh uh helical peers so there won't be any concrete or much hand digging uh to install that uh being as as environmentally sensitive um as we can be um um again uh uh we talked we talked about the fence if you look at our current plan it was at that point it was still up in the air so we don't show on on our engineering plan anyway the details of the Final Fence location I think that summarizes actually the engineering part of it anyway thank you okay uh anybody else or is that does that conclude your application Council Madam chair that's all we have we're here to answer any questions that the board might have and we know there's probably comments that may be coming from Bill and Adam and we're anxious to have you um so you went through the criteria last time um so you want to that and the criteria is the same as I read to you from the 2007 uh special just we don't have um you know president here I mean it's interesting but we're not bound to whatever happened in 2007 right you know at all y so um well TJ I was only in the kindergarten in 2007 um yes my my associate TJ did go through the uh the criteria that we have to meet uh it's a suitable project it's good for the environment it doesn't interfere with views or Vistas um and and I think we do meet the criteria of the the bylaw section that applies I just wanted to make sure you had a chance to address that thank you all right so um is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wish to speak in favor of this application please make it known seeing none I will read the cor no I won't read the correspondence because it was just from attorney senny and he's already had you would that's okay with you if I don't read it I assume so I'm going to stick with that now is there anybody here or Microsoft teams that wish to speak against the obligation or has a specific question I see attorney litfield approaching attorney Zer attorney attorney Zager U I am on teams I represent the brion's family trust and I'm here with uh Mr litfield but he he will he will he will present first okay good afternoon Madam chairman members of the board Bill Lichfield here on behalf of uh Steve and Stacy Bron who own the property as you know and obviously Adam is with me here today we are of course aware of the EAS been and always have been uh that however isn't really before you today as you know the special permit being sought uh isn't to be considered under the rubric of substantial detriment rather it requires a finding that the use uh will not be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood and critically that the use involv involved will be in harmony with the general purpose intent of the bylaw which provides explicitly that accessory uses have to be in the same use same lot as the primary use based on the criteria and the plain language of the bylaw the special permit can't be granted and instead requires variance in reviewing the criteria I think you can readily find that the site at 10 feet wide is not adequate uh that it may have a negative impact on views and Vistas and the could well create noise and litter and since the Conservation Commission hasn't included its review we know nothing about the sufficiency of the mitigation perhaps because there isn't room for any or sufficient area for mitigation uh and with a proposal like this I would think you would ordinarily want a determination from conservation particularly whereas here as Mr Sunny just said some additional planting is apparently proposed that however is up to you the real issue here is the plain language of the bylaw that is the meaning of its words this isn't through the Looking Glass where I can make a word mean whatever I want it to mean uh rather our bylaw says that all words in this bylaw carry their customary meanings I recognize as du that our bylaw has its flaws and inconsistencies but on this matter its words are clear 2c1 says that accessory uses include boathouses swimming pools tennis courts and similar accessory structures stairs like catwalks are obviously similar accessory structures they're subordinate to the main use which is a residence and the bylaw in 2b1 defines accessory use of building as something customarily subordinate to the principal use or Building located in the same lot except as the footnote and as you know the footnote says that the accessory uses shall be located in the same lot except that zba may Grant a special permit uh to locate such a use or structure on an unimproved lot so a little bit of History uh until 1990 all accessory structures had to be on the same lot as the principal use at the annual town meeting of 1990 the plan planning board recommended A Change Would which it acknowledged was quote a relaxing of zoning regulations close quote to allow for accessory structures and uses on vacant Lots but only with a special permit and only on unimproved Lots I confirmed the history uh my recollection by reviewing the planning board's 1990 report and discussing the matter with some of the vent Town staff uh my recollection and per of the purpose and intent of the change was that the principal lot and the vacant lot had to be in common ownership uh acknowledging that I was hanging around at the 1990 town meeting admits my age and given my age I wanted to check my recollection so with the inan invaluable Central Permitting coordinator assistance um I was able to obtain the relevant minutes from the 1990 planning board hearings in 1989 actually and on the second page of the first part of the handout I gave you the planning board minutes note that quote this proposal would allow accessory uses on adjacent Lots under the same ownership and allow special permit to be granted by zba for an accessory use on a separate unimproved lot I just want to give you a warning that you're almost up with I understand that thank you madam chairman uh my friend Mr senny had 25 minutes and I recognize I'm approaching five if you would give me a little bit of additional Grace I would appreciate it to point out these important points how much how much grace are you looking for uh until you get tired of listening all right I I want to ask the board about that um because we have a rule it's in our rules it's written it's advertised that is a five minute limit on on um people with comments so let's just go through the board and take a vote Dave be what do you think and if how many minutes would you provide if any given the circumstances um I I I could see doubling the the amount of time that allotted to 10es 10 um what do you think Ed Aton I I'm fine with as long as it takes as long as it takes what do you think I think in in light of the amount of time that Mr senny took it's only fair that Mr Lichfield have an equal amount of time what do you think Paul well I agree I think it's a it's a interesting issue and it's a difficult issue and it may not be resolved by us totally but I think we should go ahead and hear with the ARG s and Lee I agree and Steve I think he should have equal time and Jenny I agree with Mr vich that um maybe double the time but I I don't agree it should be equal because Mr senny was the applicant and Mr Lichfield we normally give right joining commentary up a time limit I'm also going to go with the five minutes so that looks like it's 3 to two on the voters so we'll give you another five minutes and we're going to give you just uh one minute back that we just took of your time so if we could start the clock at 6 minutes that's how we're going to do thank you I appreciate that and I'll try to be be brief the fifth page of the handout that I gave you again planning board minutes for this chain says the amendment would allow such uses to be located on a abing lot in the same ownership or by special permit on an unimproved lot in the same ownership if you look at the maps which are on the second attachment the last page is Billings road that is a prime example of what the planning board was trying to allow allowing people who owned Lots in common ownership with their houses on the landward side or vacant Lots on the south side to put stairways on them with the pl with the approval of this board plainly 500 Shore Road is not a vacant lot it's improved with the Bron's home to suggest that the easement is a separate lot is contrary to our bylaw as well as was common sense and also to what my brother just said because he acknowledged it was a 10 lot subdivision not 10 Lots 11 making the abasement making the 11th lot bylaw makes plain now that we have the minutes of the planning board uh that this case is not something which can be granted a special permit I'm aware of town council's comment that the applicants quote appear to have the requisite color of title to apply for the special permit and based on that language I understand of course why some people don't like lawyers but I also think we understand that the ability to apply for Relief differs from it being granted moreover Mr talerman did not have the rationale as explained in the planning board minutes for the 1990 change this isn't about 4 a3a which sets parameters for structures and Conservancy districts but only where other requirements are met and it certainly isn't about easements or has decided in other communities that don't have our bylaw the farri case cited in the in the memo of September 6 is the first page of the second part of the handout and as you can see all of those lots across the south side of lell Lane are vacant it would be a curious and parenthetically I'm intimately familiar with the seamist which is now the Berton naazi proper berzi property rather totally different circumstances in that case it would be a curious reading the B I think and more than a stretch uh to determine somehow the differences between the principle use and a principle use somehow legitimizes the request especially now that we know what the planning board intended and what the voters were told in 1990 it is my belief and I think it is correct that to Grant the special permit would be to ignore the other essential findings that you have to make that the special permit can be granted when it is found to be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the bylaw we now know what the 19 90 change was designed to allow an accessory structure on the same lot where the applicant had a house or on a vacant lot also owned by the ownership that doesn't apply here I thank the board for its Grace and providing me the additional time thank you um the person online if you could state your name yes my name is Adam Zager from CH Holland Stewart in Boston and I represent the Brion family trust in this matter um thank you for allowing us to appear um this case as is not about easement law or it's not about uh deeded rights or the history it it it's solely a question of the chatam protective bylaw and I don't think this is a novel argument that that's being raised uh when I took a look at it and was asked to take a look at it in fact it jumped right out I mean it's a it's a fundamental premise that accessory uses must must be located on the same lot or on another unimproved lot under that that's owned by the primary lot owner uh so all that's all that matters and the easan here was created in 1994 at that time that the chatam protected bylaw was even more restrictive than it is today it didn't even allow accessory uses to be located in other lws even if they were unimproved which means that the easement that that that that that's being discussed here actually is invalid it doesn't even qualify as a pre-existing non performing use um I'd also like to point out that it it is in fact a use um if you look at the very provision that Chris senny cited section 3A when it talks about special permit uses and again words matter it lists it's right there stairs it says it right there in the bylaw um and really the the positions that they've taken that their easement area constitutes a separate lot it just flies in the face of common law logic this this the success re use provision was designed to have uses separate and away from structures where other folks were living and and it just it wasn't ever contemplated that it would be like this uh you just just for instance if if their interpretation was correct the Brans could they could allow others to use this stairway uh now there's four families but maybe it could be five maybe it could be six uh an owner of a lot could create several different uh accesses M down the embankment and and Grant easement rights and potentially you could have if not two here here they're asking for two but you could have three four five sets of stairs um that somebody could ask for uh and I think that's not what was ever intended and I think that that's what would be the result of this special permit that's being requested today uh there'd be setback lines across every property in in town um and I don't think that the the the good news here is that I don't think the zba has to concern itself with making diff difficult calls like this about the number of stairs that could be located in a property how many people could use them because this accessory use provision that the town wisely adopted it says exactly what it should say and keep these accessory uses you know off of other lots that have been improved um it's it's very clear that that that this was what was intended in the bylaw and we think that it really prevents the special permit from being granted um would go completely against the the purpose and intent of the bylaw um in trying to keep these uses apart from one another um and we think that there's no other way that that it can be interpreted uh the 2007 case if you think about it there's only one case that's been talked that's been mentioned where this may have been done before but it appears to be a situation where you had two homeowners who are cooperating to build a set of stairs well of course nobody looked and checked to see what the bylaw said and you know we've taken a look now and and we think it does provide uh very a lot of clarity here that that this is just not something that's allowed um under the special permit that's being requested uh and again even even if you did get to the point where you were looking at at criteria for a special permit and you've got a Eastman area now that you know it's been blocked off it's been barely used and you're talking about putting in an access stair for four families um you're talking about storing heavy equipment on the the Bron's property the the stairway the the bottom steel portion of the stairs The Proposal would be to stored on the bryon's property all winter you're talking about a forced alteration of the bryon's fence that's been there for 20 years um you're talking about now four you know four additional families walking down to the beach they don't have Beach rights they do not this eement does not give them beach access rights ement law is irrelevant here but you're going to put four additional families down on the beach uh this is a private Beach area it's a quiet Beach area in a you know on a sensitive Coastal area in a coastal Dune um and and we think this would just said a terrible precedent um that would open up all sorts of questions to you know to what extent should the zba you know be allowing this type of use as an accessory uh use on on another uh person's lot and fortunately again you go back to the answer that you just you just don't do it that's not what the bylaw provides that's the very purpose of the accessory use provision um and we think that ends the debate so uh thank you for your time I I appreciate it uh and I appreciate working with you on this and I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have okay thank you um I'm going to go out of order a little bit and ask the Building Commissioner do you think this application for a special department is appropriately before us today based on the correspondence from uh Town Council I say yes it yes it is um do you have anything else that you'd like to add about this I don't it's a very unique situation I mean I don't think it was ever intended for this type of situation to arise so the bylaw can't predict every scenario um we we back 10 years on beach stairs that were permitted through special permit and they were all under uh 4 a 3A and you know if it doesn't meet the definition of accessory use or building then maybe it's not an accessory use on this lot because they don't own the lot um there's a lot of factors involved here I think there are a lot of legal issues here and and but as far as what Town Council has advised and I don't it hasn't been released yet but he said it was properly before the board and and I would I would tend to agree with him okay thank you um all questions from the board David Nixon are are people this is tough it's really tough you know we have two arguments that are extremely well researched and I suspect I'm speaking for more than just myself to say that's over my head it really is you I I I think I'm a reasonable guy and I can listen to our arguments and make some sense out of it but it comes in Rapid sensession and this is legal and that's legal and all this kind of stuff it's um um I I've got the impression that no matter what we decide it's going to end up in some Court someday somehow which doesn't mean we shouldn't make a decision but I'll be damned if I know what that decision should be I I just don't know and I looked upon the Randy as our legal representatives to to ourselves for a little guidance I think um U so I know I'm kind of pass on the buck here but but I'm really stuck I'm really stuck so be before I pass the bck to Paul um I want to go back to online just to double check if I'm if I recognized everybody because there seems to be a group of people online I just want to make sure if anybody else wanted to speak for or against I'm gonna go ahead and wave the rules with that is there anybody else that hasn't spoken yet that wishes to speak either for or against this application no okay then you can just bystand very good and now I'm going to pass the buck to Paul questions and comments well I'm wondering if we should give an opportunity to the applicants Council to respond to the memorandum that's been submitted by uh Mr litfield just rebuttle uh by way of rebuttal all right would you like to do that Council yes I would okay very good thank you very much in terms of the standards attorney Lichfield mentioned detriment to the neighborhood 10 feet is not wide enough noise and litter View and Vistas and the Conservation Commission has not completed their work he didn't mention how use of an easement that's been of record since 1984 which burdens his client's property is a detriment to the neighborhood these are four families that will be using the beach accessway the way other Beach a accessways are used uh there were no details there about how this would be a detriment uh the example I gave you of 60 C Miss Lane that easement is 6 feet wide so I don't know that the argument that 10 ft wide is not sufficient is is is a good argument noise and litter nothing was mentioned I mean when people walk down an easement those are people there and if you didn't have that easement on your property they wouldn't be there but there's no indication that this is going to be unusual noise this is not there's no there's no a deck in the middle of this walkway there's no place to sit there are no benches people won't be hanging out here they'll be using this to get down to the beach and back up uh views and Vistas uh if you've been out to the property I don't see how use of this easement at the far south side of the property could interfere with any of those spectacular views and that the Conservation Commission has not finished that's always the case I mean these things go in parallel and sometimes one board finishes before the other if your board would prefer to wait until the Conservation Commission has either granted an order of conditions or not that's fine with with my client in terms of the the argument that is being made by uh attorney Lichfield the section of the bylaw doesn't have the word structure it has the words accessory use or building a building is defined as a structure having a roof supported by columns or by walls and intended for shelter housing or enclosure of people this is not a building it's just not a building so then the question is is this a use now we use our driveways we walk around our property we access we those are not uses in a zoning sense a use in a zoning sense is a real functional use that needs to be regulated access is not generally regulated it's just access we have easements and rights of way and we use those it's not really something that is ordinarily the subject of zoning review U and here when you have an argument between two zoning law bylaw provisions and one is very general and one is very specific the specific One controls and I can give you a case that I was involved in where this appeals court reversed the lower court and said yes you've got a specific bylaw that addresses this here we have a specific bylaw that addresses this type of structure which is intended to facilate facilitate access in the Conservancy overlay Zone that's all this is this is not a zoning it's not a building the the the the definition section that a triny lital points to does not say say structure it says use or building and the word use in this case is is in a zoning sense so I understand that two attorneys are are making what I do think are creative and and uh novel arguments but you have granted these uh beach access structures in in many locations we have a deeded right I know that the brons might wish that this easement could go away and that might be a windfall for them if it could because they paid less for their property because it's encumbered at the same time my client's property is benefited by coming together with the right to cross this land to access the beach and the Bron would just ass soon our clients lose the value of of that part of their homes and I I think I think this is what it is it's an attempt to try to make an easo way that's been of record and is in the Bron's deed it's not like it's in some long ago deed that you have to dig through the records every one of the parties in front of you has this provision in the deed so I think it's creative Bill threw me for a loop uh on when I looked at the tape I thought oh my goodness what's she's talking about here but as I dug deeper I thought this is a red hearring it's not it's not a real legal argument now I understand that you're not lawyers and you're not Town attorneys and and you you might be worried that a Court's going to have to take a look at this I don't know that this is necessarily going to go to court we have tried repeatedly to sit down and and talk with the barians and try to work this out but I hope you will you will look at this and make a decision based on what you believe you have the Building Commissioner who's who's advising you and uh I'm sorry you're in this position where you've got lawyers who are arguing in front of you but it is what it is and and we hope you you'll apply your best thinking to it thank you thank you I'm going yep all right so Sharon I'm gonna go to David Sharon in one minute but just out of fness attorney zagger I did give attorney Lichfield because this board allowed for him to have some extra time you went over on your first one so I'm going to give you three minutes that's how I'm going to exercise my discretion and I will say that we we have Town council's op opion and that's in my opinion what we're Bound by we are some of us are attorneys but we're not attorneys for the town and we're not attorneys for the zoning board and we have an attorney's opinion that this is properly before us so given that statement go ahead my understanding um from and attorney Lichfield I believe can speak to this as well is that Town Council app that they that the applicants have color of law to appear before the board but our understanding also frankly that doesn't address the the question that we had which is what what is the law is a special permit is a special permit permissible for a an accessory use is this an accessory use I don't think the Town Council had addressed any of those questions uh I I would hope that the board would make any you know opinion that he's rendered um can I'm just going to interrupt you because I don't know if you saw it hasn't oh well he he did specifically say that they properly applied for it under the right um Step under the right portion of the bylaw I don't know if that helps I know it probably hurts but that's how it I I think it I think it I mean I think it helped because I don't think that addresses the question that is before you which is whether this accessory use provision in your in your bylaw um applies in when somebody seeks a permit under in the Conservancy District I I if you read the two regulations I think it is very clear nothing in this conserv Conservancy District overrides or says any any requirements that might apply to special permits elsewhere in the bylaw don't apply here it just says notwithstanding any other provision of the bylaw the following uses require a special permit it's imposing a requirement and so to read that provision as to be making another very important of provision of the zoning bylaw more lenient I I think is incorrect and I feel I I don't think that's novel or new I think this is something that jumped right out at us and I think that again spe section three specifically is it's called special permit uses and one of those is the construction of stairs because it's a very different in nature than just a pedestrian path why it's called out as use that way um so again I I don't want to rehash things that have already been discussed I don't want to take more of the board's time I appreciate it very much um but we we don't think that this is something that that's allowed and as to the criteria again I thought I had made clear I mean we think this is going to be subst from what's there thank you thank you okay Mr sh Sharon Sharon please Sharon how are you involved in this uh 499 Shore Road I'm one of the owners involved can you take off your hat just to please some of uh sorry more conservative sorry yes go ahead apologies um appreciate I'll keep I'm not a lawyer I'll keep this brief well within the five minutes um and I apologies for my tardiness um in your earlier invite to speak on be on behalf of the application I just want to share I've been um me and my family have been residents of chadam for over 30 years um and been U at 49 short 499 Short Road uh and growing up it was a pleasure to be able to use Mrs Gary's um Archway which she built for us to use the eement uh which I use growing up uh to be able to enjoy the view and the access that afforded me and my family and so when we tried to use it a couple years ago and the pathway was overgrown it was much more difficult to get down to the actual Beach uh was very excited by the opportunity to go forward with this project and so I just want to share that as one of the many reasons for this effort um as it's helpful so from a non legal perspective just providing a resident's um voice in the matter so I I just want to ask you you used to be able to get down that path yes years ago correct and yes and and it's now that we got very overgrown just wasn't intended to and so the stairs would help would help um alleviate that burden do you think there's any other way to get down besides steps if you're not Spiderman uh no not if you're not Spider-Man especially with how the um the coast has changed over the years yeah so would you do you agree that there's no other way to get down for a human being right now really correct okay yes now without significant effort even that all right thank you all right so we're going to go back to questions from the board I think um Lee um well I will agree um this is way over my head but I am somewhat familiar with easements I happen to have one in a family home that I own with my brother and um there is an easement there and we do have um uh neighbors three other houses that have access to that easement and they walk down the side of our property I mean it doesn't bother us at all um and they have access to the water um they bring kayaks down whatever they choose to do um so I do know what an easement is but in this case this easement to what does it allow access where are they this easement allows access to what to the bushes to the embankment to the beach to the water that's my question find S sarra has all the answers so the exact language in the deed and I believe this is the butler's deed um it says together with the benefit of a 10-ft wide easement over lot five on said plan for pedestrian access to Aunt Lydia's Cove that is the water that is the water thank you do you have any questions besides that okay Steve questions um I guess I have a couple of questions but I'm not sure who's going to answer them um has a lot to do with maintenance if this if this stair is built who's going to maintain it over the years whose responsibility is it to maintain it over the years if something breaks I'm going to ask that um attorney senny if I pronouncing your name correct can you stay at the podium because that's the usual um practice here so that you'd be able to answer questions for your application yes okay so thank you for May thankk thank you for your question I have drafted a beach access maintenance agreement which my clients are studying and I could give a copy to you tonight I have it with me uh if you want to see it but I haven't received feedback from all of my clients I recognize that we are going to need to satisfy the town that the four property owners who are going to own who are going to pay to install and own this beach access structure are going to have to be obligated to maintain it in good and safe condition and in and in accordance with all Town requirements that language is in the draft that I have prepared so if you if you'd like that draft I can give it to you with the caveat that I don't have much feedback on it yet but I recognize that and we do not mind at all if you see fit to Grant the special permit to condition it upon such a um uh a recorded beach access Main agreement okay okay I was going to suggest that too now I apparently it's being used by the four families that are to the South I guess of of Shore Road um suppose one of those families move and somebody else moves in there and doesn't want to be any part of this so then the expense and the maintenance is going to fall on the remaining three it's a serious obligation in a recorded instrument there is a mechanism for making decisions it requires a super majority of three of the four the language is very specific if the fourth owner votes against repainting or or or resurfacing something uh but the other three say this is necessary to keep it in good and safe repair and to keep it in compliance with Town requirements uh that person still has to contribute their 25% and it and it must be done it's awfully hard to structure this with four if there were only three it would be easy just to make it a majority but I looked at this situation I thought well you know a vote of two to two is going to be problematic so I wrote it in a particular way but this is also something that could be looked at by Town attorney even though this is going to be a private agreement uh we want the town to know that these four owners are very serious about good upkeep and maintenance of this structure if the chair wants I can I can I can provide a copy we we'll get to that um okay who whose insurance policy is this going to fall in if somebody Falls going down the stairs if there's storm damage who's who's who ensures this the um provisions of this draft require Insurance liability insurance and property damage Insurance split between the the four all expenses are split between the four Property Owners yes and we run into a problem is if someone moves or doesn't want to participate in this well the buyer is going to see this beach access maintenance agreement on record and will know I am taking title to this property subject to that obligation it's like any other restrictive covenant uh when you buy a property that that is subject to a recorded restriction you are buying it subject to those terms so this will run with the land and it will be a permanent requirement to maintain this this uh structure okay and then the the bottom of the stair is removable where is that going to be stored in the winter months this has been a complaint of the owner of 500 uh Shore Road they do not want us to lift the aluminum stairs up and lash it down to the to the secure structure but this is how these uh access structures are managed you bring that aluminum structure up you lash it down securely and you leave it there for the offseason and then in the spring you move it back they have argued you have no right to store heavy equipment on our property and we will not allow this so I don't know where we are with that but our proposal is very clear we are proposing to do exactly what you just approved for the Bron which is move that aluminum stair up and lash it down yeah but that's being moved onto their property it's their their removable stair going onto their property this is this is someone else's removable stair potentially going on their property it's not going to be stored outside the easement and you have to keep in mind that this property is subject to the rights in land that multiple people have we have the right to this easement and uh we we are going to lift it up and bring it to the structure our structure within our easement and lash it down for the winter if the brittans want to go to court and say you have no right to store your easement didn't say storage okay that's a question that might get in front of a judge but that's the way these access uh structures are used and we're proposing to use it the same way okay all right thank you you any questions yes I have a few um I I think this maybe is Mr zagger um you you made a You made a lot of comments about accessory structure or assessory accessory structure accessory use question is the brierton staircas case considered an accessory use was that yes it is and and and and it was and it was permitted under section three of the Conservancy bylaw and but the reason why that was permissible again is because they are the owner of the property it's accessory uses are allowed when they're on the same lot when they're on another lot that's when the it becomes a problem and you need a special permit and you're not eligible for the special permit if that other lot is improved which is the situation that we have here okay thank you good um okay uh can you confirm um the brion's purchase their home in 2022 can someone confirm that their Council might do better but there's a field card at the assessor's office which says yes they purchased their property in 2022 okay U and the Butlers purchased their property in 20 20 yes and the date of this easement is 1984 yes okay um that's what I thought too um I had a question which Lee answered or Lee's question which answered the um access to what a view of the water or access to the water so you're saying it's to an ly's Cod which is the water okay um yes I too had a question on this site plan it talks about the aluminum removable aluminum stairs it says in parenthesis install over the the co the um those logs is that is that right or it sounds like what you're saying Mr s is they'll fold over and be latched onto the railings is that's what I typically see I'll let I I can there still will be some supports that go over that area where the rolls are and very similar to their stairway design um you know we specify that those anchor have to work between the roles not not to interfere with the roles that are there um but I'd like to also address another point you just brought up and was brought up earlier as to where the actual easement goes you know the language just says to lyia Cove but the plan that created the easement shows it specifically to the mean High Watermark so that's what we had shown on our plan okay um I know there's some questions about well what happens once they get down there um they obviously everyone has the rights uh for Access between mean and high water and mean low water so I'm sure they would exercise those rights once they get to the base of the yeah and it's shown there too that's yes okay thank you for for clarifying that um so I think Mr stny you said that the brons have the same removable stair configuration as what the easement holders are asking for that's what I believe am I correct um I can't confirm that I can't okay our engineer didn't didn't design that one but I believe that that is the normal practice that the aluminum stair comes lifted up and secured down for the offseason secured though to the stairs not on their property not on their property so I'm don't not sure why they're asserting that but but also can you do you have any insight into what is being referred to with heavy equipment being down there I I thought I read somewhere that there's no heavy equipment being proposed oh during construction or with regular maintenance all equipment is hand equipment brought in as needed and taken out when when it's no longer needed we're not storing any material on site okay the email I received from attorney Zager objecting to the aluminum stair that same sentence talks about so you can't you can't store heavy equipment so I believe the the complaint about storing heavy equipment relates to that aluminum stair okay which doesn't sound like it applies doesn't sound like like it applies there's no heavy equipment required to flip no it's not so sorry it's not really a piece of equipment it's a part of the structure that's removable so right there there are other ones down there like that I I know what you're referring to I just was confused by that statement that it was going to require storage and then the wording is a little confusing on the side plan where it says install over the sounds like it's part of the land not the stairs but can you clarify now where what are you referring to as installed over you talking about the the rolls again or yeah the rolls that's what it says on the S plan and maybe that's was the confusion yeah it's right um yeah it's right at the bottom of the stairs yeah um yeah so those screws will go between the rolls and then the r the rolls are covered with sand and vegetated right so um as you can see we only anticipate one set of supports in that area where the RO where the rolls are I I think what was confusing to me maybe it was removable aluminum stairs you're not removing the stairs you're just well just that one that last section yeah from that point over from where the last uh helical screw set is right there right see but they're flipped back or they're attached to the to the oh no they're not they're not hinged to flip back I mean there will be a way to hook them in to the brace on the last section and then they'll be lifted up and carried off okay yeah but still with in the easement that's the question correct and they're going to be narrow enough so that they will fit between the stairway yeah last question um are we did we decide we were voting on are we to weigh in on this uh that you talked about okay so we I just wanted to clarify happy to address that I wanted you to understand what's happening today yeah we circumvent the blockage by going outside of the easen and we've done that for a long time courts have dealt with that when parties approach an easen in such a way that uh the actual use does not line up with the easement itself and the parties have participated in that equally and have have agreed to it that then the court can rule that the easement is moved we don't want it moved we want to discontinue circumventing a blockage that's our proposal because we would like to keep all of our traffic within the 10 foot easement but for decades now there has been that circumvention I just wanted you to understand that our plan shows that we are going to stay within the 10 foot easement uh we our plan is to remove the gate sections that that block our way and put in a new section of fence at our cost which connects the other two fences that's our proposal but I promise you we will not remove anything that we don't have permission to remove either from the Bron or from a court but we we want a a particular plan approved which is which is before you and that's our approach we just want to stay completely along the southern Edge but but that's not before us anything about any of this blockage we're we're going to just talk about steps and whether you can do it or not correct correct and actually the structure itself which is really the focus of your approval doesn't start until after that second gate or or second block you're going to worry about that part it's it's it's all after the two blockages so yes I I may have uh given you more information than you needed but I did want to explain the circumstances uh at present okay thank you that's all I have no questions Paul um I think I understand the the position that you're in it it seems to me that overall um we have issues with respect to the use of the uh the easement which are are beyond our scope in the sense that they would go to court whether you're going around around fences or not going around fences and they may well go to court with respect to the question of whether um whether the uh uh interpretation which Mr litfield is presenting is controlling or whether your interpretation is controlling it seems to me that from our Viewpoint we should be looking at it from the idea of well if if in fact a uh a Stairway is uh within the purview of what you have in terms of an easement and is recognized by the court as such then um let's make a decision as to whether a special permit is appropriate or not appropriate and I don't see a need for you to come back at that point and apply for the special permit if in fact the court has provided for uh access to be available to you um there are interest arguments as you say uh and I think they've been presented on both sides um it's of some significance uh uh perhaps that the uh report of the planning board uh which uh refers to uh the accessory use on an unimproved lot says in the same ownership uh but that language I don't think is in the bylaw and uh I guess the question then becomes uh was it intentionally left out of the by law I don't know the answer to that but um that might be in some way controlling on the question of whether that's an issue um I think in looking at the overall concept of the special permit um we've been provided with pretty much all of the information that we needed from the in IAL hearing to make a determination as to whether or not the mitigation that we think is appropriate should be done maybe others have questions about how much mitigation should be added to it but um I think we're in a position to make a uh ruling with respect to whether the special permit is appropriate or not appropriate and leave up to the court or the Pary resolution of the question of uh whether the uh fencing needs to be changed or the access actually needs to be specified in some other way so that's my view okay so did you have any questions at all though I think that an that answers my questions the only other question I would have would be if we were asked uh Bill uh Bill Lichfield whether he sees any appropriate uh inference that can be drawn from the fact that although the planning board recommended uh an accessory use unimproved lot in the same ownership but that language is not in uh the ordinance thank you Mr L uh thank you Mr Simple uh the only inference that I would suggest could be drawn from that relates to the special permit the requirement to Grant a special permit that the purpose and intent of the bylaw be followed I recognize the words aren't in the bylaw which is why I went back to the planning board minutes from 1989 6 months before the change was made the purpose and intent was stated by the drafters which were the planning board the purpose and intent was that the Lots be in common ownership that I think ties into the provision in our bylaw that says a special permit in in a case like this can only be granted when it's found to be in harmony with the purpose purpose and intent of the bylaw doesn't say not in strict uh non-compliance but in harmony with a purpose and the intent and I think you can glean the purpose and intent from the planning board minutes thank you thank you Mr L as I say I think that decision ultimately may be made by a court as opposed to us right David Nixon do you have any other questions no uh Ed questions um I would like to say something during of course yeah well I have a a few questions yeah few questions I I think maybe that last I don't know I I I didn't have a chance to to read this and I can't read it while we're in the middle of all of this so um I guess my first my first this so I might want to ask Bill Lichfield about this but separately from that and I'm not sure how this necessarily Bears on our decision but I am curious um uh because uh attorney SNY has been using he used the term beach access in talking about the agreement that you drawn up and things and so um I'm in in the wording of the um easement seems to indicate to the waters or you know to the to Aunt Lydia's Cove and I'm curious is did and you may not be lances someone should be lances so and and the engineers something about the um the easement going to the mean high water line does the brion's deed go to mean high water or to the Waters of uh Aunt Lydia's Co we're gonna get that answer from Sarah yeah CLK if you want to keep going I find out information well I'm just curious because I do I mean you know it because we're talking we're using term beach access talking about these stairs but if if they don't if they don't if they own the beach if it's to the mean if it's to mean low water well then probably the colonial ordinances would Prevail about the access being for fishing fing or navigation um and so I'm I'm just curious how that what's the Y I do know based on the subdivision plan yeah the Eastern edge of lot five is defined by mean high water so the the property that the Bron bought is bounded by mean high water mean high water so then the the intertitle area is not is open yeah they don't own it okay all right so I mean it may involve some level of beach access but it's not necessarily the easement just goes to the mean high water line yes and it may be that I mistitled the management agreement and I certainly say Aunt Lydia's co uh access management agreement instead of beach I I would suggest that because it's kind of I mean in all the all the words that we're tossing around here I'm not sure we want to use beach access necessarily I I agree I agree and then um so that's that was my question with regard to to those things um bill could again just to help I haven't been able to really follow this when and in looking at the notes because I was in considering the you know what that footnote says about um lots and unimproved lots and things what so th just walk me through it again this what the notes say what's your interpretation of that in of the change from the what the bylaw said prior to this change and the following it the uh planning board stated it uh that the proposed change would allow uses on Accessory uses on adjacent Lots under the same ownership and allow a special permit to be granted by zba for an accessory use on an improve unimproved lot in the same ownership and again if you look at the the maps uh the first one the top one is the lenel lane litigation which Mr senny referenced Gould and McAdams the two on the left or the left in the middle weren't a party to that litigation but all three ghoul McAdams and barber went to conservation and the zoning board of appeals and they got permission for catwalks and stairs approximately where I've drawn them in on the south side of Lenell Lane yeah the intent of the bylaw the best one I could come up with was on the second page of the maps Billings Lane where all of the houses on the North side with one exception uh there are no houses on the south side of Billings Lane some of those lots are own on the the water side lots are owned by The Neighbors on the North side some are not but so some could be considered separate Lots but on the original subdivision plan for this subdivision from 1950 or whatever it was they were all Lots so for instance I don't know who owns 48 Billings road but the owner of 48 also owns the vacant lot on the south side of the street and that under the change in the by prior to the bylaws change they couldn't do anything on that do anything with that anything on the lot I see as a result of the change they could apply to the zoning board of appeals for a special permit a catwalk theoretically a tennis court which would now be underwater but that's a separate issue so that was the result of the change and the board said that it made for better land use on smaller Lots okay so it would allow stairs on lots that were either vacant or in common ownership with your approval and then when the change was made to the bylaw I think this was what Paul was referencing the wording in the same ownership did not I didn't go through and reference that that did not make it into that's not that's not in the bylaw and that's what I want that's why I want to convince myself that my memory was correct and that's why we went back to the planning board uh minutes which indicates that was the purpose and intent which of course is what you're governed by so I this may have no bearing on on it whatsoever but if reading through that um provision in the bylaw um I I was because it doesn't say anything about contiguous Lots either so I'm I'm just curious um maybe give me an opinion if I you know I have property down on on um lower Main Street and um if I also own a lot on on elsewhere on Main Street not not continuous not nearby that I might be able to apply for a special permit to put a garage on it on an unimproved unimproved lot on an unimproved lot the answer is yes and in the planning board discussion I realize you haven't had a chance to read uh five pages of notes from discussions 30 years ago but in fact it speaks to that that point in particular and if you look at our bylaw there's a reference to a special town meeting from October of 1989 and that was when they dealt with with garages on otherwise unimproved or vacant Lots so yes you could bu you could I could reasonably I could apply to the zoning board appeals exct for to have an accessory structure stand alone on another lot that's correct okay I'm just curious um I'm still still as confused those are the questions that I have at this point as as Council has this application is under the steps one right it's not under the it's under the the three section three it's under that he said it's under that properly and I just want to tell Attorney zagger that if someone asks you a question Council I will recognize you but at this juncture that would be the only condition under which I would recognize you um so I know you have your hand up could I could I just finish up briefly with with Mr V you're absolutely correct and and there is no question that a finding under 43a or 4 b3a is required our point is that that is not the exclusive requirement of the bylaw thank you uh uh I think it's my turn for questions I just first of all you're applying for a 4 foot wide steps is that accurate um I I I'd have to ask the client I don't think there's any objection to that proove I think you would yes 3 foot isn't that the minimum three foot inside he's saying that it was four feet outside to outside so you've got the rails guard rails on either side that's going to eat up some room so the what's the minimum compared to what they're applying for well I mean 3 feet is standard yeah okay for inside for hallway or something like that this is obviously a different type of structure so they're applying for a foot larger than the minimum is that that's what I'm understanding Am I Wrong well we're dealing with walking walking area what you have for space to walk and navigate a walkway if you had someone coming the other way and you're going down so he said he's at three 3.4 feet inside the inside I did see that so 3.4 which is like around five in so we'd have to reduce it by about 5 Ines to get it to 3 feet oh okay I understand now I'm not asking you to do it I'm just wondering CU we have we have approved ones that are a little bit more narrow than what you're applying for and I just wanted to see what kind of leeway we had with that um okay um I don't have any other questions um Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations Dave dve seconds and votes yes I vote Yes I'll vote Yes yes as do I okay deliberations thank you David Nixon go first well uh it's it's really difficult but I think and I'm trying to be fair you know fair in in the Big Wide World um an easement that has been in existence for so long should be able to be used by those people who purchased that easement when they purchased their their property so uh unless I saw something or heard something that would steer me away from that and I think attorney senny has laid all kinds of conditions out about well we're going to change the fence we're going to do this we're going to do that I mean these folks have done everything and they tried as we all wanted that when we were approving what was approved on this lot we really wanted to see something hey why don't you get together but okay the owner of property wasn't interested in any way shape or form so so be it and um I think we should prove it and see where it leads okay um Ed well I really wish I was Voting tonight because I have strong feelings about this um I I think we should approve it uh I think this is an attempt to limit someone's rights uh having grown up on the cape you're seeing this again and and again where you know people are trying to limit access to to beaches I think this easement has been in place for quite a while I think the owners of the property probably benefited in when they purchased the property because there was an easement uh across it um and now uh there's an attempt to to eliminate that and uh I I don't agree with that I I think the stairs should be approved just like their stairs were approved Dave V be well I I I I had actually thought about in raising the um question we wanted to wait for kcom give me more time to deliberate about this but I I don't think I I I'm I'm in agreement with my with my two colleagues um I I think that I'm not sure in the um in how this is all came about um I I I'm not it seems to me that the purpose and intent of the bylaw doesn't involve trying to um ignore easement agreements necessarily or or or purpose intent would not have been to try to um negate easements I I I find that's a I mean but I also know sometimes the law doesn't totally always track with with intentions or what what was thought to be the case um but just as you know trying to simplify my own thinking I'm an agreement with with um Dave and Ed um you know uh the easement has been there for a significant period of time the bank has eroded and uh and I guess apparently at one time there was an a ability to climb up and down the bank as it was then um and the erosion of the bank had has necessitated U the creation of stairs not just for on the seasment but the property owner then and the adjacent property owner and other property owners in the area um and so uh I to me uh this seems to be a reasonable request uh um under those circumstances be better for the environment than what we've got now somebody trying to figure out how to climb up and down that to do a Spider-Man up and down that bank now that's not a not a a good option um and so uh given what I think is is is correct or right in in what I see Common Sense wise uh I I'm in favor of their ability to um to provide to to do this to provide that access that they have the right the easement for okay thank you um Paul deliberations well I think uh I think the comments that have been made are are relevant uh the uh uh the applicants have tried to be as reasonable as they can be I think given the circumstances uh and trying to deal with the easement and assert the rights that they've been given under under their deed um and I think that in general that's the way way uh uh it should be um it seems to me that uh the overall access uh conditions that we've heard are the same kind of conditions we've had with respect to the other stairways going down and the uh I'm confident that the Conservation Commission can continue to impose the correct mitigation issues that need to be applied um I think that the condition that we should be adding to any special permit that we provide is the removable portion of the stairs would be removed annually from December 1 through May 1st to be consistent with what we did with the other stairways but other than that uh it seems to me that they meet the special permit uh conditions and um if a court at some point comes to a conclusion that um uh the applicant the the opposition to the applicants is the appropriate way to deal with it then the special permit May well go through the B but I think that's the appropriate way to handle it thank you uh lee deliberations um yeah so I I agree with my colleagues regarding the easements um I think you can't ignore them they they've been there the home homeowners and buyers knew about them um and it's something you kind of have to deal with I I'm actually very much in favor of the legal agreement that attorney Sunny is proposing regarding maintenance and um Insurance because that will definitely that will help make things clear at least for the near time um so um I I agree I think it meets um requirement our our criteria for special permit and um from a conservation perspective I think it is a wise A wise choice so I'm not voting but I would vote in favor and Steve um well I I think this is kind of a difficult situation and it might be putting neighbors against neighbors here but there is an easement the the folks at 500 know that it exists um the four families across the street have a right to use their easement and apparently um they they um um have the right to um to use it in the way that they see see fit it's basically Theirs to use um it sounds like they haven't been able to use it easily recently and it is a very environmentally um sensitive area there's erosion in in the area all over um I I'm not I'm not really crazy about having that many stairs over there but they they do have a right I think to install one and it would help the environment in that area so um I guess I I would probably support it um but I I think it's going to bring a host of problems in the future about who's going to maintain it you know if if all the four families aren't don't stay in agreement I think it's going to bring other problems but for now I think it's a workable solution thank you Jenny yeah I actually don't think it's that difficult um I too have strong feelings about this and I was one of the members that voted no on the previous um stairs but that was because of suitability of site and um I specifically said at that hearing with respect to the property at 500 Shore Road that while you know that while I didn't think any of those sites were really suitable we were talking about 486 and and 500 back in May I specifically said I think the part of my reason for for not being in favor of 500 in May was because I didn't agree that the placement of the stairs being in the center of the of the highest point of the bank um was appropriate and that they should move them over to the side where the Eastman holders property was already staked we were all aware of the easement holders every single one of us mentioned the easan holders I rewatched the tape at that may hearing um and so I specifically said I think they should move them over and share them with the neighbors I think a lot of us thought that so even with saying that though I still voted no on 500 because I was primarily concerned and had argued for um con consideration of suitability of site but uh the the you know super majority of the board voted at that time to um to let the stairs go in and you know there were comments by Attorneys at that hearing and board members about um what was positive about stairs being on the you know here here's one and with regard to conservation if we don't build a staircase people will cut their own path down and that's why conservation likes it because it protects the bank so I don't I know we have conservation's final determination coming up but I don't see why they wouldn't like it they're on tape saying that they do like the stairs so so I I think that because every one of the board members knew about and had mentioned the easement holders interest in and desire for those stairs um I don't see how we to to Ed's point I don't see how you deny these stairs uh when they clearly as I mentioned before in questions the brons purchased their home in 2022 to Mr sem's point they knew it was encumbered with an easement they knew the that that it was subject to an easement that's been around since the early 80s and then the Butlers purchased it in 2020 to Le Point knowing it had a positive aspect and they probably paid a premium for the because of the eement as well as the other U four uh or other three across the road so um I I will'll see how this goes the the following uh you know areas with respect to the legal aspects of some of this but I I I'm in support of the stairs thank you so I was in support of the stairs for 500 um and I'm going to support this too I I'm not crazy about putting things on an eroding Bank um but um I am crazy about the idea of people be able to being able to access Lydia's Cove when they paid to do that so I too feel blood boiling when people are trying to deny access to the beach especially when it's been here this access has been here since 1984 so I'm going to vote far Ed on that so he can be comforted to know um that I do think there's there is an issue with um how this is all going to turn out but we're here for two reasons one to make sure that an application is properly before us and we've gotten note from Council that it is and our Building Commissioner says that it is so that's A and B does it meet the permit um criteria and it does so that's all our business the other stuff is not our business and so we can all rest assured that it was not complicated today for us because we had two things to make sure of and we made sure of them so Paul I will move to approve the application as submitted with the condition that uh the removable portion of the stair shall be removed annually from December 1st through May 1st dve seconds and votes yes I vote Yes well all votes yes any I vote Yes as do I it's unanimous um you're not up here to accept your uh Award of the fact that we have allowed your application Council but we did and uh good luck to you and your clients thank you and with that um I will move to adjourn de seconds and votes yes Ed Acton votes yes yes well all votes yes Le votes yes Steve votes yes Jenny votes yes as do I and what time is it 5:116 p.m. bad y who predicted 5:15 [Music] w [Music]