##VIDEO ID:E-ukxzZlYo0## [Music] for [Music] n [Music] [Music] second introduce um Everybody actually to start could you please just silent your cell phones as well um make sure that those are on silent um I will introduce the board to my far right and your far left is Mark Co who's an associate member of the board to my immediate right is Ken foran who's the vice chairman of the board um to my my right um is TJ hurry he's the clerk of the board to TJ's left is Evan Kieran he's a regular voting member and at the end is Paul Murphy who is also a regular voting member of the board sir budro is our zoning administrator and D geeker is our recording secretary I'm Kil belan I'm the chair of the board the zoning board of appeals is charged with applying the zoning bylaws for the town and considering requests for special permits variances and appeals as provided in the town's zoning bylaws which have been approved by town meeting and the Attorney General's office for the Commonwealth decisions are made through the public hearing process our goal is to hear testimony from the applicants and the public and allow full and fair discussion of the project prior to rendering a decision to begin each hearing the clerk will read the public announcement of the hearing and present any pertinent information from the file for example referrals from town departments um and summarized correspondence the applicant or the applicant's representative will have 15 minutes to make a presentation um time may be extended by vote of the board if we think that there's additional information that's necessary um the board will then question the applicant then the public will be invited to comment public comments should be directed only at the project we ask that you refrain from making personal or derogatory statements um you can include an opinion in favor or an opposition or if you have a question we'll try to get the question answered for you um all members of the public wishing to speak should wait to be recognized by the chair to come to the podium up front and state your name and address for the record um we may when the board satisfied that enough information has been presented we may close the public hearing um and then we may um or we could alternatively continue the hearing to to another date tonight we we have one continuation cohane um application 7215 one public hearing a new public hearing and open meeting matters so we will start with um application number 7215 cohane 80 San Road north fouth um and that matter has already been opened um but there are no there are no members that have been designated so it will be the regular five voting members on this [Applause] [Applause] good evening mam chairman members of the board my name is Edward Kirk I'm attorney an office in austerville and I'm here representing the applicant in cohane s realy Trust we are appealing a decision by Mr G The Building Commissioner in which he determined that a particular lot Ed by my client Lot number 250 um has merged with one or more Lots is how he's phrased it in the in his decision I have I'd like to present to you just for illustration purposes uh combination of aerial photographs one aerial photograph of the area showing the lot and I've attached to it the original subdivision plan of Old Silver Beach dating back to 1926 when this lot and others were first created so have two great [Applause] stand lot uh the subject lot is highlighted in yellow and it has an address on ad s Tu road but it is uh on the original subdivision plan lot 250 and most of my references will be to the subdivision Lot number 250 uh as you can see from the original subdivision plan going back to [Music] 1926 this entire area is pretty much made up of lots ranging from 7500 Square ft to 12 uh and 15,000 square ft and I would suggest to you that this area of Silver Beach fact those are the predominant sizes of the Lots in that area most of those lots most of the Lots in Sil Beach um are consistent with what's shown on the side the neighborhood itself I think as you can see uh is also developed in accordance with uh that size lot and layout and the one lot that stands out as not yet having to be built upon is the subject Lot number 80 lot 25080 s t Road the uh the basis of the Building Commissioner uh decision which was dated I think January of 20 July 20 January 2014 uh was that that once upon a time lot 250 and the adjoining lot which is number 76 u s road that was Lot 21 on the subdivision um in fact there was a tennis court that straddled the line between what is now 76 St t Road and my 80 and that tenis score has not been there since 1996 not withstanding that fact the Building Commissioner says that what 250 0 same is not going today the other basis for his decision was that once upon a time uh back in 2000 leading up to the late 1990s uh and around 2000 uh there was a small shed 10 by1 shed on 80 the lot at 80 tons in room um and that was his second second basis for him saying that not withstanding the fact that there's been no shed there for 15 years that lot 80 has merged somehow with what you say lot 250 has merged with one of these other LS so I'd like to if you'll bear with me I'll just sort of lead you through the past history that he's referring to [Applause] um the house at 76 tonset uh was constructed uh I believe back in 1921 and it was acquired by Mr uh Mr Mrs Hurley in 1961 along with 11 San Tu it and a vacant lot which is now seven tonset Road Lot uh property at 11 was Lot 20 on the subdivision plan and 7 tons of road was Lot 32 a lot uh 32 and lot 20 were in the name of Mildred Hurley Mrs Hur wife of C Keith hle and they are the parents of uh Patricia Curley Cohan and they they were the parents-in-law if you will of Carol J Cohan the uh Hurley constructed a tennis court on the property which consists of their residence that was Lot 21 and extended over onto lot 250 number8 while the tennis court was on those two lots Mr Hurley conveyed lot 250 which is 80 uh s to ro to his daughter Sheila uh earlyy Cy I'm sorry yeah she he they conveyed Lot 21 which is 76 San road to his daughter Sheila early Cy so you have a a severance of common ownership and that took place in 1989 so you have the rather anomalous situation of Mr Hurley owning Lot 21 and his daughter own him uh I'm sorry just the opposite his daughter owned the residence and he was the owner of uh lot 250 Mrs uh KY went to the board of appeals and she obtained a special permit from the board to add on to the home on Lot 21 76 Century Road the plan showed the existence of the tennis court straddling the lot lines and the board granted the special permit for expansion of the house because it was nonconforming with respect to Sidelines and said we'll give you a special permit but we want you to get rid of a tennis court and that was done so ownership between those two lots was severed in 1989 while a tennis court was on there the owner of the house went to the board of appeals and got a special permit to add on to the house lot without no regard to anything taking place on the adjoined law 250 no suggestion at that time that those two lots had merged and it's our position that the decision of the board of appeals in 1996 had the effect of authorizing both LS to proceed as it were or to continue as single Lots they had they had not merged there was no requirement that they they be merged in order for the owner of the house lot to get a special permit and since that time uh since 1996 both lots have been taxed assessed by the town as single family uh I should say as as single lots and the vacant lot uh at 80 has been taxed as a buildable L the uh Hurley then transferred a vacant lot 80 lot 250 to their son C Keith ear junr and so he was the owner of the lot uh what's now what's the subject lot and see Keith her then conveyed the vacant lot at the direction of his father to of Mr C Hane so we now have Sheila Hurley KY owning the original House Lot 21 Mr cohain owning the vacant lot next door and number seven concert road which is lot 32 at that time was also a vacant lot and that lot was conveyed by Mrs Hurley to her daughter Patricia so as of 199 1994 uh Sheila owns 76 in to it Mr cohain owns the vacant lot at still vacant lot at 80 uh Mrs Hurley owns a lot on the corner which is number 11 for lot 20 and Patricia Hurley uh cohain owns vacant lot 32 which is now number seven tonson the second basis for Mr Gore's decision was that a shed was located on lot 250 the 8 Road during for a lengthy period of time waiting up to the late 1990s the information before you establishes that that shed was placed there by Mr Hurley the Elder who was living at that time in at 11 tonson 20 uh lot 20 he placed it there Nicole Haynes did not place it there um in fact lot 32 was vacant and so there was no activity taking place on lot 32 and no use being made of lot 32 byes and no use being made of the shed it was apparently used by Mr Hurley U either personally or maybe by others to for some equipment with respect to Mowing and maintenance and so forth so there there was I suggest that that uh the the the position that Mr Gore has taken that somehow Mr Hurley's rep placement of a shed on lot uh 250 they lot 250 somehow merged that lot with lot 32 which was also vacant is uh doesn't with scrutiny the other fact is that a building permit application was submitted for lot 32 by Mrs Coan to build a house it's now at seven T of grow the plan of the enjoining lot showed the existence of the shed and Building Commissioner at that time had no difficulty uh issuing a building for for lot 7 offered no suggestion at that time fact that the shed was there somehow require that those lots be merged so uh we we believe that because the board of appeals basically blessed both those two lots 21 and 250 in 1996 as single family should say single Standalone lots unmerged that that disposes of that issue and where that the town has treated them as uh Standalone Lots since then and taxes have been paid as such that uh at this late stage for Mr G now to go back and suggest that a situation that was addressed almost 20 years ago creates a a merger of that lot with uh Lot 21 is mistake and we believe he's also mistaken by suggesting that a 10x1 foot shed which does not require a building per by the way uh placed by a third party on the L third party Mr Hur does not work a merger between uh lot 32 and lot 250 um having received both lot 250 from their parents and having received lot 32 um from her parents it wasn't really open to the go haes I think to tell Mr Haring to move his shed U and uh so we we think that on bance here um and the law and the facts that Mr or uh has acted I think very conservatively just put it that way uh perhaps leing it up to the board to make to take another look at it but we think he's uh he's mistaken that uh the facts do not support his position but they support our position that since 19 uh 89 lot 250 has been in separate ownership from joining lot in 1996 and was inferentially before the board of appeals uh and reive the board's permission to be treated as a single lot and it's been taxed as such and that the existence that the shed which hasn't lot 250 for probably 15 years it's not a basis lot 250 isable lot it's uh assessed at $750,000 um obviously represents a significant value to the owner uh retired and U try to put together a state plan and this U has caused some difficulty try to answer the questions you may okay let's see if anybody has questions for you [Applause] TJ so there's never been on record any that merged uh Lots I believe it was 21 250 way back when when the Hurley first acquired uh this property they acquired uh those two lots by One D and there were two descriptions it was they were described as lot uh 21 and lot 250 but they were described by separate mots and Bounds and at that time there was a house on Lot 21 and at that time and today there's a provision that well actually when they acquired it there were Provisions in the bylaw that U allowed lot 250 to be to be treated as a single family Standalone lot the difficulty arose I think when uh the tennis court uh was was constructed and that might have raised a question but since the time that Mr and Mrs Earle acquired it in' 61 and then they conveyed it out they conveyed the house to Sheila in 1989 there have been no Deeds or conveyances uh into I believe you already touched upon this before but uh those two lots are separately taxed yes and was there any request made to combine the Lots as one for assessment purposes uh no they have not and the assessment of LW 250 you would you say that represents a fair market value for a buildable lot uh the town has it at 750 um I'm I'm fairly confident that of the market today it will probably be that at least that Ed no I don't have any questions Paul yeah when did um is lot 80 undersized by today's zoning standards yes when did uh when did it become non-conforming at what date I think the first bump up to 20,000 [Applause] I'm I'm I think it was back probably in the in the 70s in the 70s I'm just I okay yeah okay [Applause] so so if you became let's say it became non-conforming in 1973 if I'm on the right fact pattern um has it been held in single ownership from all the adjoining land since 1973 or has there been common ownership was there common ownership after 1973 there was common ownership between Mr uh Mr Mrs Harley owned Lot 21 for house lot in they own 250 TOA lot up until 1989 up until 1989 right so okay I'm just trying to trying to make some sense out of this so so there was common ownership after the zoning change correct yes and there were Protections in the B for right I saw that that you know it references that it can be H it can be treated as not held in common ownership If X Y and Z if there was a house on the enjoining law but even prior to that uh the bylaw uh had a provision uh which said any lot of 7500 Square ft or more shown on the plan duly recorded the registry prior to October 27th 1952 mhm which this one is and any lot of 10,000 ft of war or so recorded prior to June 28 1957 may be used without the necessity of applying to of appeal so it was that was without regard to ownership common or otherwise you common ownership as long as you had that amount of area this amount of area on a plan that right was of that age which this which this one is right so okay I'm just trying to back into it so so the contention of the building inspector is he feels as though buildability been compromised because of a tenant cour in a shed is that your analysis I'm just there's a lot of information here yes there there's a lot of uh history here but here two points he have a very short uh answer to our request was uh he thinks that it quote merged obviously prior to 19 uh 96 when when the tennis court went on and uh it means also sub that even if if I'm wrong about that according to commission paraphrase I'm wrong about that it's somehow merged later on with some other lot which he hasn't designated which one because some put a shed so it so if all the other stuff is true like the provisions of the bylaw that allow this law to be built on if we weren't going to if we weren't discussing the shed of the tennis court if we weren if if those weren't Up For Debate um is it the would it be the building inspector's position I'm just trying to make assumptions that it would be a buildable lot I I believe that those so that's what he believes objections I think otherwise said something different okay um I do we have a does do we have a legal opinion from our attorney on this if you look at your packet on attorney Kirk's exhibit exhibit three is an email from Frank Duppy from December of 2014 it is part of the okay the file Mr Duffy's opinion was that that was to AIO Gore okay yes uh you know he he seemed to give it a a green light uh that he didn't come out and tell the building aspect of what to do right but he didn't see uh it seems to me as I read his opinion he didn't seem to find that this was these Lots had merged I understand okay thank you I'm Al yeah Mark Fine k um so when was uh so there's a lot of owners here so you could just very quick LLY tell me who currently owns seven yes um seven is this uh alhan tonset Realty Trust 11 is Mr uh Mrs coan's brother of C Keith Earley junor uh 76 which was Lot 21 is owned by Mrs Co ha's sister Sheila Hurley Cy and they uh they are opposing their sisters the M lot being fil okay and then when was seven built that was built in uh building permit was issued in late 20 0 1 and I believe it was built immediately thereafter so it looks to me like the access for seven is over 80 is that correct yes uh I think that's a there's a conservation concerns and so uh it was agreed that they would bring that their driveway uh providing actual access and is there some kind of easement or something not not a formal easement they Pro there will be at some point so how did they get permission to bring if seven is owned by the realy trust and I'm sorry 80 who's at that point in 2001 who owned 80 that would be uh Mr col the wife the husband of Patricia who got the building permit for s a second the it's a little bit of tic tac toe so the seven is owned by the cahan con realy trust 80 is owned by Mr kah what's his relation San s realy trust now okay that's the no seven I'm asking about oh ta TR what you said seven T right and 80 is owned I'm trying to understand the relationship between 80 and seven that's they're owned by two separate trusts two separate trusts right they originally would came to uh Mr Coan by the deed from uh his brother-in-law and the de the property at seven then vacant was deeded to patrici by her so should 80 be construed to be a separate buildable lot what happens to the access to sell it's it stays the same like they'll share a driveway there's also in the uh in in information that I submitted I think it was Monday a copy of the uh request determination of applicability by conservation and the plan it shows that uh 80 has has been approved conservation wise and uh shows the Comm Drive okay and and I'm a little not being an attorney I'm a little confused by the when they were first acquired there was a single deed how does that work with two separate lots are you talking about back in 1961 back in 1961 yeah that if you have one deed and you conve Lots by by meets and Bounds description you identify them they stay separate Lots it's not the same as saying you know doing a perimeter description mhm and going around the outside it was Lot 21 lot one and lot 250 it was Lot two and again at that time both of those lots uh fell under the Provisions the protection of the provisions that I was they each buildable they each buildable Lots okay that might be my question's for the moment okay hi um this might help Ken out and this is my understanding but please correct me if I'm wrong is Patricia Cohan who I guess would now there's I understand there's a realy trust at 7even tonsa but she was the person who applied for the building permit crack and 80 cohain that was or was Pro prior to being transferred to the royalty trust owned by Harold cohain correct and they are husband and wife okay so at the time 80 0 santua said you you I'll give you my wife a right to pass and repass that's right okay that was never recorded it's not a recording okay if we were to decide this is a buildable lot the ad sanou is a buildable lot under our bylaw would your client be amenable to as a condition of our decision recording an easement I believe yes that's in the cards okay and then could you just I guess elaborate a little bit more and I know that you you were great about sticking in the 15 minutes and about providing all the detailed background about why this would satisfy 24066 C of our [Applause] bylaw and I guess pick your provision which Provisions you would say would be applicable well C2 [Applause] C 10,000 ft and District but but doesn't that say any lot not held in common ownership and wasn't this lot held in common ownership yeah was it was protected prior to that time by other other provisions of of the B and you know those those Provisions were were were designed to carry through with with these Provisions okay I think you also touch Sean in your memo in your submission 24066 C4 I I might just add yes the other point if you want to go back to 1981 um they could be treated as not held in common there was a a residence on one of them and that was the case right is that 24066 c sub four yes okay yeah all right and and I know that the opposition cites something you know cites the merger Doctrine which I certainly understand um and I guess I just want to get your take because I'm certain we'll hear from them dwelling was in existence on all the other commonly held land held contiguous Lots so I think what there and I don't want to paraphrase the argument before they make it but essentially that because there were multiple Lots under the party's control even if they weren't held under common ownership that they still had control over multiple Lots so I just want you to touch on that too if you could well I I think the I think you have to go by the bylaw and and we're talking about ownership it's quite apparent that the Mr Mrs Hurley did everything they could uh to keep separate ownership of these Lots they they were very careful uh particularly with respect to lot 250 to to get that out of their names and into uh the name of their sen now you could you could say that okay Mr Hurley owned the property uh and but I I don't think at this stage of the game you can you can go back and say in 1960 through 1980 that uh that he's doing everything he can to protect what he has that lot 250 should somehow lose out because he was the you know the original uh shall we say well he was he acquired them and set them up in separate names you know it's not he was trying to preserve what he had it's not like you have a tra of land and you uh you have a big zoning change coming and you subdivide and then check aboard or something like that that's that's not what what's taking place here they were they were not commonly owned um I mean that that's that's the fact if you look at record title and ownership they were not commonly own Mr H was following the the prescribed method of preserving his uh you know the interest he want to pass motions children okay and when you say they were not commonly owned just to clarify lot 250 and lot okay I'm saying to the right lot 250 and Lot 21 were in common ownership as of January 1st 1981 is that correct that's right up to 1989 and there were no other Lots held under the same record title owner as of 1981 that's right Mill was the owner I believe of uh 20 which is now 11 and lot 32 which became seven uh was also military so lot 250 the subject lot went from being owned by C Keef Hurley to C Keef Hurley Jr to Mr H thank you let's see if anybody else does anybody else have any followup questions mark Ken are you good for right now for the minute oh minute no for oh for the minute Ser I just have a question you made a statement that the 1996 decision blessed both Lots 250 and 21 21 is the one that already had a structure on it 250 is 80 sand to it how did that decision bless lot 250 well the situation was presented to the board they had both Lots in front of them they saw the tennis court trading the lot line and they didn't say get rid of half of tennis court they to get rid of the tennis court and they did not deem uh it necessary for those lots to be merged for uh Lot 21 to get the permit they treated Lot 21 as Lot 21 and without regard to any any other area and there's no suggestion in there that U the adjoining lot was in any way uh compromised there's no comment in here at all about the adjoining lot it strictly asked that the tennis court well the plan showed and it was the applicant that right said we're going to remove the tennis court right and the board accepted that plan but nowhere in this decision does it say anything about lot 250 no that's my question the blessing if it had expressly said something I don't think the build commissioner would have come to the conclusion okay that he did but the town continued after that to to treat L 250 and assess it as a single lot and a buildable lot and there's just there's no suggestion of any kind on the board's part that there were any infirmities going to be any result of infirmities to the rejint lot and Mr Guffy I think agre I on that uh opinion by Frank Duffy in December of 2014 were the applicants privy to that opinion and if so why did they not go for a building permit or a letter of buildability I should say that DEC that opinion came during the course of a lot of correspondents we had asked this was generated by a request to the Building Commissioner that he issue a l letter SoCal a Builder building and uh there was um some initial concern that the Building Commissioner had on these two issues the information was presented to Frank Duffy during the course of all that cors back and he he gave his opinion so we we were already in the process of requesting a okay and so that his opinion didn't help the situation any Mr Gore did not uh you know chose not to make that the final you guys a right as V to reject right council's opinion advice but but that was Frank's Frank's opinion all right thank you I just have a follow-up question to that um about the time timeline of this and based on my review of the records it's my understanding a building permit was applied for maybe it was the letter of buildability build ability in 2013 is that true because it seemed like there was a significant lag between yes there was and I had a very December 6 20 2013 was when I made my first request and then I had a a very difficult time uh I would say difficult I contact Mr G regularly asking him if he would please uh issue an opinion because even before filing that letter on December 6 2013 unb knows to me Mrs cohan's brother and sister and I had an attorney who had a letter in the file saying if something comes in we have some issues so that sort of be uh that sort of began a lot of back and forth between through for a three cored catch um Mr Mars on behalf of the brother and the sister were writing to Mr Gore saying expressing their point of view I would be writing to Mr Gore in response reut expressing my and this went on for quite a long time and then finally uh Mr Gore finally gave us something in writing that we could move along with so the first any first correspondence from Mr for in writing a decision based on your application was not until July second 2015 he there was no appealable order prior to no appealable order he he he sent a letter saying he had some questions okay and they were the same questions that we're discussing tonight and I did my best to give them the information that I given to you okay um and then he eventually did Issue water we could we could okay is everybody else that questions for now no okay so what we'll do since that we received an opposition from a council usually we'll afford them some time to speak we'll ask them questions and we'll follow up with you attorney Kur so that you can get some response time opportunity to respond thank you very [Applause] good evening uh good evening mad chairman members of the board for the record my name is uh Terry Morris I'm an attorney with offices of 57 elro in Newton and I'm here representing Mr uh Cornelius Hurley and Sheila KY owners of property adjacent to the subject possible I think it would be helpful since there's been a lot of uh uh a lot of the discussion and presentation is focused on which Lots we are and so forth I believe in your packet each one of you has and I see one at least Mr Co has this put that up here pass um uh this is a photograph taken in 1992 of the subject fossil with the uh much referred to tennis court seems to be a focal point in this thank you well thank you thank you well as with any story there are always two sides to to the story and while I appreciate attorney Kirk's narrative we uh have an entirely different narrative or at least a narrative that fills in some of the the holes in the in the uh story line that has been presented to you I also uh I believe in your packet you have a letter from me dated September 14 2015 which is part of uh our response to the appeal and um that will lay the ground work for my comments this evening I was pleased to see that at the end of the presentation uh the chairwoman asked questions about the applicability of the zoning code um I think up until that time uh there was no there seemed to be no discussion about the law and in fact there are two very important points I want to make with regard to the law the first is an analysis of chapter 240 section uh 66 the provisions the so-called grandfather Provisions under which you might consider this uh to be buildable and unbuildable and the another one is actually a uh a seminal case a case of D stano which I know you've seen because I have cited it in various Communications which talks about not chck Tac Toe but it talks about Checker boarding and Checker boarding refers to a common occurrence where someone owns several pieces of property and in order to avoid the uh Express provisions of merger in the law conveys HS has the various Lots owned by straws or other people in in order to try to circumvent Provisions in any Municipal bylaw that would attempt to um provide uh for merger I mean we know that I don't have to cite the the underpins the legal underpinnings for for merger we all know that the purpose of that is to create Conformity and LS um and in this particular case let's start with the ordinance itself the ordinance the particular provision of the ordinance um section 240 - 66 contains eight possible Provisions that under which one might be considered grandfathered or not considered um uh subject to merger the first sections 1 two 3 and five all assume or based upon a finding that of uh a finding of um non-common ownership that the properties were not in common ownership uh Council has suggested that that was that was the case because title to these Lots was held by on the one hand m g Curley and on the other hand uh the husband and wife Cornelius Hurley and Milt Hurley I think in fact I think Council referred to ownership with theot simply by referring to colus early I would like to correct the record in that regard by just giving you a simple chronology of what happened here um the question was at what point in time did these Lots become non-conforming so certainly uh it could have happened in 73 but by Jan by January 1st of 1981 the uh the fth zoning B was bylaw was quite clear and that bylaw had increased the frontage in minimum lot ER requirements in the in the single residence B Zone to 100 ft and 40,000 sare ft prior to that they had be 20,000 under any circumstances these lots have been non-compliant for decades um so the chronology uh in 1946 the lot milder G Hurley held title to the Lots uh and they were held in her name until 1991 when they were conveyed to Mr and Mrs hery in 40 in uh June 8th of 46 and this is particularly important that cke Hurley Jr and milder G Hurley granted a mortgage on lch 20 and 32 to Columbia national life now that's significant because at that time Mr hilly did not hold title to those two lots um but I think if you're looking for some evidence of control and that's what we're talking about here control uh then that's certainly a strong piece of evidence in fact I come back to the case of dhano versus stok in that particular decision 1994 decision it rejected checker board conveyances and determined that the key to interpreting and analyzing uh or applying the merger Doctrine uh was not the form of ownership but actually control the property and that is the premise that we are putting forth before this board that in fact you can look to the title and say well technically speaking M owned one and and Mr Mrs Hurley owned the other and therefore wasn't all in common ownership but in reality these four Apostles have been created as a de facto curly compound for decades and I think when I'm allowed to set forth the facts to support that proposition you'll see why we come to that conclusion so what we're saying is in fact we start with the premise that we and we will be able to show and Pro prove that these Lots were in fact controlled by Mr Mrs Hurley um and in more particular by Mr Hurley as a patriarch of the family the um there are some other facts that I'm glad to see U Miss Budrow had posed a question about the effect of the zoning board of appeals decision I have a copy of that and I believe the copy is in the file as part of the record as uh pointed out there's absolutely no way that that decision could be anyway cited to justify uh the conclusion that these Lots were separate Lots um and with regard to the opinion of uh Town Council I think it's important to note that I've seen a lot of uh opinions having served as a member of the board of Alder in my hometown of Newton and have seen opinions rendered to us as a legislative body that that opinion was certainly doesn't rise to the level of a quote opinion in fact that communication was predicated on the same misstatement that is being made about the uh the the the zoning board decision itself uh Town Council and his invite to commissioner Gore stated incorrectly that uh the that the board that the board uh decision was conditioned upon removal of tennis court I think it's been established by Miss Bud's line of questioning that that in fact was not the case there was no mention of that in fact it was volunteered by the applicant Sheila KY to remove that voluntarily but since we're on that um I think it's important to talk about how these the slot was uh was was uh was treated you can see from the you can see from the handouts that you have and handouts on the board this is the current layout where you have the subject lot 250 not only burdened by one driveway the one that Services lot 32 but and it has been this way since the60s bur impart by another driveway that Services Lo one the photograph in front of you uh shows in 1992 the extent of this uh of this uh tennis court and the driveway which Services Lot 21 and its impact on lot 50 you can see you can almost think that it it it it takes up almost half of the lot use of half of that lot and it was done at a time when again Mr and Mrs Hurley particularly Mr Hurley control all four rots and I think this is important because as the chairwoman in her line of questioning uh referring back to the ordinance talked about provision C4 which is the only one that possibly could be uh applicable here and in fact if one looks at the the language in that provision WS it says that uh subsection C4 States in relevant part any lot held in common ownership with such adjoining Lots vacant as of 1 January 1981 may be treated as not held in common ownership if as of January 1st 1981 and I emphasize this a dwelling was an existence on all the other commonly held continuous La I suggest to you that in fact at that particular point in time that snapshot in time th of January 1981 that there was a house on lot 20 that had been built in the 1920s there was a house on L 21 that had been built in 1961 but there was no house on L 250 and the certainly was no too and we suggest to you that even though the fact uh exist that the title was in different people that the control of of of those who lost was firmly in the hands of Mr C fly senior um as evidence as further evidence of that when the when the Sheila KY of the owner of Lot 21 had applied for a variance to uh and that variance by the way was for setback not about plot size it was for setback when she applied for that variance uh and offered to basically remove the tennis court she did so um uh at her own cost there was no request made of Mr cohane uh who had was the record owner that time to contribute to that nor was his permission s to do that in fact if any permission was given or any blessing it was given by uh Mr Hurley senior now the question of the the uh the ownership it is true that that Mr and Mrs Cohan under separate Deeds acquire a title to this in 1994 each of them that Mr Cohan acquir title to lot 250 and uh Mrs Goan lot 32 those two Deeds were recorded on the same day they have different dates one's dated December 23rd and I think other ones uh dated uh January whatever but they were recorded on the same day now you have affidavits which has been submitted part of the record to try to get behind the scenes of this story and clearly what would happened was that um though Caines as has testified or as evidenced by the affidavits from the siblings the Cains approached uh Mr Hurley senior and said we need we need lot 250 because we don't have because the size of the house we want to build is not the lot area is not big enough to accomodate the septic system that we need and so uh they needed B 250 as the affidavit to Mr uh Mr Hurley senior uh persuaded by this argument uh had the truste of the of the realy trust that owned the the apostles Mr uh Hurley Jr uh convey those lots to the uh to paid lot 250 along with LW 32 to Mr Mr and Mrs Cohen um it as it turned out um that L was never used for setic system in fact the Caines built a house on lot 32 that was oversized and they uh built a house that has living space or habitable space above a garage that cannot be occupied because house is built too big and the septic system that was installed entirely on their property uh would only accommodate certain size and therefore a determination made that they could not occupy this space so I won't question whether or not there was um any bad faith here I'm not going to suggest that at all but I will suggest that the circumstances under which Mr Hurley uh senior conveyed law 250 was not intending it as a buildable laot in fact when he Mr hly sold this lot to his uh uh other daughter uh and had a house on it and the purchase price was $80,000 when he sold each of these two lots the purchase price was $440,000 for each lot and in Mr H's mind that was a sense of equity about thinking ahead towards estate planning issues uh he had in mind some Equitable concern there uh in in conveying that lot he certainly wouldn't have conveyed the lot if he thought he was conveying two buildable Lots uh uh given Mr H Mr Hurley senior's consideration for equitable distribution of his assets to his uh to his um four children actually four five children four daughters and one son um so we have as I say we we are saying that the the issue is one of control uh you have the affidavits and the recitation of the of the um uh let's see I think that is our argument in Chief um just by way of summary uh we suggest to you that there never was there never was an easement granted to this driveway I think Mr Co asked a question Mr foran uh because they if you're if it's under common ownership even though it's up title you don't need an easement you can't give an easement to yourself and so the fact that there's no easement I think further illustrates that the Cain's ownership of the property now mirrors Mr hle senior's ownership of the property way back when that is he treated always of those two thoughts as being one when he conveyed them and also um so in In Sum what we suggest is that we've agreed with commissioner Gore's determination that this is not a bable lot we've taken the time to lay out this argument for you because we think it uh it deserves a more complete expression of the underlying zoning considerations on which that decision was based and with that we appreciate I appreciate your time and answer any questions you may have let's see Mark I'm good okay Ken um no I have more questions okay Paul yeah just curious in 198 in 1989 uh those lots were merged correct lot 250 and uh 31 in 1989 21 I'm sorry 250 and 21 they were merged right in 1989 well yeah up till 1989 they merged right they were well they were in common ownership yes mergers a ter and so they were in common ownership and so uh they're in and in 1990 and in 1989 they were undersized right because so then when they when 250 was conveyed why didn't that didn't that constitute a zoning violation when to I can't speak to that that's a good question but obviously commissioner go didn't take that into account when he issued his decision because you know I understand there separate tax they're they're they're taxed as separate Lots um but under the merge of doct because when two non-conforming lots come into common ownership they merge as a matter of Law and I suppose if you don't have a mortgage on one of them you can convey one out but I'm just thinking at in ' 89 didn't that at least on its face con a zoning violation what the problem is this in 1989 uh these these LS were owned by the by Mr M this one this one and this one right so which L which L were you going to say did it this one did mer with this one did with this one because it's surrounded by three eyeses right so rather take the position that merge one of the three rather I think the construct that we trying to create the narrative here that this was really the hurly compound because remember that tennis court sprled everything and was used by by family members this I think Council L stated that this house was in 1961 was built for the Hurley it was not the H have always used lot 20 as their principal residents Lot 21 was built at for seasonal use by members of the family people would come and they would say that eventually it was conveyed to in 1989 to uh Miss KY but you can't say that 250 was mered with 21 cuz it could easily made the same case for 20 or 32 yeah and I guess at this point it doesn't matter because 10 years has passed so it it really doesn't matter but uh I gotta so I'm just looking at the fact pattern of subsection 4 and um you know it's it's it's the fact that there was no house on lot 32 I mean is you know is certainly something that needs to be looked at and then it speaks to commonly held contiguous Lots not just contiguous Lots commonly held contiguous lots I'm just not sure what the what the that means commonly in other words common ownership I would think the word means common I don't know I'm just trying to I would I would say that's that's a reasonable interpretation does anyone see that as an issue dwelling was in existence and all the other commonly held contiguous Lots instead of just contiguous Lots you know I'm just just trying to get maybe that's just I think we'll discuss that in discussion fine do you have any other questions no I'm I'm good okay and add you're okay TJ I have a question uh whether an eement was put on record at the registry of deeds or not isn't a property owner entitled access to their property are you are which which one are we talking about Mr hurry U talking about this driver I believe we were referencing that before right what about the drive I said no I said that there was no easement on record and I think that's evidence of the fact that they they were treating Mr Morris if you could just speak sorry I I know that or bring the microphone for the benefit of all of our viewers at home thank you hello yeah you just there's no amplic amplification in here recorded for the television that's why I was trying to speak a little louder thank you I hope that answer the question thank you well you just for clarification you said the driveway unlock 250s Services lot 32 and Lot 21 but according to this map it doesn't appear to no so what two properties I thought I had said I thought I had said that there were it was burden by two drivers one which Services FL 32 and the other which service L 20 so they're both over the lot they are well GIS isn't exact you have an engineered plot plan that shows that no but I because GIS is not exact and it's not something that this board should go by um only a certified plot plan is what this board should review as what Cress over what property line has a certified plot plan been prepared yes not by [Applause] us all right um are you all set teacher okay I have some questions you suggest this idea of checkerboarding the Lots um you say maybe and correct if I'm wrong is it your contention that that's why everything was kind of kept in separate under separate names absolutely that's okay so if that was the case why wouldn't they have transferred 80 santua out to a different name 0 0 250 S you mean l 250 250 why would they have conveyed it to whom to a different entity if their their goal was to check aboard the properties as you can why wouldn't laot 80 have been or 80 sent to at lot 250 been conveyed out to a separate entity no what we're saying is the the suggestion is by Council that because these two lots 20 and 32 were owned by one entity and these other two were owned by the other that that s that that essentially cre affected the kind of checker board that that you know that you're that you're talking about in other words these two own differently these two own differently therefore yeah 232 us to different people right people okay but I'm saying that look beyond that that uh fiction and look at the actual control of the Lots the four Lots as a common scheme well that I think that's a good jump into my next question so you say control of property and clearly that's the case under merger you know under the merger Doctrine but under our zoning bylaw 2466 C I think it's very clearance that is common ownership and I think Paul was questioning this commonly held so how does the merger Doctrine I guess impact our zoning bylaw where it doesn't say control in our zoning bylaw it says common ownership and I think that term is is pretty pretty clear in section 240 C 24066 C4 I'm suggesting to you that the theano case controls as an interpretation of your language as suggestion I haven't had an opportunity to read theu case did the D Stefano case interpret local zoning code or local zoning bylaw that Ed the term common ownership I I didn't look at the stoen for example the stoen bylaw I I can't tell you for certainty that the stoen bylaw has the same language as yours but my suggestion clearly is that that language in this in the decision covers the kind of situation that we're talking about here that's my that's that's my so even we bylaw which I think you said it was unambiguous common ownership commonly would be common ownership if it's unambiguous that this the Stefano the control the the concept of control merger even if there's a a bylaw to the contrary very clear that states common ownership the control would override the local bylaw um the very fact that we're having this discussion about commonly versus common ownership means it's not clear and I can tell you as a matter of statutory construction that because the Sovereign in this case the time of family or any municipality has the capability of crafting zoning very specifically any ambiguity is interpreted against the against the maker against the S so if there's an ambiguity it should be resolved against against the time isn't it if there's an ambiguity and and you can provide me case law to the contrary but isn't it if there's an ambiguity de the court would give deference to our interpr the zoning board's interpretation of our own zoning bylaw isn't that what the state of the law is uh I would say that that's generally the case but I I would suggest in this particular case that um you're obviously going to make a decision in this case you're going to you're going to wind up interpreting this the ordinance the bylaw whichever way it comes down I I think if this matter gets appeal it's going to ultimately determine that question to the best of my knowledge if whichever way this comes down you can almost expect that this will be appeal to the land court so I would be I would be opining myself but I think PR tell me know the limits of my El okay yeah and and I'm just I'm just trying to get at because there is pretty clear language I'm just trying to see how it meshes with the dfan case which I I haven't read um I also want to touch on in your memo and I believe you touched on this tonight A dwelling was in inexistence on all the other commonly held contiguous lots and I guess your your read of the language is that that means a dwelling has to be on each of the of the other Lots there has to be a dwelling if you've got four Lots right there had to be there had to be a dwelling not only on 20 and 21 but there had to be one on 32 okay as well and there wasn't and that's the basis for our case but it was under separate record ownership is that correct SE regular yes in no in this case so lot 32 was in under it didn't have a house but it was under separate record ownership yes 20 32 owned by uh mild and uh 250 and 21 owned by U the cou okay I would also draw your attention because this is a case in which was recently decided came down that was the case of Davis uh in which um the court came down made the determination that there was uh there was in the Davis case what court was that is that the L that was uh L Court could you provide the site for that well I land copy it's 13 miscellaneous 478 438 and it came down in April 8th 2015 by judge Sans and it's my understanding that uh uh that commissioner go was waiting for this case come down before he made a decision so I don't think it's not coincidental after this case came down he came down on the side of uh non build and was rying on this case as evidence of that okay in 1996 when the special permit was applied for and again I'm just trying to keep everything straight so that was Lot 21 special permit applied for correct by one of your clients is that true yes correct so at that time she offered to remove the tennis court is that correct correct I guess what was the motivation for that if she thought she had ownership or she had to remove it or she wouldn't have been able to accommodate she wouldn't have been able to accommodate her her aition okay all [Applause] [Music] right um You I think that you reference earlier when you were speaking that the the patriarch of the family we refer to him as um wouldn't have conveyed lot 250 if he thought it was a buildable law that's correct that's a correct categorization that's correct but there is there any condition in the D that says they cannot build on the law no but I again I refer you to the affidavits of three siblings that basically support the intention of The Grand Tour and then you said also um an easement was not necessary or because it's in common the two lots are in common ownership so I'm referring to the driveway over lot 250 to lot 32 I believe that's correct you got that but they're not in common ownership is that true well to the extent that one's owned by uh Mr Coan the other one's by Mrs coane they're not in record okay um and even if there's not an easement on record Mr Cohan could have granted a license a Ral license right okay okay does anybody else have any questions right now Ser no okay thank you very much your time and your Coury thank you let's see um before Mr Kirk we give you an opportunity just for a few minutes let's see if there's any public comment is there anyone here to speak in favor of this op or appeal anyone here to speak in Opp ition to the appeal you must all be mildly bored um Mr K the uh just a few things up Mr M the uh zoning went to 20,000 in 1961 okay thank you um there was not a grant of a mortgage by Mr Hurley with his wife um Mr Hurley had to sign the mortgage in those days there was something used to be known as courtesy and um it was I hate to sound like a law school Professor but it was an in coate right of a surviving spouse uh that that the spouse would have in property that was owned by the other spouse if they had children and so the bank required Mr Hurley as Mrs Hurley's spouse when they had children since they had children to wave his right of courtesy he was not a with the G um with respect to the it's not the Davis case it's the Gallagher case that Mr Gore I think put some stock in Long decision by judge Sans the heart of it was there were two lots ultimately there was an approval not required plan approved by the planning board it combined the two lots showing them now as one and showing the old lot line as a dash line a former lot line and then the property uh was actually deed into common ownership uh same person at the end of the day after anr plan so the court had no trouble finding in that case that there was a merger uh the word vacant was not added to the bylaw until 2009 um at the time that uh the proceedings were which was at least 8 years after all of these transactions took place um so that the word vacant in 1981 would not have been uh anything that the board would uh would have considered back in in in '96 or that Mr Gore would have considered uh issuing building permits uh for lot 32 um is it's not a matter of check boarding and and and control I think Mr Mr Hurley intended not to continue to own these Lots after they were deed to his children once they were out once they were deed out they were deed out um he wanted them to have and uh and they did um and he never treated Lot 25 and 32 uh 250 and 32 was one lot if he had he would have gone and got an a anr plan and showed sort of an reverse El shaped lot and and treated as such just the opposite he put it into his son's name so it wouldn't merge with his ownership when he conveyed the Lots on the other side uh 32 and 20 to himself and his wife he wanted to make sure that he preserved what he had a separate lot as 250 the fact that he was willing to make lot 250 available in case it was needed for lot 32 has nothing to do with whether it was buildable uh apparently there was some concern about what might be done for concom or septic on lot 32 but that had nothing to do with that doesn't make lot 250 not buildable just because he was willing to make it available to uh his daughter if if if it was needed to to put a put a would say a seting system there which it wasn't and uh the other thing that I I need to point out and it was it's been pointed out in the papers Mr Hurley signed a ctisle to his will shortly before he died in which he basically rearranged as a estate plan he had five children originally uh Mrs Cohan was going to receive 20% of the estate but because lot he because he said he had given in directly or indirectly bought 250 uh and and uh and uh 32 I should say those two lws to his daughter he re he diverted what would have been her 20% and gave it to two of her sisters and split it uh to the tune of $250,000 so uh unfortunately now uh Young young Mr Hurley he he received lot uh lot 20 from from his father Mrs KY got Lot 21 the house and uh the $250,000 that Patricia cohain was going to receive went to uh Mrs KY and her her other sister laen and now they don't want their sister to have the benefit of what her father all along clearly wanted her to have and that he realized that uh she had gotten some substantial value and so that's why he changed his will thinking he was doing Equity but it's not it's not the way seems to be the way it's working out um so uh these two lots were never treated by Mr Hurley or anybody else as one lot they've always been uh two separate lots and a building permit issued for lot 32 7 tons issued by Mr Gore um in 1999 and uh now we've asked to the Building Commissioner for a permit for for lot 250 and you know the rest of the story so so um I I think the argument that we we want to go back and say well as a zoning matter none of this matters because Mr Hurley uh was a uh you know a man who wanted to provide for his children and somehow that's going to work against uh my client everybody else has received the benefit of his spint so we think the Building Commissioner was uh not justified uh was eror the correct decision is that lot 250 is BU a lot and we're asking that make that decision and over tray thank you for clarification yes um Ed are you talking about the Gallagher case versus the Palou zoning board of appeals or a different one no that one that one yeah okay thank [Applause] you could yeah you're yeah yes um good evening M chairman members of the board thank you for your attention uh my name is conelius Hurley Jr who has been mentioned here uh this evening and I I Rise just to make uh a few points um number one um I am am extremely disappointed that uh my father's testamentary intentions have been brought up in this forum Council for the applicant brought them up before commissioner Gore he was reminded uh by our Council that probate court is the place to iron those things out he exceeded and agreed uh that that was the case and we thought that was the end of it uh I can only say that he has the facts and the circumstances is in this case completely wrong so I reject his conclusion uh that he just described to you about my father's test testamentary intentions um uh number two um I was the trustee that held for the trust that held lot 250 my father asked me to do that my father also asked me to transfer that lot to Mr Co pain for the express purpose of making lot 32 a buildable blot because he had been told that lot 250 was essential in order for a driveway and a septic system to be put uh on it to service lot 32 to make it a buildable lot not to make lot 250 a buildable lot and and finally just as a matter of housekeeping um on two occasions um I submitted a Freedom of Information request uh to the building department for all of the books and records and as you know under the Foya law the uh Keeper of the records has to either give you the records or explain why he is not giving you the records so I was shocked and disappointed when I found as an exhibit to Mr Kirk's filings and private communication between Town Council and the commissioner and commissioner Gore with that was not given to me that was not even uh denied permission to me so apparently uh the uh ATT attorney client privilege only exists between Council in this case and town councel but not to other parties so just as a matter of housekeeping I put put that out has nothing to do with the conclusion of this case other than the fact that Council for the applicant has completely misconstrued the the language of Mr Duffy in the memo that that he provided as an exhibit I think it's exhibit three he indicated that commissioner that Town Council decided conclusively that lot 250 was a buildable lot and as you have pointed out that such was not the case no he stated that the 96 decision gave a blessing to lot 250 he did state that the memo did not not say either way what it was for in all due respect to your comments I understand and that that was also July 29th and you did not get a copy of that I have a copy of that and I also have a copy of his most recent letter of uh of November 3rd uh and I I think if we if you would reread the paragraph he is saying that Town Council endorsed this board finding that lot 250 was an independent lot oh I see what you're saying but what his testimony was a little while ago was not what was stated I I'm simply offering his language in his no okay thank misunderstood I'm happy to answer any questions to you my hand yeah so so uh you mentioned that the when when the house was built on lot 32 um the purpose of uh putting the driveway across uh 250 was that was recognized by uh I guess by your father it sounds like yes why at that time didn't uh they merge those two lots officially U that's that's an excellent question I I suppose it never occurred to them it um I can only speculate uh as Attorney Morris has mentioned the house built on M 32 is oversized there is a giant room that they are prohibited from using uh perhaps why they did not merge them is that they independed to someday put a there or perhaps it would seem it would be to their advantage to merge them in that case right yes well I think that's what attorney Mars is saying that the law should do now is uh accomplish uh what actually was intended by the parties at the time okay but you but you don't thinking back on it no insights into why when that driveway was built that the two lots weren't formally merged there there wasn't any discussion of that I I I can only speak to my father's intentions uh at the time and he uh had been told and knew that plot 250 was essential in order for lot 32 to be buildable it was not his belief that in transferring lot 250 he was transferring a build of a lot so in answer your question perhaps they felt that a facto merger had in fact happened if lot 250 was going to be burdened with a driveway and aseptic system in his mind then uh then perhaps the actual U legal merg was not considered necessary but I'm speculating and and when 32 was built was there a there must be a septic system that was installed at that time there is there is a septic and it's and it's self-contained and that and that is that was the disappointment of my father is that he had been led to believe that se septic system was needed an essential to be located on 250 and then when he found out that that was not the case um you can imagine his reaction right thank you anybody else have any questions mrle okay thank you so why don't we have probably some board discussion right and how feeling before we do anything else well I can there's case law there's a lot of testimony a lot of complex legal consider ation and a lot of owners uh to sort through lot of dates and dates my personal feeling is we've heard a lot of compelling testimony but that it would be premature to actually make a decision tonight we need to I I wouldn't want to look having heard all this I'd want to look back through the files again and uh think about it does everybody else feel I uh I would agree cuz I I like you not familiar with the theano case and since that argument kind of hinges or is Lent support U by that I think it's you know it's necessary that I would want to read it I agree agree yeah agree yeah do you guys want to discuss it at all or no yeah I we can I I I would prefer to wait okay okay personally yeah okay that's fine give us a time to do some what what I would think too and let me know how you feel obviously there's been some question about town council's opinion how it was rendered whether or not it's you know valid or binding on this board I think it would behoove us to get an opinion from attorney Duffy to our Bo about the buildability of lot 250 I agree and we haven't used his services in a little while we were using him very frequently for a period sobody definitely so why don't we have sir request that and then we can come back here hopefully have the opinion in hand um and we'll have the benefit of reviewing everything that's come in tonight so you want the distano case forwarded to you you've already know want the Davis case or the Gallagher case well the Gallagher you should know I can send that out also you might as well read the cases on Philip psky U McKenna other ones conversely so you can see the whole picture on either side and then council's opinion anything else and I'll send all the decisions to possibly in a plot plan is that necessary usually usually in an appeal we don't have it but if the board wants it then it's up testimony there's two driveways encroaching I certainly there is there is a plot plan uh in in the file for L 250 a certified plot plan or the one that was approved by the uh conservation on an RDA and it's in the file I don't remember it I apologize attached to my most recent oh and your most recent one which is it legible [Applause] that's your most recent submission [Applause] Ed is it is that a certified well we don't see a stamp on it do you have the actual size of it and basically is there another page cuz this is showing s tons it it's not showing 250 250 it's showing seven tonset uh the Cain's home but it doesn't show 250 the one that we have is that with his stuff on now SE November 3rd [Applause] you may recall when I was in in the office and you asked me where the septic system was right the septic septic system for the Caines does show on their property 7 tonset but we're asking for a certified plot plan for lot 250 80 cent to it yeah so and that's not what I have in the file what I have in the file is seven tons there's also a plan showing a proposed house on lot 250 that's the one which shows the um oh I'm sorry I didn't see that one I apologize that is D 2013 September 30 it's doesn't have a stamp but it is homes and McGrath what's the date of that drawing you can't see it so small September 30 30th 2013 2013 okay is that sufficient enough for you guys it's not stamp but it is byed today I mean just me a stamp from the grass oh from the grass is that which makes it certified but yeah also while you guys are looking at that um Madam chair how do you want the town council's opinion phrased what exactly back here whether in his opinion lot 250 is buildable okay and certainly I'm sure like a view as well with regard to um form of ownership versus or weight against um control control I think that's okay that may be in how in his decision but that's an an interesting question to get Town council's opinion on whether or not Mero case well I I think we can look at the bylaws for that town number one to see what their languag is because we found that in so many other cases where their bylaws are totally different and different verbage right and the court is just looking at whether or not it's a non-conforming law and whether it's under sized and whether so you want both you want Town council's opinion on control versus um ownership I think it be pretty relevant control versus ownership and then I'll look at the get the bylaw that to that would be great sorry so how are we doing TimeWise as far as when we need to oh we're pretty early we we may have to ask for a waiver because based on this information the review getting a two opinions from Town Council we're looking at early January we've got holidays and stuff right and I'm already booked for most of November December we're trying to figure out from other cases that are going to be continued well were we hold were we you're probably going to get out with this were we holding December 10th I thought we had dece early December I thought we were holding December 10th open oh look at my not for this not for this what else could be more important well they they had their application in earlier right I think January is pretty late to push this off my concern is I I have absolutely no room on December 3rd December 10th is one that's being discussed for continuations of three you don't think that we can F this in on December 3rd huh that was December where are you dear December 3rd we've got the fourth one there this is updated we've got four we've got one here and I was hoping that the other three would go there we can do you know we've done so many in a row you can do another one in a row and do December 17th Ken could we come in at six on December 17th could we do six on December third come in a half hour early okay yeah because I think otherwise January no I agree with you 5:30 no I can't six and we've heard the testimony we've heard most of the testimony we just we will this most of the leg work on this should be done before the meeting yes by reviewing in light of the testimony further reviewing I me justy so so I'm busy town council's busy with town meeting and what happens after town meeting then we've got the other three hearings that town council's going to be tied up with so I'm not so sure we're going to get an opinion in a timely fashion based on holidays town meeting and everything else but if the board wishes to I'd like to ask cram it in on December 3rd you have to make a decision tonight as a continuation date has to be done in the public hearing look we can continue it to that date if we don't get anything from town Council we can further continue it right is Council available on December 3rd before we it's a Thursday right it is a Thursday I'll come down from Boston again okay I have a question about opinion there's really two issues here I just want to make sure if we're going to ask an opinion Town Council it's not only the law but it's also as applied to the facts of this case yes make sure that that right yeah he's looking at he looking at the facts of this case he's looking at the buildability of lot to F right correct yes Madam chairman yes um I'd like to ask that probably on behalf of both Council that we could submit some sort of a summary or an argument to Frank Duffy uh for him to consider so he know he knows what we're saying uh on on the law referencing cases it would have to come through our board so it be a submission to our board attorney Duffy can obviously review our file and we be reviewing if you can get it in the next couple days otherwise we are looking at January right so I I if you want extra time to write that certainly I'm sure we'd be happy to push it push it off I just think January is a little bit long um I I think it's important that uh if if the matters you know that we know exactly what it is the the question that's being submitted and we can then address that well the opinions are pretty specific that you want from Town Council so there summations I know Attorney Morris is going to give summations on the family and the control of the property and list all the chronological dates and I'm sure attorney Kirk is they're both going to submit case law Town Council can just review the file if he needs to but these these opinions that the board is asking is pretty specific well turn the determination is the boards not Town councils well let me let me ask then if you're looking for extra time I know having stuff to write and the deadlines creep up would you sign a waiver that would take us through January 7th sorry um I you need to go a little bit further because the process includes decision writing so right so you you be Absolut okay I'm edable to that so then that's what they want to do it's okay I'm I can still remember the details of the cas know but if that's what the applicant wishes then we can get away January 7th well I mean is that going to be okay with the board based on member Foreman what you just said yeah I mean then I don't have to come in at six on I'm happy doing it either by whatever Mark yeah I'm fine anyone have a preference or no I'm open I will move that we continue this uh to uh January 7th that's okay with attorney Mor we didn't run by you will 6:30 uh okay 6 or 6:30 63030 I don't know we don't have anything I can't vote so somebody else has a second and attorney Kirk I will be sending you the waiver okay thank you thank you and can I have second okay so that was Mr foreman and Mr hurry all those in favor you is there a question is there is there a deadline for submission excuse me we're we're just in the middle of the vote so I just want to um so everybody all those in favor any oppose no unanimous so it'll be January 7th the deadline I mean standard deadline is a week before the hearing well the summations are you talking about the summations they're not in my opinion and I didn't get this from the board so I apologize to the board I don't believe the submissions need to go to town Council it's this board's decision your specific questions to Town Council so anything that you want to submit you can submit to the file and if Town Council feels that he requires any further information then he'll be able to review the file in its entirety and I would and I would just there's a lot of information there so I don't know if even anything new could would even be of benefit but it's just my opinion maybe [Applause] it we all set on that we're all set why don't we take a five minute bre okay I I [Music] oh [Music] n oh [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Applause] [Music] h [Music] e [Music] [Applause] [Music] sure sure are you going to mom um sure yeah I just well I just want to make sure that have the table do you know where all right so sure [Applause] I didn't had a bad day I didn't even make a the car the car is okay I was a buffalo chicken sandwich the buffalo sauce just throw in the [Applause] is that is that our oh did you pause it mhm okay I always forget about it sorry [Applause] okay red ready everybody else there excuse me okay so next on our our agenda I didn't hit my okay we're back um next on our agenda is application number 9515 Village at Old Main LLC 41 Old Main Road North Toth Massachusetts TJ all right being all persons deem affected by the board of appeals under section 11 of chapter 4A of the Massachusetts general laws you are hereby notified that Village at Old Main LLC of Milton Mass applied to the zoning board of appeals for a comprehensive permit pursuant to mgl chapter 40b sections 20 through 23 and 760 CMR 56 to construct eight units on subject property known as 41 Old Main Road North round with [Music] [Applause] mass and for referrals uh concom has no concerns it's outside the jurisdiction uh Health Department uh made a note about the subsurface sewage Disposal system from selectman they generally discuss the importance of a strong regulatory agreement and monitoring program uh there's a correspond correspondence from the Cape Cod Commission there is a memo from the Department of Public Works uh with concerns about the sewer the water parking and access the grading and drainage uh from fouth fire department the family with fire has no concerns uh there's also minutes of the meeting with various department heads and uh correspondences to the board from the applicant yes s um it needs to be noted that that meeting was held um as appropriate as it was to CMR 760 CMR 56 I have a certain time frame to hold a meeting with the department heads and that date October 15th thank you Mr three have you reviewed the file and is the application complete yes okay all right so I will okay thank you m chairman boy uh my my name is Paul Glenn Glen Law Officers in Falmouth uh and I'm here tonight representing Michael solando as he is U the applicant and the Builder and the developer of this um project um so without do tonight um is give an introduction to it and then we're going to have Mike belli from Falmouth engineering who will um talk about some of the uh engineering aspects of it and then Mr salamando would like to talk about the the um the construction and the architecture and talk if you have any questions like that we also have Paul mcski here tonight who did the Landscaping plan if you have any questions about Landscaping so I'm going to give an overview to start with and then try to keep it um somewhat within your regulations if we can uh if I can but I'll be available to answer any questions afterwards if I go any of it too fast too slow um so this is a development up in uh omade Ro in North fou and we're coming here to build affordable housing under chapter 40b of the Mass general laws so 40b you hear a lot about it what is it um what are we doing here and um very simp walk only four sections the clerk just mentioned only four sections of it um there are regulations that uh that interpret it but there are many many programs many programs that's where and they call it a program orientated statute where you have to you have to meet the requirements of the particular program so this is F this is a Mass Housing stocks is what it is so this is a program for home ownership it's not rentals and the the two people that are live in the affordable units will qualify for a mortgage or their own credit from a private bank they're working and they have to have good credit to um get a mortgage this is a home ownership program there are many programs um that we don't have to deal with tonight tonight we're just dealing with this home ownership program so how do we how do we deal with that how do we get in in front of you tonight you go through a long process with the state before we get this they call it a site approval L and we we have that we did go through this long process it started sometime in 2014 wasn't um 100% just going through the bureaucracy part of it is life gets in the way and you you start the project for a while but takes a long time to go through the the state just doesn't give you this letter because you want it um they you fill out a a long application and one of the parts of the application is uh have you visited any local boards to see how they feel about it and if you they don't want to see the answer no have you um if you have if you haven't um if you haven't visited other boards do you plan to so you know we we did you have some referrals we stop by historical district just to get some in um intake from them we want to respect every board um in the town even though this is 40 40b and it's really the zoning board of appeals that gives the comprehensive permit this is the only board that really makes a a decision but um we did go through that process I went to historical district M belli went to a couple of other departments and we try to respect the whole the whole process of it so and we also went to the selectman part of the application process is when you apply you have to give a copy of the entire application to the chief elected official in the town and that town those are the Selectmen and so we've been before them we we talked to them and have done that okay so so here we are we have this uh we we went through this process we have the site approval letter and we've complied with the with the requirements of Mass housing stocks to to get that so now I'll just give you just a general uh overview here we we have this map I I can't see it from here um the red stripes is where the says by path to the right andain road to the left and the school is just a little bit above it is the location there and we like to give you the overview uh of this where Mike cell will give you the particular to show that it it fits in here you know this is we we are looking for relief from zoning that's part of the um that's part of the the the application to do that but right from the beginning when we talked uh uh Michael wanted to do a good project that generally fits in to the to the neighborhood and it's across from a school it's along the bike path near Commercial shopping areas um you can see how close the not the old the bypass up to 151 is right there so we thought this was a good location for it and as we were preparing for it we try to take into account what's required under the both the Town's bylaws not the town's bylaws but the the boards um own rules the state rules and the and the um regulations we're you're looking for a good project that fits in site design that is you we are asking for some some waivers from the um from the town bylaws it's far it's affordable housing we have to it's the only chapter 40b is just about the only way affordable housing gets built in the overwhelming majorities of cities and towns in Massachusetts and the only way you can do it is by asking for waivers from certain certain bylaws so it's eight units two of them are affordable and um why don't I put that up just to right [Music] [Applause] well this does show the not bias the way where we have it looked at the uh the bike path and the highway to the East and the old main road is to the west and the property consists of a existing house this is in the historic district just by the way the the house was built in 1985 though before this was in the historic district so it it is a very nice house the one house that is there but it it's not it's not a colonial house um it's a 1985 house and and that's the that is the one on the South Side that's existing you can that would be this is the existing house okay and the idea was to present matching single family homes from the street so that when you drive by you get a nice streetcape and we have the proposed single family home on the table there they're certainly not identical but they will match and they will not stand out as being out of place then we have three duplexes let's say in the back of the lot the historic district ends here and we have three duplexes they're all the same and we have a that right there they all have three bedro rooms two BS and um part of the part of what we tried to do for the site design was to make this as pleasing as we could from the street and we have a landscaping we got Paul here to talk about the landscaping and so the angles where the house is and everything else is important we don't we don't want to shift at 10 ft of 5 ft in any particular direction because that'll affect all the site views and make it much more difficult to to build also so a lot of thought went went into exactly how to do this it's the buildings only take up 20 a little less than 20% of the lot so 80% of this is is not building if you take the building and the packing and Paving it gets up to about 39% is [Applause] full that conforms to the bylaw we're not even asking for a waiver as far as lot coverage goes we're not asking for a waiver for that and we try to minimize the amount of asphalt we talked to I hope you like it we talked to a lot of people before we came here what what would you like to see and uh we have permeable material materials for for where we're going to be driving a most them I'm going to let Michael and the Michaels talk more about that but this isn't all asphalt this is we try to do the best we could to make it aesthetically pleasing and to um make it uh make have less asphalt really lose it so um so I think that's about the whole General overview I'm sure you're going to have lots of questions um I I'm not sure whether you want to ask them of me now or wait till they make the whole presentation about the particulars here up to you what do you guys think I do have one quick question Paul um when you spoke of the uh site um approval certificate yeah um is it my understanding correct me if I'm wrong was there a revision to the preliminary plan and if so did did that require another uh approval certificate it doesn't so it does or doesn't it does not it it doesn't so yes we did make some changes you know you we really are trying to have a good project make everybody happy one group suggested that um we not have any parking in the front um of this of this building you you'll see this one Mr B Alle Mike makes his plan but at first we had some we didn't have parking out here we oh here they are right here we we didn't have these at first we were going to have all landscaping and that was going to be okay with the applicant he was fine with having all but after we talked to other people they said no we want some parking out front for this unit so we changed that after the original plan approved by Mass housing but they don't care about that you you might but they don't we I don't believe that that plan has been submitted to our board no no the that that's right this is these are just the colored ones to make it easy to see from a distance and the details Mr belli will go through that satisfies my question yeah and and then just to add a little bit to to the answer so the state just doesn't totally draw after they give their site approval letter after you know with I'm being optimistic after we get a comprent comprehensive permit from the U board of appeals then the state reviews it again and they a it they so the state is very actively involved um from beginning not so much middle but then at the end thank you I'll just follow up just so I am 100% understanding the project so the only difference between that plan and the plan that we' Reed is that there's the addition of parking up front yes so no no changes to the parking in the rear I think we should no actually we changed that that that's correct that that's a correct statement so no other changes have been made so the parking at the rear of that dwelling still exists yes well I don't want to say that till to I'm sure there's some technical thing that would change because there was a lot of conversation so that takes parking to 27 29 spaces this real 29 uh the bylaw would require 18 the 16 according to your 16 16 okay all right so do you want to hear from everybody and then have questions or that would be my preference okay everybody on board yes yes okay thank you madam chairman members of the board my name is Michael belli from fouth engineering and I prepared the site plans that are in your package um we've created uh renderings just to point out the general elements of the project you have a the complete comprehensive six sheet set um but a lot of it is details associated with the septic and and other things I want to touch on the general uh project and and the engineering aspects of it I'll start I'll start with this plan which is sheet one of your set that we've add some color to it's the existing conditions plan and it basically shows that the Lots 1.75 Acres with Frontage on Old Main and the very back of it actually borders on the bike path the lighter green are like lawn grassy areas there's a paveed driveway with with parking in the rear it's actually a garage underd designed house because the grade drops off so this is an existing three-bedroom single family dwelling and then there's an out building on the property that's really like a detach garage and I think it was used as a workshop um and then there's a small shed so the darker green is like a Woodland area that's generally what's on the site today the proposed development is shown on this drawing and it consists of u a new driveway that's generally still in the middle of the lot the existing house shown here three-bedroom house and then the proposed other single family dwelling which you have a model of there would be to its left with a front yard on Old Main and then the three uh buildings to the rear each having uh a two units so duplex duplex duplex so there 8 2 + 6 the driveway that leads to all the units is generally in the same location as the current uh driveway it's been widened to provide for uh two-way traffic to town standards it's designed to be circular and then have parking to serve each unit uh off of the main driveway which would allow for us traffic to loop around each of the buildings that is proposed has a garage um a one car garage and they're dashed on here and highlighted on on your plans on um I believe sheet two of that plan set but the concept is that each unit will have a parking space within the garage and then they'll also have a space on their driveway that that's true of uh all of the duplexes the uh single unit will have a single car garage space and then two parking spaces in front of it the existing uh home uh will be served by these two uh spaces in a sidewalk right now there's no uh front access uh for uh there's no parking in the front for guests the way that this uh operates is the residents Park in the rear and they go through the at the back of the house and then in addition to the spaces that serve the units we've scattered some uh guest parking throughout the development just so that other people that happen to visit an individual unit will have a place to park um there's two alongside here so these are like parallel parking spaces and then there's two here and then there's some other parallel parking spaces throughout so there's a total of 29 spaces when uh the BW requires uh two spaces for each unit or or 18 if I did that 60 sorry um there was reference to some referrals in the file we did have some individual meetings with different department uh people we very early on met with the fire department to make sure that the design was going to be uh consistent in in uh acceptable to them there happens to be a hydrant directly across the street so they were happy with that so there was no other need for additional hydrants they're happy with the uh vehicular access um so we satisfied them early on with the way that we had designed the project and the other department we met early on was the water department we met with the water superintendent to discuss what their needs or requirements might be to serve each unit with water and their recommendation was that there' be no water main to the site because then it would be considered a private water M and they wouldn't be responsible for its maintenance but instead to uh tap the existing water M on Old Main with individual water services that lead um to each unit that they're shown in red on here and that way uh each unit would be metered separately and the town would have control at the public road at Old Main which is the way that they wanted that handled and it's just it's better for the developer so we were happy to accommodate them with that uh the topography on the site is such that the driveway slopes down gradually to the lower area and uh since we're creating driveways and we need to accommodate uh um storm water we've designed a drainage system and we've graded the driveway such that um it pitches to appropriate locations where these blue dots are and then it goes into katchup Basin and then it gets piped to leeching pits that are also shown as blue dots these areas are going to be grassy lawn areas and they've been designed to be very very shallow gra uh Gent Al sloping areas that can also accommodate surface water runoff so these uh systems were designed using the ton of felm with subdivision regulations as a guideline to uh collect the uh Road and roof runoff we did meet in one of the meetings we had with um the engineering department and there's a memo in your file that is a result of that meeting and his recommendations and all of all of his recommendations are um good recommendations and sometimes it's good to just have another perspective and uh we we appreciated his input and we're going to accommodate um I think virtually all of his recommendations in the plan there's a couple of revisions that uh we will need to make to accommodate those uh recommendations and we we will be doing that we we anticipated there might be other suggestions that we might want to do one hopefully one revision set and get get them back to you after all comments uh regarding the uh septic system design there's an onsite uh septic system the area is not Ser by Town sewer so we've designed a septic system that's a common septic system designed to serve all the uh all the units on the property and it is shown on this rendered plan in a different color blue slightly darker there's a rectangle here in the center that's the actual leeching field you'll notice these rectangles that are clustered together here these are septic tanks and there's also a pump chamber I didn't draw the individual lines that would go to those but I think you can understand that there'd be pipes that would connect from um in their on your plans that would connect to the tanks and eventually get to the leeching system uh this is some a system called a pressure distribution system it's required in this case because there's um a total daily flow in excess of 2,000 gallons per day which is a trigger for pressure distribution pressure distribution is uh a method but whereby you pump the affluent and it is distributed Under Pressure to the leeching field so there's much more efficient treatment of the Wastewater uh and it it makes for a better overall uh system and it provides um better protection to the groundwater in the the [Applause] environment we also uh submitted a landscape plan to the file the landscape was designed by Paul MOSI and it's um on this board and it highlights areas that are earmarked for um planting beds in green they'd be uh uh raised planting beds with uh a mixture of perennials and grasses and roses and then you'll notice some circles that have uh uh uh letters letter design Nations and there's a landscape Legend on the right hand side and it outlines the various uh trees that are proposed on the site and on the Northerly boundary there's a proposal to um create a a massing of vegetation that would provide a privacy screening uh in consideration of the neighbors and provide privacy to the development the concept of the sighting of the buildings and the orientation of the landscape is is such that we were attempting to make it so there wasn't a direct Corridor view through the site so the trees that are planted in these islands um will break that up so there won't be a direct line of sight to any unit uh the trees and the landscape will interrupt that direct uh line of sight so that it's aesthetically pleasing and it doesn't look like like a COR into the site we've also scattered through the site um these red symbols which uh designate uh lamp posts the concept is to make this have like a village feel so there won't be your typical street lights but instead uh more uh subtle lamp post with what you might you might see at the entrance of a house or a sidewalk that leads to the house so they're scattered through and they're designed to provide adequate lighting for the driveway system each house will of course also have for lights and entry lights the uh driveway surface itself is proposed to not be pavment except for the very beginning the first uh 35 ft is proposed to be pavement but at from that point on as the balance is proposed to be um a crushed shell surface that'll be on set on a compacted uh base of um what they call dense grad blend which is the base material for for all all driveways and Roads so it is uh perious but it is still not completely perious it gets compacted and it can still need assistance to drain so we've designed the drainage system as though it work pavement just to be safe make sure that there's no puddling the uh White areas that are um scattered throughout would be lawn areas there are some tree lines that exist along the South Boundary that we're plan to maintain and there's likely to be some clusters of existing trees that we're able to maintain here and in the rear I think that pretty much sums up the site design and I'm happy Madam chair can you ask him to point out where exactly cuz we don't again have the lamp post on our landscape plan could you point out where the lamp post are so we can see um there's one at each unit near its entry one two three four five 6 78 and then we green areas out in front yes okay yes and in the middle of the driveway where the there's greencape is there any lamp post there there's none propos to you because we believe that there's enough scattered on the outside that they're not necessary okay and you still have the door lighting of course yes okay thank you I'm happy to answer questions yes so I just want to see how the board would like to proed I was just looking at the time so it's 5 of N I just want to be cognizant of that if you want to go through and do a round of questions from the applicant so they can kind of get a sense of what we're looking for and then possibly open it obviously there's some public here so I guess it's important that we have some public comment so I think that makes the most sense but I just wanted to make sure everybody was agree I'm with that okay Mr Co would you like to start sure I'll start with the easy one I guess um Mike um could you explain the reason behind uh I'm considering parking excessive can you EXP explain the reason for uh what was it 29 versus um the required 16 sure um Mr so amando's experience as well as mine and some of the developments that I've been involved with is that um most uh families or residents of these properties will have two cars um but then of course they may have more than two cards if there teenagers living at home and of course they'll have uh guests so the added spaces were uh in anticipation of guest arriving uh they may be uh family gathering at one of the units that maybe by coincidence something happening on a holiday and there visitors so the concept was to have adequate uh guest parking in addition to just the two that are required by the bylaw um was there any consideration of a number less than 29 to say someplace in the middle so and the reason I asked that is um the consideration may have been given and this is purely speculative um without that that number of 29 spaces would allow to not possibly not require a side setback waiver I mean I'm just putting it out there but consideration for a number in between sure I understand um I don't think we I think our thinking on the parking was um since we have a centrally design driveway system and there's an opportunity around that why not take advantage replaces and since it's proposed to be Crush shell um and not asphalt it's a little more subtle uh why not provide it um I guess we could consider it but but beyond that um with regard to the sideline setback issue uh waiver requested the buildings were spaced uh more not for the parking so much is to make the center core uh circular Cesc if you will as wide as possible for a turning radius that that's a good point that's that meets my I would like to point out as far as the waiver from the setback it is only um to bulkheads right on this side it's 8 and 1/2 instead of the required 10 but the main body of the building the corner of it is 11 which meets the set back and then on the North side there's a bulkhead is only 5 ft from the property line but the main body of that building and as well as this bhead is 12 ft um but it was we wanted to be able to put the buildings around a central uh driveway and make the turning radius adequate which is why they were pulled away thank you that's somebody else can ask okay Ken well just to get it on the record I have similar concerns about the parking it seems to me that one additional parking space per unit of total of 24 would be adequate but um I wonder if you could explain to a little bit about how cuz I when I went to the site I noticed there's some relief there how it will be regraded where will you cut where will you f okay we always try to work with the existing topography as best we can and thankfully most of the site is flat the driveway leading in is pitched down but the wider area where the building fronts will be and the driveway and the parking around it are in an area of the site that's generally flat um on the south side you'll notice uh the topography Rises behind the uh if you walk behind where the out building is for instance or if you walk behind the existing building you'll see in fact that there's a retaining wall the the land on the south side of budding this property is higher than the rest um the site has been designed to grade and try to come as close as possible to matching the same drainage patterns that exist in fact uh assistant engineer for the town Scott schoer commented on that that it was a good method to to degrade the site but on the south side it's challenging because it rises up um so on the sou side we have to do some cutting we have to lower the grade behind this unit and um create a retaining wall otherwi otherwise the land is just simply too high on this side and it would wouldn't allow for um construction of these units so there's a proposed Stone retaining wall there's a typical section on the plan and it's designed that at its highest point it's designed to be 5T tall which is you know basically that's at one point at the highest point on average the wall will be 3 to 4 ft in height so it's not excessively tall um it'll be done with stone work that's you know aesthetically pleasing and it'll serve the purpose of allowing this Earth to be retained and this when this is lowered and they'll still maintain be able to maintain access around the side of this in the corner of this unit so that raining wall goes right to the property line it looks like is that correct well it's a couple feet off the property line just so we can build it and not encroach yes and then that's also where you have a a sidey yard setback issue with that bulkhead there this bulkhead is 8 and 1 half instead of the required 10 yes as far as the rest of the raing on the site they will be some minor regrading and and changes in grade but the predominant direction of the land today is north and the lowest part of the land is is here we're going to continue to encourage it instead of working against it but we're going to make sure that this grassy area is in fact the lowest point on the land and we're going to make sure we do that so that there's no potential for any surface water that runs off of our lot it'll be contained on our lot and recharged into the ground so there's a depression very subtle so it's still aesthetically pleasing but it'll be lower the grade will be lower here and and everything is designed to drain from the middle of this this way and from the middle over to this other grassy area over here okay so that leads me actually to another question which is there's a lot of especially on that north side I think well on throughout the property there's a lot of natural buffer that's currently there what are you going to retain of that well in general terms on this side it'll be difficult to retain any that's why we proposed on the landcape plant to create a hedge row along this side once we get Beyond this building there's a large area in this corner of of vegetation that can remain and up in the front corner there's Woodland that can re remain and back here there's uh vegetation that could remain as well I I would love to see you show explicitly on the plan if you could where where you would be retaining natural I can do that buffer up um the Hedge R which I think on the landscape plan you show as just Arbor VY right Western ARB yeah uh just a continuous you know it's it's a little as my wife always says a little like Bradley's parking lot um wondering if we couldn't be a little more creative on that buffer um so regarding the the bulkheads the is there a reason why you don't have a partially interior Stairway to in the basement and reduce the size of those bulkheads and simply have like a little doghouse exit that would potentially get rid of your setback issue there's plenty of space I measured it out it looks like they're 20x 40 open space in the basement we have been thinking of ways to eliminate those setbacks in fact as as most as recently as just before the hair we were in the all way brainstorming and we think we have some opportunities to do that and we're hopeful that we can come up with something that we're we're actually successful on eliminating your subback it might be something as you just described Mr Foreman or it might there might be opportunities to change the configuration or turn the bulkheads to the side or put them in a different place on the units yeah so we we're we are with we're confident we're going to be able to come up with the w but we hear you about your concern and we're going to do our best to try to eliminate those the other thing I wondered about well in reference to the parking which I again I think you could easily get rid of five spots but if you did not and you still needed these the island in the center shows parallel parking and I wondered if you might not reconfigure it so that you made the flow maybe un need one one way essentially or or put the additional parking not as parallel park because parallel parking is difficult well that or maybe we consider when we if we're going to consider reducing any spaces we eliminate the parallel ones and maybe you could you could do that you could probably have a nice landscaped Island and maybe even gain a foot or two and bring those buildings a little further in towards the center you know that would be possible um I guess the most significant am might correct also in thinking these buildings are about 28 ft High 2 I have the architectur as I can show you the elevation so this is the front elevation of the duplex we would be looking 276 yeah 27 6 okay and the single is the same and the existing structure I didn't Michael's saying it's 24 okay um and who who is going to oversee the construction I noticed in the proor there's a construction manager I'm well that's Michael's doing everything can I just address the couple of things that you talked you talked about there quickly with the um the setback and the pocking okay so if if they can do it great you know we try to accommodate it and and get along if they can do it but I I think would what it is though is every if you're in your own house two spaces plenty because when people come the electrician the plumber the L whoever when they come um they Park out in the street you know and so we don't have a street here this these parking spaces most likely will be that that's a street where somebody with a truck will come or something like that okay so they're going to try you know they seem to accommodate and we'll we'll see what we come up with on on the setback if you look at this development uh for affordable housing you're almost supposed to look for some waivers you know you you have in your bylaws a list of waivers because you know we you just in not your by aren't you we giving you a big waiver in density here right well that's that that's a way of looking at it but but in order to do it I I mean the the whole process anticipates wavers you you have in the in the regulations provide us with the list of wavers and if we don't need any waivers you know so I look at that I've never seen one with such a moderate you know we have 60% your regulations the the um the the state regulations talk about open space site design they never talk about compliance with particular bylaws you know so we really did it to try to get the best project so maybe they could do it but just to thinking about oh we're not going to finish tonight I can't tell just in your thought process over the next period of time that that's just part of um affordable housing to ask for some wavers and these are very mild ones and the goal has been to have just a nice aesthetically pleasing project that that's safe and you know I'm not sure you know I know they're both very agreeable I'm not sure how it's going to fit out though in the next day know yeah I mean I I hope everything just just works out but you keep that in mind we you're thinking about you have to have that's part of the whole process is the waivers you know okay so my last question I think the most uh significant issue uh with this has to do with the septic and the fact that you're in the coastal Pond overlay uh we have a a nice memo in the file from the uh cape card commission uh outlining uh some recommendations that a denitrifying system go in and um it seems like an ideal uh type of project because you are consolidating the the flows and you know you have to put in a a fairly sophisticated system anyway why not have a denitrifying system well there's a couple couple reasons in we we did consider it early on and I I can speak to some um performanc driven reasons um there are other reasons that are related to cost and then of course there's the re there is the reason that um there's not a bylaw even that requires it um we understand we're in a coastal Pond overa District The performance- Driven uh reasons are my experience with uh dying septic systems are unless you have a consistent flow in a large flow that is consistent they won't the efficiency on their performance will diminish by that I mean um seasonality they don't work as well to put it in in like real basic terms you you need you need the flow for the bugs to grow basically and to be consistent and to do what they do so um a lot of these units at least what the market is telling Mr Salam is may end up being so um there is a real cost to these so if you spend the money to build this and then you don't get the flow that makes them work efficiently the cost benefit uh ratio drops off pretty significantly in other words you spend the money you build it and then you discover could could we get some info on the the cost the difference uh we can we can get you some info on we don't have it tonight but we can again to me uh I would I agree if you have a single unit but now you've got eight units and some of those may be year round and so you may have Continuous Flow and you can like I said you're consolidating those flows into a single treatment um and I know there are some dentifying systems out there that are working pretty well so um that's uh I think that's my questions for now okay TJ I think most of my concerns have been addressed so far okay Paul uh no no questions actually thank you Ed you have a couple of question one question basically could you move the bulkhead the bulkheads for the you know for the sway move it to the closer to the right on building five and move it to the left on the top one this here yeah almost might make it you okay yeah could you just yeah just state your name for the record as well Michael please Madam chair thank you board my name is Mike Sal I'm the Builder and the Milton Corporation mil Mass uh the answer okay we're thinking about trying to uh turn those to the uh maybe make an effort to turn those to the side okay and do a sideways uh uh set stairs going down okay we were talking about that that'll take it out of the uh I think it will take almost both both of them out uh got make a lot of people than that I can move them to the other side the only thing is that I wanted to keep we wanted to do some screening in here but I could have taken it and put it down into the Celler from that correction um the whole idea was access for uh table furniture and outside furniture to go down into the basement rather than taking it through the house uh that was the idea to answer you a question on the park I just I moved into one of my own developments uh and uh I actually and before the board uh it was in hok which is a coastal town and uh and uh they have many many uh all the different permiting we have to from coastal zone management and all the other on the waterways we're on piles and we're it's on the barrier Beach but uh the things that we had to go through but one of them was a big thing was parking and uh you know we can glad take up some of the parking but I tell you you know during the Sun during the winter months it's not it's not it's not a problem at all and I live there and I had have and we had a required amount okay cuz I also built a marina with it I had to do cars uh for the marina I had to do I had to do uh parking space for each bedroom and then I had to do also uh guest parking for each unit you know some days we don't have enough parking so that's that's why I I I asked my uh to create you know as many as we could get comfortably on the site and that was the only uh that was the only impetus that I see living with it during the height you know during the summer season there a lot of guests come especially we're near the beach we're you know not on the beach but you know it's a beautiful area and uh a lot of people like to come that was the intent but I mean I can think of two right away uh we could we could eliminate those right there I'd like to keep that Just For What U my C said only because the the uh you know we have service like electricians trucks they're usually big Vans or they have ladders or something that come out uh these might you know I'll leave it to the board's discretion we can we certainly have move movement here but uh it's uh I always I thought it would be better to have more than less so it's easy to take off it's not easy to add sometimes there's any other questions you want to ask I have a I guess a list of questions so I don't know who would be the best to answer them I guess you can you can decide um just wanted to check and this might be a mic question a Mike belli question um check on the status of the title five plans I saw in the file that you withdrew your previous plans can I say something good about the developer I I wanted him to qualify I I just think I just asked a question so I'll I'll go through I'll ask my questions and then of course you can say say something at the end I just Mike so so the status of the septic system plan um there's a little sort of uh idiosyncracy with the site and that is and it's not a major issue but it was something that we were hoping we could Prevail with the Board of Health and we didn't so we withdrew our application the exist in house which is there and it's been there for a long time clearly needs a septic system so it has a septic system it has a Title 5 septic system that's over over here it's it's a tank and a leeching pit it was probably installed in the late n late ' 80s uh vintage and I had made reference to this trigger of 2,000 gallons per day requiring something called pressure distribution and Under Pressure distribution you need to do do things like pumps and things this this is part of the land so it's considered part of something called the facility as defined under the title 5 so this uh although this is designed to have capacity for all the units we we didn't initially show a connection from this unit to tie into the the common system because it had a perfectly working system and it would cost more money to do that so I thought I could persuade the Board of Health that it could stay as it is until such time as it might need to be upgraded and then it could be connected but they didn't see it that way so so that was the reference to that so it's just it's just you know it's probably going to cost another three or $4,000 to do the piping and man holes but so will that front house the existing house be tied in immediately or is it just going to be the piping and okay now one of the revisions you're going to see when I make the revisions is that there'll be a pipe from this house that connects into the piping for this system and then it's part of that system does anything need to be done with the existing septic the existing system there'll be a note on the plan that it's pumped at the time that the new systems installed to serve the development this system will be pump dry filled with end and it'll be abandoned in place and then the new hookup will connect to the the big system okay um in the capod commission referral or or comments they talk about upgrades to the proposed upgrades proposed to the existing house so I just wanted to touch on that are any upgrades proposed to the existing house is there going to be any energy Improvement or anything like that I can't speak to that Mike maybe you want to speak to that men yes we upgraded Madam chair we upgraded uh part of the uh heating system as of right now as I have renters in there and we're going to completely uh uh uh renovate it and add air conditioning to the interior and new new appliances there there are number of things that were uh inside the house and outside plan to reshingle it uh restore um cuz the shingles they've got some years on them and then any uh trim boards that need to be replaced we could replace them and uh you know and painted and the inside of the house was kept very well I mean person that owned it before passed away I believe uh was a a carpenter and U and and a Craftsman and the building in back was a cabinet uh he he made cabinets for Furniture so it's quite daring inside so just go through my list here I do have other questions um I guess this is a question for attorney Lynn um status of the condominium documents have they been drafted at this point so condominium uh you can't file complete a condominium till it's actually built you have to file your as build plans when you file the condominium document right so right right I I practice condominium law actually so um but have the documents been drafted I guess is I have a rough draft and and actually preparing um for tonight I went back because it has a very good summary at the end you know the size of all the units and and um the square footage in the different room so that was uh my my fast recap of it so I have and and when I went through it I see I so I'm not ready to submit a file condomin but would you like me to tell you how some of the things that I Pro probably the the important thing with regard to 4B that you that um we should talk about in the condominium dark it's it's a little bit different is somewhere you a few years ago um they passed uh they amended the bylaw they amended the condominium law to say that the U developer could have more discretion how you set up percentage interest okay and just experience through 40b it's caused trouble where if you went by the old formula of fair market value okay so if you if you if you go by fair market value the affordable people will pay about a third of what everybody else does and that causes real friction um in the that causes friction within the development then so no matter how much you disclose it to the affordable people they forget they're excited about buying to the market rate people they just forget that they might have to pay a higher share of condominium fees because of the subsidized units being worthless you see what I mean so I we made a decision that they're all going to pay equal so it'll be 12.5% each so that doesn't seem fair right you know we have affordable people how do they how do they do it so that really comes off of the profit from the developer because the the cost of the unit comes down if the condominium fees go up and we with that's how we plan on doing it to have them all the developer is taking a hit up front and then all eight units pay the same thing instead of the market rate units paying too much you couldn't do that I forget which year it changed you you couldn't do that a few years ago um but now they give you that flexibility I think it was because of this because of the conflict that sometimes developed within unit so he'll he'll be selling the units so they have a formula depends on the interest rate depends on the on the the income of the you can't spend more than 30% of your income if you um and you based on somebody that makes 80% of medium family income and it depends on uh interest rate and condominium fees so the condominium documents will have that he'll and that'll take that that's an expense to the developer up front but it's really the fairest and most full disclosure way to do it we think okay thank you um will the basements be finished or unfinished as un okay right you they're going to be unfinished okay well will be we be provided I guess what's the exterior materials on the new units see sh okay sorry and I apologize but there are people watching from home um so it's Cedar yes okay shingles yes okay and there's Lighting on is it just one light on each unit um because we haven't seen a lighting plan of the interior of the unit the exterior they'll sh there'll be a large Carriage lamp um where uh at the entrance will will there be lights also outside of the garages yes I'm trying to picture it in my mind that's well I why I hesitate there'll also be lighting outside the deck okay um I think it would be helpful for us when you do the revised plans to indicate not only the lamp post but also where the lighting on the units will be as well I know it would be helpful for me um obviously we've had the discussion about um um movement of the bulkheads and I also have the same concerns about parking um that Mr foreman and Mr Cole addressed um does the affordable unit the existing house have a garage the front no it doesn't but it has a walk up basement okay so all the other units in all the other market rate units have a garage in the affordable in the other affordable there's one of and the other one of the duplexes isn't affordable as well but none of them have a walk out BAS basement so that's where you say it it kind of balances it balances because you have that whole that entire wall exposed that that can be added to D living space does it have a finished basement uh no but it's it was it was used as part of a workshop another part of the workshop that of the of the the gentleman that was a a Furniture maker okay I mean it's beautiful it's wide open all steel frame so there's no column so there's Ian there's a lot it's an expansive place without any instructions okay um I noticed that you have the two and I know that this is something sir had raised previously that there are two a the two affordable units are cited next to each other no then I'm sorry we we move that oh you have there's an email that I received today from Attorney Glenn stating that he agreed to move on across the way to a condo unit okay so the front the front building then will remain the existing building will remain in aordable correct and then which is the other one of the re ones the r one in building four 4B or something this one right here okay thank [Applause] [Music] you okay I do have [Applause] more oh I take a lot of notes um the dimension the setback from the street from the road I didn't see those on the plans I might have messed up I'm just the the existing house is 718 8 in and the new building we're proposing is 51 ft from the front okay so still substantial okay I'm trying to do this as quickly as possible I guess I have some questions for Mike forel I was taking down notes I just want to confirm that you designed the proposed drive or you designed the um storm water system as if the drive were pavement is that correct okay yes because in my opinion um it has some permiability but the sub material that is the same as under a pave Road when you compact it it's it's it's close to being impervious so uh it will absorb the like first rain but if you get any substantial rain it acts as though it's paved so you have to be safe and just make sure you design the strainer system big enough so that's what we did okay um was there any consideration to any other material besides Crush shell some people might like I let mik speak to that I just thought uh we have it in the existing uh project that I have now and it's it really looks I mean really it really looks good it's very I I thought it was very cap gotish sorry that's that's where it that's where it comes from it's not an aesthetic concern I guess my concern would be maintenance of that so having the condominium maintain that moving forward well you can buy this like what we do is we have an allotment in our in our home spe all right that we have we have like about $1,200 that we have we haven't used it yet uh and we 3 years uh we're up and going and you can it's it's actually uh the more in expensive than PTO okay okay you can you can buy a a truckload or a trailer that go for 350 you'll probably pay about $450 extra dollars to truck it to you but you can get uh you know uh 28 time uh 600 bucks to you do it's it's affordable it's affordable okay was there any consideration given I guess this would be oh it's probably a design consideration but conditioning the number of cars that unit owners can have on the property well you usually have one per I I've always been one per bedroom one years most of the developments that have done one per bedroom plus a guess so you would say four on a bedom yeah okay are the that's that's me you know but I mean usually you know I mean you could limit them but you going you can limit people to two cars but then they're going to have gas and what happens if they have you know a child you know you one of the parking spaces is is in the garage but if they have a child or two children or they have a daughter come you know you know somebody comes and visits there's going to be extra cars are the parking spaces that are immediately adjacent to the garages on these units going to be designated as either limited common area exclusive use to those units uh I would say yes okay the one the way we Mike's got got it I think brilliantly he's got you know he's got the one great off here for this one can be this way one is going in here and uh and then we can have um one of these options to to one of the other but you don't use them all the time and in living together most people don't mind that you have a you know no be mind as long as there's plenty of spaces once you know once there's not a lot of spaces uh then people start to have have problems with each other okay the the I think that this is an old plan but I just want to confirm that the Norway sprues have been removed from the neighboring property line is that true okay um I also I know Ken had mentioned that he would like to see where the wooded areas are being remaining that would be nice to see as well um and I would this is just a personal preference but I would like to see some larger trees on the property um if they could be dispersed throughout some alternative because you go out onto the site right now there are a lot of trees it's a heavily wooded site so I think that over time it might be nice if there are some areas where a couple larger trees could be interspersed that would be something that I would have a preference yeah we have a list of plants that we are put thank plant which are right here in the U actually you can keep this and this is the sort of the main tree that can go to the clerk Y and he'll stamp it up thank you uh I would like to move that we continue on to yeah let's go v a 10 I really do second okay so that was Mr Corman and Mr Co all those in favor I I so I'll keep it short uh as far as additional trees are you referring to possibly shade trees or shade trees okay yeah cuz we're going to lose you know I Michael end up laying out where the where the trees will be kept but we will lose a bit of that and and although I will say that what we have for shade trees at this point on the site are primarily locust trees which you know they're all growing very closely together and U so I think we can amend that very simply okay thank you okay so that will be all my questions right now Ken do you have any questions well I was going to suggest you so I actually I had I did have two other questions well one that as occurs to me as K going through the site planning um which is trash how how are we dealing with trash on this site we all have the uh the uh garages except for they be affordable which will have the basement the walk out there's there's an existing door there so I would say that uh we're going to have a pickup a weekly pickup individual yeah the houses are yeah I I I don't want to put a dumpster on the site I I I don't think that's a site as tight as this I I don't think it's uh I don't think it's the right thing to do okay and then actually the second one was perhaps a question for for Paul which is the monitoring agent and how that's all going to work so the we have a uh it starts with housing assistance courp that is going to be doing the the lottery they are the lottery um and that's one whole thing in itself they will qualify the affordable um buyers they'll help them get their loans and that's what they do but that's not enough for the state we have to have somebody a separate entity monitor monitor the lottery agent to make sure that they did it right and mik pays for all this to to do that and so we we have two entities that will be doing that I think I'm close to 100% sure housing assistance c will be doing we he's already signed the contract with I was an assistance C to do that they have a lot of experience said and we talk to them a lot already and they're excited about it they will they're like the real estate agents in many ways you know and they get a fee for that for putting on the whole thing they do that but it's not that the state doesn't trust them but they just have regulations that say we have to hire a monitoring agent to make sure that the lottery agent is is doing it right and we haven't decided on that yet how who's going to be the monitoring but Mass housing who is the project administrator will require it there's no question I just you know we we do have locally we have the Housing Trust and so forth I was wondering well any consideration might be given to uh taking advantage of that no qu for the no question for for the monitoring that that's uh for the monitoring I um so we we haven't decided on that that happens afterwards and the state has certain list of people that um they accept you know I mean i' I'd much rather have founding uh trust do it I'll call them up you know to see what they can do there if they can monitor it but I'm not sure if they're qualified under the state guidelines to do that I'm not sure about that we haven't we haven't decided on that yet he's talking about the Monitor to Monitor the monitoring agent vmou Housing Trust can monitor but to monitor the monitoring agent he doesn't know if they're qualified by the state to to to modify the uh to monitor the agent that's going to sell right exactly that's what I was explaining to him and then you know just to when you get to a company he has to hire an accountant you have to hire the st's accountant um pays for both of them to really not just not just go over everything a little bit but every check every bill they go over and it's a big expense you know you heard maybe you heard things 10 years ago or something now this this is very highly regulated all this uh all this especially where um someone's the Builder and the developer at the same time you know I think it works best that way to have a the build to be the developer they really put their heart and soul into it instead of just have it run by the money run by the money and the numbers um you know you can tell Michael is really into it you know doing this so it works well having somebody be the developer and the Builder you know that's and they audit that even more and just Michael didn't I wanted Michael to qualify himself I'll just take a s Michael has had experience with Mass housing before he's never done 4B before but he's been a a builder for a long time and he builds really nice homes these are you can't see how nice these are by the pictures that you have in front of these you know these are going to be very you heard the seed of shingles these are going to be really nice homes people are going to be very proud to live in them so I had to throw that in Madam yes oh s has some questions um I know um at the meeting that we had we talked about the existing dwelling and the fact that there was a garage there and it's been used as a workshop and the entrance to that is around facing it's around the southside of the dwelling the door that's actually being used I believe with and I don't see any steps on any of the plans or anything so I don't know how they actually access it but my question is is it possible to bring that back into at least a onecar garage so it wouldn't any different than any of the other units just out of curiosity I I I think you value actually devalue the building because it so what is that being used as Michael well it's it's used as a workshop it was used it was being used as a workshop they were but it can be used as a playroom it can be used you know it can really be used as their basement type area yeah is an active basement cu there's all windows along there plus a door that go out and that I mean originally we put these here okay we had these parking spaces here orig right then the uh hisor the historic commission asked us to take them up so we took them up and then we came back in but the only way into this the only way into the house was through here or have to walk up a set of stairs and go through this store which was burden if you were carrying packages so or if you having guests to have them walk through your basement or have them come up here and walk around cuz these were pretty steep stairs coming up and there coming this way to the kitchen so this was great cuz we talked and and we decided we're putting we had to put these back so that's why we added these two other spaces here but we have see if you had children and more than likely this affordable will have children it's a great little place in here play throw basketball or or do something of this nature here um and then we we had some other we took some parking out of here and we put it over here um but I really think we we'd be lessening uh I'd much rather have a walk out basement okay with more living space so you took one of those see we don't have that plan so you took one of those parking we had three over here good okay we we decreased this when we brought this over that looks better so they could have a visitor who would come in or even even if you were bringing packages youd come right in your front door just for the board's information that was discussed quite heavily at that town department meeting that we like the idea of having the parking spaces in the front versus when they explained how the people would have to access that existing dwelling it was far more palatable to have those parking spaces out in front number one um with the uh crushed shells how tough is it during snow removal do you have to replace those every season I know you said you haven't had to replace yours we we but with the plowing we well they they do they can it's just but whether you had PE PE s uh or whether you had shells they you uh they just get red out for the most part and you can rake them other beds and like I said uh probably every two years you might want to come in and uh and then get a fresh load but it's not uh uh we've been there for we've only had we've had a half a load and uh and and I I'm storing half the load on on on site right now but I we have 14 units it's a huge it's it's it's a huge Place uh that we just got through a building on your on your snow removal I'm I'm assuming that's another thing that'll be in your condo docks um that'll be private obviously where are you going to store the snow on the site probably in the grass area in between the buildings in between the buildings okay and as far as the trash pickup is that going to be curbside or is the private trash going to come in and go around the drive private that's why we want to make sure this is wide enough of course for emergency and safy emergency service vehicles that would come right around in here and he' probably pick up we have that alternative development of an in they have they come once a week okay 25 bucks a month great thank you that's it thank you I think now it would be helpful since we've definitely given some direction to have some public comment um since I know that there's public here so would anybody like to speak in favor of this application going to review the time frame for the speakers yeah oh so so we limit public comment to 2 minutes per speaker um if you would like additional time we can certainly um entertain that request obviously it's quarter of 10 there will be other public hearings on this we're not closing this we're not deciding this tonight by any means um you heard our comments obviously and we always say that it's a quality not necessarily A quantity thing so if somebody already said what you want to say um we'll duly know that um so does anybody want to speak in opposition I gu or just speak I suppose speak they've got they've got to State opposition or support yeah opposition Roger L 33y old main I'm the propery um I've had this conversation with Mike yesterday um we did talk about his site plan uh attorney gy said site plan design matters I agree um and I'm I'm standing in kind of opposition to the site plan I don't think it's a particularly creative uh way ranging buildings I suggested that the site could be used much better if it was detached units so some of the units in West palas which would allow units to be put around the perimeter of the property probably creating a better Cy flow uh also moving units back this is this is a treed uh buff about a little over 20 ft here and the bike pass is on the other side uh it would seem to me these units are all pushed more to the front of the property I think it would be better if they maybe separate these big boxes you just can't put those the boxes are creating this and I'm suggesting that by making them individual that they could be pushing around the property for and create a more attractive Center space uh for the project um also that would also allow moving even this proposed further back I are um so that's what I'd like to see I I I think this is kind of a cut and paste of Pine Street uh the buildings very similar I think uh I'm not saying that as an accusation but Pine Street is a different kind of project with a different kind of site there's a rectangular site that just doesn't lend itself to these big boxes being arranged on right 21 p is what he's talking about1 um so that's something I'd like to see considered I think it I think would make much more attractive project I also suggested M probably make more money what he's building here we did some research and I I think you're probably right actually um the other thing I wanted to uh talk about in the Shell driveway we've got all these units coming in and out of this driveway uh can be a pretty noisy surface um if it's not uh that prvious I don't see why we have to have it uh you know we've got all we've got two cars coming in going all day long so the neighbors going to have to listen to this uh the noise and it's a very quiet neighborhood so it would be quite apparent um I'm concerned about lighting on the site uh what's what lighting is going to be on all the time what's switched on the height of the lighting what that does to the lighting in the in the neighborhood U I have some other conditions that I'm concerned about in the condo docks in terms of restricting them to six months leases and I got had some discussion about this so that we don't get weekly rentals uh par putting the weekly rentals Pro disruption to the neighborhood and the other occupants of this as well um we have't and I'm going say I think Mike is is working in good faith uh we don't agree on everything um we don't have we would like to see you know concerned about we are too are concerned about the wooded area here and we're also concerned about what gos are I think those things have to be wor out I'm sure we those out but my biggest point is I'd like to see a better design I'd like to see a more creative design uh I think the neighborhood deserves it and I think it would be better for the for all the neighbors if if this is something that we have to uh live i' like to see it be as good as could possibly be so thank you thank you anyone else like to speak you could just provide your name and address for the rec uh good evening my name is Alexander Shay I live at 91 Winslow Road in North Falmouth um and my mother's house is exactly across the street from the the proposed um development and I I I think I just have one concern um and that's mainly that the north Alou has been a small community for the um 40 plus years that we've lived there the the elementary school is just a few houses down from my mom's house and there are uh there's a development going in on the other side of the school on Old m road that will have nine um nine hom homes uh at the beginning at the Four Corners of of North Falmouth there's a a unit with eight a building with eight units and this is another proposed eight um Eight houses um with possibly uh 29 cars coming in and out and it's a it's a neighborhood that is um very close to the bike path there are lots of Walkers there bikers there are tons of children who walk to and from school and it seems as if um having all of this extra traffic and cars driving up and down old main road is a is a a concern a safety concern and a u probably a quality of life concern so those are that's really what I want to say thank you thank you anybody else like to speak hi I'm very Granville I live at 33 Old Main Road um adjacent to this property right here um I just want to say that I am very very concerned about the traffic uh old mainroad is very very busy in the summer and to have this many new people coming into the neighborhood and using that roadway is a very large concern of mine the other L uh concern of mine is um that um just I'm just concerned if we do have to look at the Box why is this box a little less deep than this box which is adjacent to this house which impacts this house really this is less deep at least on this plan than this one this is the one with the bulkhead issue it's right on a property line right on a property line and um that is the concern I don't understand why that would have to be that way um so that's one of my issues [Applause] and um but the most the most issue is the number of people want that OCC this the condominium doctum is also I disagree with my husband about 6 months I think it should be one year cres uh one year um fral and not 6 months because that would mitigate some of the traffic in and out uh possibly and the and add to the quiet enjoyment of the neighborhood this is a single family lot that we now developing with eight houses and how we would prefer it to be a single family we understand that we don't have any any litigating Force to change what propos but I just want to say that that's all I have to say I have a question um Miss Granville one question um can you go to the map and show us relative that southern boundary where approximately your house is well my house is is probably here but my bond is right here okay and what would you say just a rough estimate as to the distance from uh the closest portion of your house to your the edge of the [Applause] boundary what's it my H okay there you we have plan of our right here that's right this okay I'm just trying to get a feel for it I mean nothing accurate this is the bar that's the barn okay okay so we come out out that door that's okay very good thank you would anyone else like to speak in favor and again you will have another opportunity I'm sure okay so what we're going to do obviously we had a lot of comments public had some comments so we're going to continue it so how you want to review I mean what what you've discussed with them that you would like to see the landscape plan the lighting plan sure um cost comparison on waste waterer disposal cost comparison on waste going to a denied system I had uh lighting plan landscape draft documents one thing that this board always requires is draft documents for the board to review and what we do is we send them to Town Council at the end all the blanks are filled in so that is something that this board does always require draft documents including a monitoring agreement Regulatory and um Master deed how long do you think information is going to take Paul as we look at a date well our um applicant here is getting a new hip next week right I I think perhaps might slow up I mean it take to do this I suppose right well no just to get the plans and uh docents because we'd like to be prepared when we do you know and I I'm optimistic but you you want to be a little realistic right come but I mean it just by the time Mike gets all it by the time everybody does all their work and they wanted a week beforehand not the day before right so what what what are we looking at all do you think you guys need two weeks three weeks four weeks um three or four three or four I think we need four cuz you you wanted week ahead of time oh yeah right so I think we need three to get it and four for the hearing you know it's hello well there a motion well we have decide on a date so this is the 5th of so that would be the first Hearing in November of December well there's December 3rd which we're already adding one to December 10 you said is Jam will be jammed or can we move we don't know yet we won't know until all the attorneys get together on the other cases to find out what date that date is one of them for three hearings we won't know that for the winter by that's sure what's blowing in the wind you want to put it on with the wind turbines oh a 40b and the wind turbines one night that'll be a long night I mean You' basically reviewed all this you you've basically gone over all this you're going to get everything a week in advance I don't anticipate the hearing being an all evening thing so if you want to put it on I mean what's on the third that's so are these big cases yeah I well the first one um is two it's a variance and a special permit and I'm sure you're going to have a few people out for that then we have I can't remember what the fourth one is I apologize it's up to you you can you can continue the other hearings further into the future I don't care it's up to you guys move for the third I really would a six come oh since you're since you're okay suggesting okay so December 3rd at 6 R we're just you know we're here every week so um is there a second for that is that date work for you sure okay yeah yeah does anybody want to Su at that motion December 3rd at 6 I don't know if I'm a voting M but I'll second I you can yeah well it's obvious the five voting members are here so they were the ones that were sitting nobody recused so um so Ken made the motion second it and Ed seconded it all those in favor that is December 3rd 6 by unanimous we will see you then thank you good luck on the hip yeah yeah [Applause] [Applause] I did not bring the minutes I apologize okay well then we'll do those another day all right you can do them next week cuz you know we have meetings forever every week we do for a while 115 administrative approval requests for 125 it's 10 should be 106 is it incorrect on the agenda says [Applause] 100 relocate ding attorney am is here to discuss this briefly briefly with the board and then see you come in here you go thank you thank you um I I got one for them you guys share and you guys share okay this is a a simple hopefully simple request for the board this is out at 125 P woods and the country club would like to remove the existing um thank you and we'll move the Drivin range up to where isn't there courts there now or something remove the existing tennis courts and relocate the driving range to that location which would put it further off that road there so if you have any questions it's up to you if you want to do this administratively or if you believe it should go to a special hearing I believe the board can do it administratively is my opinion but it is up to you so they're just totally eliminating the tennis courp without any um is this because when people slice the balls going to the road it's a driving range I'm sure there's a 10 or something there's been a lot of changes there's been a lot of changes going on at the club and what they're trying to do is recoup some things Bob you want to explain briefly I'm trying to be U very brief there no new use is proposed in fact there's elimination of use because presently there's a driving R over here and it's moved over here in place of tennis courts in this area at some point in the future they'll figure out where they can put um tennis courts perhaps but this would eliminate so we're eliminating parking or eliminating lot coverage because tennis courts are structured whereas the gra now they're just moving an existing use forward here makes no change in use or change to use of parking I've submitted letters from both uh ter Point condomini Association and B me all 300 homes Association saying they have no problem um with this the golf course in recent in last couple years really was allowed to go to R just about the new owner took over the property which was financial distress pouring money into it and we creating the a golf course fixing up the the club house which also be tremendous am amount of work and and they prefer to have a driving rch over here for a couple reasons we don't have to do anything over here we'll have to come back to Bo go simp want to get this shape to be able to be used new ten court and since special permit issued in 1989 under which they operate because gol cour required a special permit uh says that it's up the board to decide what can be approved administratively what kind of changes so it can be done uh we just think this is exactly the kind of administrative change just moving around the location of an existing uh facility that you can approve administrative and but we did get you the support of the residents so you know it really was a problem that will that will remain grasp there for right now the existing driving range that's correct nothing can be done on it in a development sense until we come back to the board [Applause] how does everybody feel you have any questions questions it be approved administratively s so does anybody have a motion to do that make a motion to do that to approve any may have a second second oh okay so that is Ed and TJ all those in favor ious I don't think I mean you probably can't they all come back I don't think so then have to look in the Poli maybe that's yeah exactly that's what we're get into oh for review and approve revised procedures ad mission statement yeah you put this off last week can we put it off yeah because we have so much time at the hearing well it says me members apped have the power and duty to miss St can we at least get through that Kimberly yes I think we could get through the mission statement right so I was going to say there's one issue that Mark has wondered about and it's it's 202-b and we can clarify it right now okay memb so appointed by the associate members so appointed by the board of Select associate members shall have the power and duty to participate fully in all matters of the board with the exception of voting on decisions on appeals special permits and variant unless otherwise authorized by so this was considered an appeal so yeah so you I guess you can't right yes if you're designated as a voting member but not an open because you only have five members you're an associate you sit but when you are picking a chairman or voting on the procedural rules even associate members certainly in terms of participating in discussion oh I talk all the time course you know me right so I would uh move oh can I move no I can't move no I can't move yeah you can no we're not talking about an appeal moving I'm moving that uh the draft of the mission statement be U voted or ratified second do you want to read it out loud to make sure everybody does everybody remember the mission statement the uh I moved it uh um we approve the mission statement as drafted second okay thank you it might be good to read it just for the benefit of public if anyone event the mission statement of the board of appeals the board of appeals exists to serve the town of fouth and its citizens by interpreting and upholding Massachusetts general laws chapter 4A and 40b and the town bylaws um maybe I would want to change that without derogating from the intent of s statutes and bylaws to accomplish this Mission the board of appeals must be vigilant and its efforts to be ethical objective sensitive non-political and informed with due diligence the board of oh typo board of appeals must make its decisions in a positive respectful and deliberate fashion as the board of Last Resort and relief the town and its citizens must take comfort in the approach which is open-minded sensible and fair the board must take Forma of steps to be conscientious of public concerns and to educate the public whenever possible on decisions rendered by the board you said in your first statement Kim that you want to change something in the first was there something as long as we're doing it do it um yeah and and and that was that what where are you so chapter 4A and 40b and 4 oh comma 40 40b comma and the town bylaws will be fine I think all right yeah that was my reasoning all right so if you vote on it I will get it done in TJ since he's real close can come in I got the other okay Ed circled them for me so um we all know we add a comma after mission in the second paragraph to accom to accomplish this Mission comma thank you can we just um um move to U approve as redrafted as revised amended amended yes that's the right word that's my motion second oh c we'll give it to Ken second Ed seconds all the time um so Mr Co and Mr for all those in favor and then put the procedure on for thank you sorry sorry and then what do you want to do about well tell me discussion I just want to make sure everybody's on board with what I sent you I don't know if everybody's had time for uh the only thing I thought it seems with that um a little lengthy okay I don't know if there's I I thought it was great but I know sometimes Tom meeting gets impatient but it'll goly she starts you should see how long it takes you to actually go through it okay I was thinking about making it a little less lawyer speak to to some exor but as long as everybody's okay with the thrust of what we'll be saying I just want to and I saw you had some images you had like an outline of where these overlay districts are I heard you took a nice phot photo the other day of somebody's house well I didn't know if you wanted me to put that up I had I had originally Dro it to put the picture up then I is good I think it I Maybe not maybe you ought to get a couple a couple even even even ones that we've done recently outside of that one cuz that one's in an AE the other ones are Velocity so I'll talk to you about photographing but I do believe that people CU it's Monday night need to you know Monday night that was Tuesday is it the 10th or the 9th is it on the annual of the special I'm losing track it's on the annual I don't have the warrant on the annual number so it's early it's article three yes okay so it'll be it'll be early so just to remind you good rules on Tuesday the other thing is if you do want to get stuff to for um put up on PowerPoint I don't know what the rules are contact I need to contact Bob Shay and we need to get it to him okay but I'm sure there's a deadline okay so we'll have to figure out the pictures I'll I'll contact tomorrow to David via who I did indicate that we would be I would be speaking Bob Shay if you're going to submit anything we need to let Bob Shay know right but we should let him know tomorrow do we have any F Well I don't know if we'll have any just let them know all right we can go out and get photos and put them up on our computer for Bob if we need to okay although I don't think construction's done on two of them yet okay well that's a under construction yeah okay so I just want to make sure and I'm happy that everybody is bylaw review update again are you going to are you going to be able to work in a couple of those things that I sent you today on it the fact that yes okay CU I think those are very important points I will yeah I'll definitely be adding and maybe amending a REV what were what were those I sent them to everybody without really only only not every area not every elevation changed and we think that the most the change was was prob possibly 2 feet that's what a discussion I had with somebody was so that's something that we can look into I can even possibly ask and see if I can get an answer before the town meeting bylaw review update we will touch on that or I will touch on that on my update a report about the board which I have yet to draft but it will be generally our feelings on that so I I think we have all been on the same page for quite some time correspondence St dates of hearings is that what you want to discuss well yeah I didn't uh you guys have all been giving me the dates and it right now it's December 2nd and 8 Diane tilletson discussed December 10th which is why I kept putting off everything tonight um and I'm assuming since she CC all the attorneys that they've all discussed the 10th so I don't know how you want to proceed you're going to have deal with this November 19th do you want to do it finish it off well I don't mean finish it off but I have another here December 10th well they said they're going to need more for a professional well so that would certainly be town of fouth we might I think we'll reach the conclusion on the other ones at the next hearing 6815 70-15 I don't know and that's you know is that hopeful that might be ambitious but I think that might help um I also need to get um well what do you want to do is do you think because I haven't got an answer on December 2nd and AG yet and I can't keep holding these dates up as you could tell by tonight um these dates open do you want to just so December 2nd we have a hearing December 3rd right so at least if it was December 8th we'd have a day in between however everybody's feeling or do you just want it on December 10th but I that's the scheduled hearing date if everybody's it's our usual night right I'd rather suff through one long meeting I'll just tell them tomorrow that we've we're looking at December 10th and I cuz I don't remember anybody saying they can't do December 10th yeah and that's a that's a date that Diane is asking it went to all the attorneys so I'm assuming I would have heard by now if somebody can't do it and I think that we've given especially the attorneys in all in any case relating to the wind turbine a lot of um indulgences as far as scheduling that we wouldn't otherwise do in other cases um so I think December 10th it's a hearing date everybody's available yeah from our board so that's when it will move forward cuz I I did bring her email it somewhere so that we could see it but she definitely suggested the tent so okay I'll tell her tomorrow that the 10th is what the board will do we'll just keep breing along here every week all right so that's all right nobody else has anything else to say if you do we'll see you next week okay all right next week I thought we were off next week no oh I don't you wish don't I wish [Music] [Applause] [Music] so e [Music] [Applause] [Music]