##VIDEO ID:QxU9OM7YVJw## e e [Music] [Music] e e e e e e welcome to the zoning board uh please silence all cell phones and note that this meeting is being taped by fctv and any private party that might that may want to record this hearing please step up to the podium and request permission I'll introduce the board and staff on my far right is Mark finin coming in this way is Scott Peterson to my right is Frank Duffy the clerk my name is Suzanne Murphy chair to my left is James Moss Vice chair to his left is Tony Puchi associate and Nick Haney other associate we have Norine Stockman the zoning administrator and Ashley Dello the office assistant the zoning board of appeals is charged with applying the state zoning statutes as well as the town zoning bylaws and reviewing and voting on any application all decisions are made through the public hearing process our goal is to hear testimony from the applicants and the public and to allow a full and fair discussion of the project prior to closing the hearing process in reaching a decision number one to begin each hearing the clerk will read the public announcement for the hearing and read pertinent information from the file two the applicant of the applicant's representative will then have 15 minutes to make a presentation but the time may be ex extended by a vote of the board three the board will then question the applicant and four the public will be invited to comment comment should be limited to 2 minutes and be strictly re related to The Proposal all members of the public wishing to speak should wait to be recognized by the chair and should come to the podium please state your name and address for the record and speak into the microphone it will amplify your voice voice and record audio for the fctv viewers and we also have a time where if anyone has a public comment for anything that's not on our agenda tonight you're welcome to come up and have a comment we we won't comment on your comment but you're welcome to come up to the podium anybody want to make a public comment so we'll move on so we have two withdraws tonight and a continuation and I i' would like to ask my board if it's okay if we do those all I move we take those out of order a second so we're list yeah okay anybody have any discussion on that all those in favor I I opposed all right so first up we have case 07724 P Pagan Lamers are um it's 30 Foster Ro fouth requesting to withdraw without prejudice mam chair going I make a motion to allow a withdrawal of 07724 without prejudice second it and we have a with Motion in a second any discussion all those in favor I I opposed none and then we have case 10524 Foster LLC acan also pertaining to 30 Foster Road a withdraw without prejudice Madam chair I make a motion to withdraw uh 10524 without prejudice second it any we have a motion and second any discussion all those in favor I oppose none and then we have case 10624 lawren Lynch reality cor at 160 Tommy B Landers Road in hatchville um uh requesting a continuation to February 13th M chairman I'll move to continue 10624 to February 13th second any discussion all those in favor I oppose none and then our first case is a continuation zero Melrose in FAL we do have a to be says to be read yeah we have a letter to be read in and we did get a few letters on this I think we have we have four letters possibly five but um we did get a letter from um Michael Curtis 26 Powerhouse rot and F he doesn't ask that it be read but uh he may be present to testify um received this we have a letter from Marilyn McMillan five milrose Avenue but she says she plans to attend and will speak so we won't read her letter um we do have one letter from a gentleman who said he will not be able to be here and ask that it be read into the record it's from Mark harmsen he currently resides in Pasadena California uh Mrs M de Miss Murphy and members of the zoning board of appeals we wish to respond to some of the claims made and issues raised at the most recent Hearing in November one we continue to be concerned about the property's change of use we noted previously that replacing a small garage with a 2 and a half to three story single family residence seems a significant change of use regardless of the footprint of the structure extrapolating the date of the existing garage's construction based upon the construction date of The Residence at number five melro seems illogical in the early 20th century garages were not always built on the same owner's property to to what extent is a zbaa required to base its decision on actual evidence rather than surmise there still seems to be no hard evidence as to when the garage was built we are also concerned about the accuracy of the dates cited by the Sullivan's attorney who claims that our house at four Melrose was built in the 1920s it was built in 1905 or prior to 1905 we have photographic evidence of this Fact Two we continue to be concerned about the lot size existing Law requires a minimum lot size of 8,000 square ft to build a residence the applicant's lot is substantially under that requirement arguing that an exception should be made based upon the fact that some houses in phit community currently exist on smaller Lots seems illogical given that those homes were built under entirely different zoning regulations from 1920 or earlier three regarding the proposed structure's impact on views and Vistas we iterate that the design of the proposed structure is strikingly different from the design of the neighborhood homes please note that we have no problem with the structural alterations approved for 10 Melrose because they are very much in keeping with the neighborhood Aesthetics we disagree with the civan attorney attorney's claim that the proposed structure should be approved because its design is not modern whatever word is used to describe the current design its lines in materials are not consistent with those used in other homes on Melrose Avenue we continue to oppose this application as currently presented we appreciate your consideration of our concerns respectfully submitted Mark s [Applause] harson said there are other letters on file but I think we read them at previous meeting great thank you go ahead Kev good good evening Madam chair members of the board uh for the record Kevin Clow uh I am before you representing Larry and Valerie tan uh who live at 345 Grand a but the owners of this property at zero Mel Melrose they are as you know seeking permission to raise and rebuild the existing non-conforming structure at our last meeting there was some discussion relative to changes to the Massachusetts general laws that make this existing structure legally non-conforming without the necessity of definitively establishing that it was constructed prior to 1929 I provided this board with correspondence uh detailing those changes last week hopefully you've had a chance to digest but I'd be glad to review and to put that on the record historically uh you had to establish that a use of structure was lawfully established prior to a zoning change to be considered legally non-conforming and to make use of chapter 48 section 6 or chapter section 240 10.2 a of our bylaw however chapter 184 of the acts of 2016 which is entitled an act relative to non-conforming structures took effect uh November 2nd 2016 and that that amended section 7 of the zoning act in order to clarify the status of structures that were constructed in violation of a zoning ordinance bylaw pursuant to that Amendment non-conforming structures that violated zoning laws at the time they were established are deemed lawful pre-existing and non-conforming if no enforcement action is taken within 10 years and therefore eligible to make changes and alterations pursuant to section 6 into any local ordinance or bylaws regarding non-conforming structures section two of that act specifically states that that change is applicable whether regardless of whether that structure was erected prior to or after the effective date our bylaw itself correlates directly to those sections of Massachusetts General Law chapter 48 uh section 240 10.82 of our bylaw specifically states that structures that qualify under General Law chapter 4A section 7 are considered non-conforming structures or are entitled to treatment as such as provided in the section all of which is a roundabout way of saying that establishing whether or not the garage was constructed prior to 1929 is not relevant due to that amendment to chapter 48 section 7 and the plain language of our bylaw it's clear that since the structure is clearly more than 10 years old it is considered legally non-conforming and therefore eligible to seek relief under 48 section 6 and or by a special permit pursuant 240 10.2 a also at our last hearing there were some uh res reservations expressed relative to the size of the lot and whether or not it would be appropriate for the proposed by right use as a single family dwelling this property is 3,711 Ft we proposed a building footprint of 591 s ft which results in lot covered by structure of 15.93% this includes two interior garage parking spaces and two parking spaces in the driveway The Proposal meets all setback and lock coverage requirements as I noted in the this would be a unicorn it is the rarest of rare things it is a house in a Heights that is not conform not non-conforming at all to lot coverage or setback requirements these Lots were largely laid out in in the 1800s lots of this size and smaller are incredibly common to the area and houses are built on those lots those houses are certainly suitable for use as single family dwellings this is no different in fact this proposal is more conforming to the bylaw than those existing structures and would by no means be out of character within just a few hundred ft I was able to identify at least 25 homes on lots of 3,900 or less Square ft those properties were set forth in a correspondence of those 25 homes the average lot coverage by structure is 42.5% this proposal again is 15.93% entirely in character with the neighborhood in terms of lot size and in terms of the size and style of the dwelling under Section 240 10.2 a a non conforming use or structure can be changed um so what we're trying to do is change this existing non-conforming use to a conforming use it's a single family dwelling which is allowed by right in zoning District the proposed structure will conform to all setback and law cage requirements does not create any new dimensional non-conformities does not impair public views and Vistas and reasonably conforms to the neighborhood further this proposal meets all the standards that are set forth under 24121 the lot is adequate in terms of size for the proposed use as noted there are at least 25 Lots within a few hundred ft that are similar or smaller than a subject property used for the same use as proposed in this project will meet all setback and lock aage requirements the site is suitable for the proposed use the applicants proposed a single family residence in a zone that allows it by right proposal is in compliance and the septics designed without variance there's no impact on traffic flow and safety there's addition of a one-bedroom home in an already very densely developed area but we do provide four part parking spaces where only two are required the neighborhood visual character be largely unaffected again this area is dense with existing dwellings which vary greatly in architectural style and it will certainly be an aesthetic improvement over the existing Garage on this property there is adequate method of sewage disposal water and drainage there's an entirely conforming Title 5 system it's served by MP of water and the drainage will be improved by the implementation of drywalls on the site there are adequate utilities and other public services which are unaffected by this proposal but the public utility already serve the area this project represents a significant improvement over the existing conditions it replaces a decrepit garage that is non-conforming as to use with a functional attracted dwelling that is a byright use in this District it will not create any new dimensional non-conformities and will be eliminating a non-conforming use for all the reasons I've stated I believe this meets the requirements of 240 10.2 A and 24121 E I hope of addressed the questions the board raised at the last hearing and I would ask that you grant this but I'd be glad to address any questions that you might have at this time Mark you want to start off uh yeah I um from the beginning I maintained that this uh garage was constructed closer to the turn of the century um and then the testimony of the neighbor across the street with photographic evidence that their house was built in 1905 I think the uh method of construction um kind of closely matches that um and also you've noted that there are numerous uh structures within a short distance that are on Lots equivalent or smaller uh and if you were to go all through phma ties you'd find many many more um this the board seems to have a bit of a problem with the size of of the lot but um which is 2,1 3, 3,711 um the um State's new uh accessory dwelling uh the statute um which the planning board has put their uh sideboards on it if you would prefer states that um I believe for an accessory dwelling you need only 4,000 ft so so I think it's uh prudent to point out that this this uh lot was U 289 or 290 Square ft larger it would be eligible for two structures um and I again and I have the map here that everybody else has of the original Falmouth Heights I mean that's how Big Lots were I mean many of these that are larger were um you know uh instances where several two or or several Lots were um combined um and uh I just uh is there any um input from the uh building department on this um did they weigh in at all on this um no no I think that say something too um I honestly uh I don't see how this permit can't be granted Scott Attorney Clow do you have the ability to pull up page three of your white paper I feel flattered you call it a white paper okay I don't if you enlarge a tab for the folks the audience are at home we'll test your AG skills not your mathematical skills uh I I think that uh to to some of Mark's comments for me the difficulty uh or what I was thinking was a bridge too far I think you did a very good job in this white paper and explaining the different aspects I'll be interested and defer to some of the attorneys on the board I'll be interested in their thoughts but uh when you looked at the 3711 Square ft and there's a Litany of of smaller Lots nearby and you know your unic Co phrase of this would actually meet all of those conformities it it was very compelling for me um so I I appreciate the background that you gave us on multiple Mass general laws and uh I'll defer my time to hear what the rest of the board has but thank you thank you Mr Peterson y thank uh thank you Mr Clow for submitting that that letter it was very comprehensive and I know you did a ton of work uh because this is a very difficult um area of the law if you were to ever go to a a legal convention people would talk about this all day and drive you nuts like it has has done us I think I'm I'm one of those strange people who actually enjoys it so which speaks more to my my character flaws than anything else but I you know I asked you to to do this because I was interested also to see if you could find any additional evidence apparently you're you're unable to and I can understand why because this is something that people just probably don't keep records of and the town records are pretty bad but um I've been thinking about this a great deal and I've come to the conclusion I'm going to say that I think this is a pre-existing non-conforming structure and and I do so um for a couple of reasons one I know that the Building Commissioner apped that it was built in the turn of the century well um that's kind of Loosey Goosey but it's puts us probably before zoning also there was a representation made and uh I familiar with this that in the original zoning Act of Falmouth you had to have a uh principal structure to have an accessory structure so therefore I'm assuming this had to be built before zoning because we have to assume the people can built and you know complied with zoning I don't think we can assume otherwise uh so that leaves me with just thinking of um uh the size of the lot and um I'm I'm aware and you have given us some evidence that there are many many Lots in in Falmouth Heights that are quite small um uh although this is would not be a buildable lot today if there were nothing on it if it were a vacant lot there is so we have to deal with it deal with an existing structure on the lot um the res single family residence is a permitted use in the district um and the project will present a or be complete with a project that conforms to zoning you call it a unicorn it's probably appropriate um so that's my thought at the present time thank you chair so I would agree Kevin based on your attorney Clow excuse me based on your submission I've been called worse as of I uh this is pre-existing non-conforming uh I would suggest that or my belief is that it's clearly protected my concern B reading the criteria of the special perit Still Remains based on lot size um reading the language of the zoning bylaw talks about and being remaining in Harmony and so on at some point the town saw fit to rezone this particular District your lot is on10th of not even one1 of what would normally be required to build single family residence on so I'm still hung up on that uh in terms of the criteria that's listed uh in 12 I I I'm a little concerned I based on the uh opposition from Butters about the impact on the neighborhood uh and I'm just going to ask the the final question I've got is that I mean I realize that there are a significant number of other homes again this is a change of use from accessory use to residential dwelling uh looking at the number of homes that you submitted on in the white paper is it again I I think that I know you weren't able to answer but I would suggest that there would be some sort of of evidence that most of those homes were constructed over 100 years ago or certainly before the zoning uh Act was the zoning law was enacted so that they would all in terms of residential use protected uh I I'm just still having a difficult time getting my head around the change in use if you wanted to raise and rebuild another garage uh or it was just being used for ancillary purposes I think you would be protected if the building inspector were initiate some type of enforcement acts and saying you couldn't do those purposes but this is a a radical departure from what is currently there kind of where I am right now but I I will also Echo to thank you for the the white paper it was very insightful Tony you're on Deck why attorney CL I mean I can't disagree with what our attorneys have or the board the attorneys on the board have stated it it seems to be well beyond me at this point and what you've stated the only thing that I I want to ask is under um just get your answer on this under U 10.2 B is why does this reasonably conform to the average Dimensions found in the neighborhood because the house is obviously it doesn't but so why does it why does it conform so I I would say Mr that I think we've given evidence that it does conform um if anything it might be slightly smaller than most of the average homes in the neighborhood but I've never seen the the the a house being too small as being a negative in front of this board if anything I've only seen the contrary I I I don't think I've ever been asked to make a structure larger so I think that what we're proposing is a single family home that is not out of line it it it it's very similar in size for a lot uh the structure is relatively small um but we're we're constructing something that is entirely conforming um looking at just these the figures in front of you I can look at probably I can look at this list of 25 properties and find about six or seven that I've obtained special permits for to enlarge the gross floor area um that shouldn't be a negative to this particular project I think that this is very much in line with the Heights in terms of size and both in terms of the lot and and the you know the relative size of the structure to the lot thank you Nick you have any questions no said anybody have any followup before go ahead Mark um I'd just like to add in uh Mr clow's defense if one were to go searching this same list of houses um or all of the houses there you would find very very few that conform to all the setbacks and I guess it kind of goes back to your unicorn thing but um I again I think you're entire within your rights to do this and uh I think that you've uh actually gone out of your way to conform as much as possible well I mean it's not possible to conform anymore as far as setbacks are concerned so that's all go ahead Scott I just to reconfirm attorney Clow Ridge height 32 feet 4 and a quarter that sounds right but let me just I've been so focused on all the other aspects of this project that I haven't been focused on the height 30t 11 and 3/4 I'm sorry no that's the other R 32t 4 and one quarter okay and four parking spaces two in the garage two interior two exterior the exterior spots are entirely within the lot layout without intruding onto the Melrose AV layout okay on the could you show the elevation with the roof deck just real quick I just wanted one momental check of it would please and you know we we actually went through the neighborhood and found um some examples of of many other properties that have roof decks within just a few hundred feet of this property not dissimilar from what we're proposing or more you know I think ours is is kind of tucked into the building where some of these are a little more um obtrusive but good for them uh they're beautiful and they should be so I think that what we've done here with the roof deck is to tuck inside behind um behind the roof lines behind the rigid lines thank you appreciate no more questions Frank you have you all set yes I have one for you I'm reading a letter from one of the abuts and um the proposed new structure will obstruct my current water views and thus adversely impact the value of my property it would certainly have been much more neighborly if the Sullivans had opted to inform the neighborhood can you just address that sure for five M rows I actually think it's um helpful to look at the gis map um in the street layout of that because so this is five M rows here so this is where we're talking about but I think as you can see there's still going to be pretty substantial views from from five Melrose there is a way in which you can protect your private view rights over another property and that's to obtain a view easement but that is not the case here there's no view easement over this property five Melrose will still have very substantial views both down Melrose Avenue and around this property in either direction um I would also note that my clients have been kind of dragged through with this they've been called names they've been defamed in some of the letters they've been accused of things that they haven't done and it it makes it hard to want to reach out to Neighbors when when they're being dragged through the mud did they reach out initially uh they they actually have a neighbor who's here to speak tonight I can't speak to whether or not they reached out to every neighbor in the area because their house like we talked about is a few blocks away um but I know they've spoken to a number of the neighbors and I don't know exactly which ones they did or did not okay that's all I have anybody have any other followup before we go to public I do good I mean you're uh according to the zoning bylaws um you're only guaranteed a view or Vista when the um setbacks are non-conforming as as I've read it and as we applied in previous cases so um that's kind of a red herring I think yeah and I think that this board has consistently taking a position that private view rights are a separate matter from public view rights um we're not impacting public view rights and as I said there is a method by which someone can protect their private view rights and that's not been done here but they didn't know the this has been going on for six months oh okay our first hearing I think was a quick process to get that uh no you would have to obtain a view easement you'd pay you'd pay someone to obtain a VI easement you'd have to uh negotiate that say if I wanted an easement over your property Miss Murphy I would have to come to you and say I'd like to make sure that you never build in this section and that you don't go any higher so I'd I'm going to negotiate whether it's payment or whatever it might be sometimes someone might sell a property and say that you're going to impose a view easement um but it's it's a negotiated contract between parties um we we don't see a lot of them for for obvious reasons but they are a thing that you can do to protect your private view rights okay anybody from the public want to speak on this come on up to the podium come on up just tell us your name and address please thank you my name is Marilyn McMillan I've written a letter and sent a couple of email messages I am the owner and full-time resident at 5 milrose Avenue right across the street to the west to the east rather of the Sullivan property and I've never called anyone a name in a letter and the Sullivans have never contacted me about this project I noticed that in today's report from attorney Clow the white paper that he's written obviates the remarks he made at the last meeting that I responded to in my email today about whether or not this garage was ever associated with my property it was not but apparently that doesn't matter anymore based on the upcoming research that the recent research that attorney Clow has performed and so I still want to say that I'm concerned about the saf of this property during its construction because of the narrowness of our streets which is a a topic I raised in my letter of July 23rd and I also want to say I'm concerned about the safety on the street which is now would now be much more densely used and trafficked once the property is established I also noted in my original letter that it appeared in the plan that I saw that the property had only one point of egress which I understand is a safety issue itself and would then be a safety issue for the rest of us in the neighborhood I continue to be disappointed about the way this case has not been discussed with people on Melrose Avenue and and um thank you for your time thank you anybody else want to come up that's it any further oh okay any further discussion up here kin you have anything further I don't um I think that we have you know presented all the information that we can I think we've um presented to you an application that as I've mentioned a number of times is entirely conforming we've established that this is a pre-existing non-conforming dwelling uh structure uh and use and uh and can be altered as such under the terms of the zoning bylaw and Massachusetts General Law chapter 4A section 6 um I believe it's very much in character with the neighborhood I believe it is uh on a similar size to most Lots in this neighborhood and I believe that this board can and and should Grant the special permit but i' of course uh be happy to address any additional questions that there might be um follow questions down this end may I just ask something you know when I look at the plan I mean I'm I remain concerned I appreciate everything you've done all the research it's pH phenomenal I really appreciate it I I really am concerned about what I asked earlier and that is does does it reasonably conform to the average Dimensions found in the neighborhood I as one remember I don't think it does secondly um it it doesn't even come close to the architecture of the neighborhood doesn't even have a front door to it it it what it is is a in my opinion is a garage with an accessory with a habitable space above uh and therefore I don't think it's a home um it it doesn't match the neighborhood is my concern and I just wanted to get that out in front of the entire board anybody else have anything go ahead Frank Mr CLA you said there there are four parking spaces here you have two in the garage and two outside M why do you need four parking spaces for a one-bedroom house uh we don't need four parking spaces but we wanted to maintain we wanted to maintain the setback um to the street obviously uh and you know there is a benefit to having indoor parking and storage that that is something that is necessary and and and short uh short supply is there any intent to rent out parking no all right so if there was a condition that you couldn't rent out parking would be okay perfectly perfectly acceptable this is I mean this is intended for the Sullivan's family and guests that's what this is intended for and to the extent they were ever going to rent this it would be for short-term rentals so it's not going to be sold as a separate right at some point it's going to be sold to somebody else it it it could be but that's not that is not the intent that we're seeking that is not what we're trying to do right now okay would you be opposed to conditioning no rental I'd be I'd be perfectly content with conditioning no short-term rental because I think I don't think that you can condition no rental at all there was testimony that they parked their vehicles there now not they have they have on they have on occasion right and when they have you know Grand de yep but you know fourth Fourth of July weekend Road Race Christmas weekend there's always need for additional parking so just to reconfirm you would be okay with a condition for no short-term rentals absolutely what's the feeling of the board motion to close motion to close I'll second second motion to close any further discussion all those in favor of closing I I opposed none okay motion to approve with conditions second that we have a motion to approve with conditions and a second any discussion nope all the those are favor of approve I and all those nay no I'm a nay 32 does not pass 32 we would need to put some findings in we will need findings let's find our find let's find the findings you set um sure um properties 8 m Rose Avenue in fth Heights it's in an RC zoning District applied for a special permit under Section 2410 point2 a of the F zoning bylaw to raise um uh the existing garage and construct a one-bedroom single family residence um two and a half stories I'll get there later um the uh there's no overlay District it's in the wind blown debris District flood zone x uh there was one previous zoning board of appeals decision 90-79 which um doesn't appear to be particularly relevant to this matter the lot size is 3,711 Ft in a zoning District which has a minimum current minimum of 40,000 square ft it's an undersized lot the street Frontage is 50 ft in a district which requires 100t of Frontage Melrose Avenue is a public right of way at this point uh the current lot coverage by structure is 13.39% with the proposal was to increase it to 15.93% the lot coverage by Structure Parking and Paving is currently 16.41% the proposal was to increase it to 18.35% um the we had engineering um commented uh Board of Health commented uh conservation commented with no comment water commented there was no comment from building planning board or fire uh we did have letters I counted four letters one in uh support and three letters that are either opposed or expressed concerns um there was also testimony of one um actually there was multiple testimony from Ab Butters and Neighbors at the I think there were three hearings um we can make a finding uh we didn't specifically make a finding that there that it is a pre-existing non-conforming structure but apparently it is not but anyways with respect to 2402 Point e of the F zoning bylaw we did not find that the site was adequate in size for the proposed that the site was suitable for the proposed use and therefore we denied the project Jim you have any to add just to ask of the board I mean I'm happy just out of fairness I'm happy to put in a certain findings that I mean I think it's clearly there's not going to be an impact on traffic flow or safety okay we've not ever enforced uh view private view rights uh there was concern but we're not making that type of fighting that there was in fact a sufficient Title 5 septic system that was proposed um that there was no comment concerning uh water or drainage issues and that there are utilities on site that would have been suitable but I would agree with the that we didn't find it to 12.1 E A and B um there's no effect on affordable housing Supply affordable housing uh the planning board decision that's relevant um I necessar given that we've found an A and B I don't think we need to make any findings about I about compliance with well compliance with our applicable sections of the bylaw I think we just pointed the district requires a 30,000 square foot lot uh it wasn't pre-existing structure I think also you know for the findings you have an existing garage so there's not currently habitable space on the lot never has been habitable space I propos it yeah it's an ancill use and it was proposed becomes residential anything else you can think of anybody else have any other findings Mr P had a thing about the architectural style I don't know if the board wants to put that in or yeah that was just it's just like aiew board but it was a valid point about characteristics so say El all set yep yep well we appreciate your time this has been uh a 5mon process since we started uh so we certainly appreciate your time I hate to end my year on the den in front of this board but I will not be back in front of you before the new year so best wishes well there only I don't think there's another hearing before the new year is there of course that's a 40 we get the 26 uh but I best wish to all of you for happy holidays and and and a happy New Year same you thank you Merry Christmas enjoy the kids Kev sometimes they getting expensive getting oh it gets worse all right let's see what we have next up uh next up we have a brand new hearing 10424 Latitude 41 North LLC zero in quotations 29 Oakwood a FMA we'll wait for them to leave let's see where our notice is just showing up here this is um application 10424 Latitude 41 North LLC um they have applied to the zoning board of appeals for a special permit pursuant to sections 240 10.2 a and 2 46.6 b of the FMA zoning bylaw to construct additions to the existing non-conforming dwelling a constructed gazebo and a detached two car garage with habitable space above subject property is designated as lot Z Oakwood Avenue and number 29 Oakwood Avenue in Falmouth Mass Metts now um again zero um Oakwood Avenue is currently a vacant lot 29 Oakwood Avenue Oakwood Avenue is uh a single family residence um the residential district the zoning district is RC I see no note of an overlay District in the file but it's uh designated flood zone X they've applied for a special permit under Section 2410 .2a of the F zoning bylaw to raise and reconstruct and they've also applied under Section 246.ad ministrative approval on file in 2015 the zoning administrator made a an approval of a 7x 20 foot addition on the south easterly easterly corner of the um single family dwelling and there was another uh zoning uh decision uh relative to the property to remove RVs and other vehicles on the property which were stored in violation of the zoning bylaw that's really not relevant but I note it because it's in the record um the existing single family dwelling is400 Square ft the proposed single family dwelling with the additions will be 1514 Square ft um there are two lots uh zero Oakwood Avenue is 9,523 square ft 29 Oakwood Avenue with a single family dwelling is 7,341 square ft the combined Lots will be 16,8 184 Square ft in a zoning District which requires a minimum of 40,000 sare ft this property has 10 ft of Frontage in a zoning District which requires 100 ft of Frontage Oakwood Avenue is a public of way uh it's represented that at the conclusion of the project if it is approved that the lot coverage by structure will be 18.5% lot coverage by Structure Parking and Paving will be 23.8% um the project the structure at 29 oot Avenue is non-conforming because it is set back 1.1 ft from the Northerly lot line um we have the reference or referral from engineering uh they have requested that we consider storm water to be retained on the lot and also that the contractor will abide by the fouth of erosion and sediment control regulations Board of Health has advised us that the septic system is good for four bedrooms there's currently three bedrooms in the existing single family dwelling and the proposal is to add a bedroom in the habitable space above the two-car garage um the building department has requested that the lot merger be approved um and that proof of that be recorded in the barille County registry of deeds also to verify the height of the garage uh in the Gazebo once they are uh constructed uh we have three letters um which I'll get to in a second um all right we have a letter from Marilyn D drer received December 12th 20124 I see Mr drer here so apparently he will testify yes well there was no request to read the letter so we have a letter support um it's questions um concerns okay you want to read my mic we have a letter from um John and Mary Sue England who live at 44 Lake View which is property behind they have concerns um and and we have a letter from Kathleen McLaren at 34 Lake View which again is at the back uh she asked that the letter be expressed um which I take it as a request to read it's very short so I'll read it uh Dear Miss Murphy my name is Kathleen McLaren and I am writing in reference to application 10424 my sister and I own property at 34 Lake View Avenue and are abutters to the property inqu question left as I cannot attend the hearing on um December 12th 2024 I am writing of my questions and concerns about this application and that they they expressed one the proposed gazebo which would be 22 Square ft and about 22 ft High not 22 Square ft 22 ft square and about uh 22 ft High um is 11 ft from the property line what is the purpose of this large structure I see the floor has pavers is it is a fire kit planned is an entertainment structure planned lighting question mark it appears to be close to both neighbors I am concerned about privacy and TR Tranquility it appears to be a large structure on a relatively small lot two I am wondering about access to this property during construction considering the current access road three the proposed garage apartment is also about 22 feet high I have the same concerns about this structure um is it in addition to septic and electric for that building some of the things are not apparent on the plans basically I am concerned to see overdevelopment on an undersized parcel with structures close to the neighbors on all sides which I feel would will impact the privacy and Tranquility of all please see that my concerns are expressed and addressed at this hearing thank you Kathleen McLaren Y and Madam chairman if I'm sorry if I I need to make a disclosure um Atty wall and to the members of the board in reviewing this file uh doing my final review this afternoon I realized that there was a former title owner of the landlocked parcel who I had previously represented over 15 years ago I don't believe there's a conflict he's not a party he doesn't have any standing uh however I wanted to get that on the record and Council if you'd like me to recuse I'm happy to do so no I don't think that has anything to do I'll file the disclosure form I didn't catch that until today thank you go ahead attorney wall good evening uh Madam chair member of the board for the record my name is Brian Wall I'm an attorney I have an office in sandwich and tonight I'm representing the petitioner Latitude 41 North LLC the LLC is happens to be owned by uh a person named Tony pers Shelli who's here with me in the front row and also representing um the applicant is Mike brelli of fou engineering and he's here to answer any technical questions that you might have that I I can't answer um in just a broad nutshell I'll tell you what this Project's about and then I'll dive into into the details um the front parcel is a rather unique parcel that had three structures on it that predated zoning and before my involvement in this project under uh statute 81l the lot was able to be divided into three separate lot so Mr Pell's lot is actually relatively small as are the other two on the property behind the did you have a question Frank no okay I'm sorry I thought you were raising your hand no behind the petitioner's property is a vacant lot that lot at one point in time did have a house on it maybe when Mr Morris represented on the person the house at some point in time burned down that lot is landlocked there's no Frontage so it's non-conforming as to that as well as size and the house for some reason was not reconstructed within the time frame that was allowed to be done and so it got foreclosed on and then another person bought it and as Mr Duffy referred to there was a zoning violation on the property with some parking of vehicles um without a primary use and um after some proceedings there was an enforcement matter brought and the person couldn't have the vehicles there anymore and eventually my client was able to purchase it and so again in a broad nutshell what he's trying to do is he wants to combine the two Parcels to create a larger piece of land and then build a garage with some habitable space above and have a have the Gazebo so that's the big picture and I'll dive into the details at this particular time so what I'm showing you is this is a picture of the road Frontage so the Theo the structure closest to the road is here um my client's structure is behind that this is the driveway that gets in and you can see here in this areal um this is this lot with the three structures on it and the vacant lot is here covered by by this canopy the assessor map kind of makes it a little bit easier to understand I'll blow this up a little bit my AV skills are not as good as attorney Clow so bear with me um this is Oakwood Avenue this is the front parcel that I'm mentioning that's three separate lots that were created under that statute um 4181 L and this is the vacant parcel in the back um with the outline of the house that's no longer there so Mr Shelli owns this piece right here with Frontage out on Oakwood and he wants to combine it with this property and we have been before the planning board um this is the anr plan it's signed by the planning board um it has not yet been recorded but we will be doing that and I presume if you do Grant this permit that would be a condition but again here you can see a little bit more clearly um this is the I keep calling it the front parcel there are three separate Lots here my clients is right here outlined here so there's a access easement here and the house is here um the actual driveway as I showed you on the picture it's it's over here so if you look on the plan it's not shown on this plan but the access is actually over in this area it winds down here there's a parking lot area here so this is the site plan the project plan you can see all of it so the front parcel is 29 Oakwood Avenue and it is 7,3 41 Square ft in size and it's improved with a three-bedroom a single family home shown on the plan the rear parcel back here is currently vacant and that parcel is 9,523 square ft and again we're prepared to uh combine those lots both properties are in the RC Zone single families are allowed as of right minimum area requirements are 40,000 square ft² minimum Frontage requirements are 100 the front yard setback is 25 and the side and rear are 10 height requirements are 35 for houses and 22 ft for accessory structures 29 oak wood the front lot is non-conforming in several respects the lot is undersized it's 7,341 where 40,000 is required and it has 10 ft of Frontage where 100 is required the rear lot is similarly non-conforming it has no Frontage where Frontage is required and it's 9,543 ft where 40,000 is required combined the properties will have 16884 squ ft this will still be non-conforming but will it will be an improvement over existing conditions and in addition the rear vacant lot will have Frontage now where it doesn't have it currently the proposed project focusing first on the additions my client wants to put a 5.4 by 22t addition right here on it's not really the front of the house is actually here but on on the side of the house this is to expand and reconfigure the master uh bedroom he also wants to put a new covered deck on the front of the building here which is 5.5 ft by 20.5 ft and he wants to add a Pergola to this porch in the back the non-conformity of this structure besides being on an undersized lot is that it's 1.1 ft away from the this side Lot line all three of the proposed changes to the structure conform to all setback requirements that they will not create any new non-conformities with regard to setbacks in the rear of the property my client would like to construct here a twocc car garage with a bump outside with the idea of having habitable space above there is no kitchen proposed osed the space is proposed to be used as extra space um he has an adult son and it could would be available for guests as well and it's not considered a dwelling unit because it doesn't have a kitchen although he does intend to build it in such a way that it could be converted in the future because I think Mr fineran mentioned it earlier um obviously adus are something that are promoted and now under the new law that just went into actually it's been passed has not yet gone into effect adus are going to be allowed as of right so from a property value perspective he's going to make it able to be converted in addition he would like to build a gazebo here and there has been a minor change I submitted an email um Miss deelo was very helpful in instructing me what to do the proposed gazebo on the plan was 22 feet by 22 ft my client would actually like to build a smaller gazebo that's oval shaped and it's 23t 11 in by 14t 10 in so it's actually smaller and it's actually Less in height the height of the Gazebo proposed was close to 22 feet but the one that is now proposed is 15t 8 in and I did submit some revised plans showing that gazebo um the lot coverage complies I failed to mention the garage is 21 feet 9 so it meets the 22 foot height requirement the lot covered shown on the plan is proposed um structures will be at I'm sorry existing and proposed structures are 18.5% structures parking and Paving is 23.8 because of the change in the Gazebo that will actually come down slightly but the point is the Str um it's it's complying lot coverage we're asking for a special permit under Section 240-1027 Section 12.1 e which provides standards to go through to make sure that the structures or the proposal is not substantially more detrimental and I'll just tick through some of those uh quickly uh the first is adequacy of the site in terms of the size for the proposed use so again by combining these properties it will make the lot size larger 16884 and we would submit that this is adequate for a single family dwelling in fact Mr pelli has a single family dwelling already on the existing small lot the combination if you look back at the assessing records the combination of the lot will actually make it one of the largest Lots if not the largest lot in the in the area so it's making it more conforming um and again the proposed building coverage will be 18.5 where 20% is allowed and the proposed site coverage will be 23.8 where 40% is allowed suitability of the site for the proposed use we're in a single family dwelling we are adding some more habitable space but the use is remaining the same it's still a single family use and therefore we would submit the site is adequate and again in fact it's getting much larger impact on traffic flow and safety uh we would submit that there'll be no impact it's still a single family uh dwelling in fact there'll now be more more parking um than there is currently the impact on the neighborhood's visual character including views and Vistas um there are really no views or Vistas here the lot that is going to be developed is already there it's pre-existing and it's um it's not changing in any way the additions that are being put onto the house are very minor in nature and the detached garage and gazebo meet all setbacks lot coverage and height requirements adequacy of sewage disposal source of water and drainage so the existing house has three bedrooms the addition of the habitable space on the garage will be deemed an additional bedroom but the existing septic system has a capacity of four bedrooms so we have the capacity to add the habitable space to the existing system there was a comment from the water department that a separate water line needs to be run to the garage and my client is obviously fine with that we believe that drainage is going to be adequately taken care of the England who are here tonight did make a comment in their letter they expressed a concern and they asked for drywells they're not shown on the plan but my client is agreeable to that as a condition of the permit he'd be happy to install dry Wells um for for the garage so with that we believe that there's adequate sewage disposal water and and drainage adequacy of utility and other public services again there's an existing home here it's already served um we are willing to add that water line for the house and the garage the effect of the proposed project on adequacy of the supply of affordable housing in town this doesn't have an effect one with the other it's not positive or negative um those are the standards that are applicable there's no planning board decision on this and parking is more than adequate so we would respectfully submit that reviewing the standards that your bylaw tells you to look at the project um will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood the place was staked I don't know if some of you had had an opportunity to go out there but this is what the garage is proposed to look like the habitable space will be up here the garage is here um it meets the height requirements this is the um the Gazebo that's currently being proposed this is the revised plan that I submitted to you and there were some comments about proximity to houses so I wanted to show you just two photos really quick um this is where the garage will be proposed and there's currently existing an 8T high fence the garage will be less than 22 ft which is what your height requirements allow the Gazebo will be Loc located in this general area and again you can see it's it's it's an existing lot that's there all my client is trying to do is um add value to his property by a garage with some habitable space and a gazebo for him and his wife to uh to sit in he has mentioned to me too that they have dogs that they enjoy and they want to use this land to go back and sit in the Gazebo and just enjoy enjoy nature that's our presentation um I'm happy to answer any questions Mr B brel is here to answer any technical questions that you may have great let's sto on this end Nick you want to St Yeah question about the is is there a business there is there is there clients or customers coming to 41 North no no no it's the the LLC is for holding title my my client resides in Florida primarily and this is a secondary home I saw the sign I didn't know if it was there be customers clients because it's just narrow no it's just a method to hold title that's all it Ison I I think I heard you say earlier that uh the back lot there was a house on it that once existed in burntown yes so just for clarification there's an it's it's unbelievable that you could have Frontage from 10 ft but uh it is what it is I guess you got that under 4181 l so the 4181 L was exclusively related to the front parcel I don't know how that house got built on the back parcel with no Frontage whatsoever it might have predated zoning I really don't know but it it did burn down and was not constructed so they lost any protection so my question is is it it appears that there's a 10- foot easement that still exists there and who has the rights to that easement um and what was that easement for I suspect to the house in the back that that was to the in the back but once the lots are merged that will no longer be necessary and so you'll expunge that easement that's our intent and I can also tell you that if you look on this plan it's not super clearly shown but remember when I said that the axis is actually on the other side of the lot you can see this Cobble Edge right here and right here th this is the access here and it goes out this way to the street so if you access you come in like for example when my client comes home he drives in here comes down this way and goes and Parks here this is all gravel right here so what rights does he have to do that uh easements so when so there are easements that exist for that yes this um there are cross easements back and forth across all these Parcels so that when I I didn't represent the proper when the 81l was done but when the 81l was done this driveway easement was created and it goes back and forth between the lots are called 2A 1A and 3A and they all have rights to go back and forth here and this property here has the right to park here as does my client and I think the front lot has its its own parking but yeah there there are recorded easements for that thank you Jim just wanted to thank you for clarifying that because I was looking at the map I'm saying looks like you want to bump out right up to where the southern rean is but that is not going to be or currently being used for vehicular access correct that's correct and it will be extinguished because of of the acquisition of that back property very concerned about the bump out until you clarified that because it's right on top of everything yeah yeah it it's actually right outside or maybe it touches but it's it's going to be I've actually my client has already asked me to draft the documents and I've I'm in the process of finalizing the termination of that easement so we've had some correspondence about U concerns and questions um I anytime a title's held in the form of a limited liability company I'm thinking rental property um I presume or would you have any issues if we condition the garage that it will not be a short-term rental or ever used for short-term rentals I'd have to defer to my client yeah you have to come up here so so first of all before he even speaks maybe I can address this too it's not going to have a kitchen so it's not it's not under the state sanitary code it would not be an apartment or able to be rented as a separate DW and I appreciate your cander and also is telling us that at this time but that with the Adu I'm just looking down the road yeah and and I'm I'm being completely CED my client does not want to rent that out at all he wants it's space for his adult son or for um some guests but because of that Adu law he's going to pipe it so that a kitchen could be installed later you know relatively easily and I'm not concerned about year round rentals I'm concerned about short-term rentals uh so that's that's my question [Music] um I don't think anything else just asked to come back if you possi thank you did the fact that I my comment that it's not a housekeeping unit right now it could not legally be rented no no no no I understand that well legally rented but it still happens right all the time to um well I think if he goes to if he were to change it to an Adu or a habitable space he would have to apply for permit to do that and so I think that would be the time to to condition its use by right it's they still have to get a building permit yeah but it's still it's by right it's going to be by right it will be subject to certain conditions yeah that are in the statute um I have no other questions at this time thank you thank you well Mr uh wall has pretty much uh given us a very good explanation of what's going on uh this is a very unique property out there uh you don't see many of these 4181 L subdivisions no thankfully because many of them are really kind of tortured um but uh my main concern was the uh I think it's been addressed by Mr morison's questions the the easement that runs along the north property line is not is going to be abandoned it's not going to be used as it it still qualifies it's Frontage but that's all that's correct yes so the um the internal easement now for this common driveway is as you have made a representation recorded in the registry of deeds and it's all set in stone yes okay yes it is um that's it okay Scott good evening attor wall um yeah in your proposed project you know where you did have in paragraph three that the uh Hab habitable space above the garage was not have a kitchen it sounds like the probability of it having a uh a kitchen at some point is I'd say relatively high if you're going to move forward with plumbing and things like that um so the way I wish you to just move forward and and either do it or not but um I do have the concerns on any type of a short-term rental um you only have 11t setbacks and obviously 10 is the requirement but you know know in some of the abutters concerns was and I appreciate uh the applicant reducing the size of the Gazebo and things like that but there seems to be a little bit more room and again all you need is 10 so I can't argue this fact too much would have been nice if maybe you gave yourself a little bit more space and maybe not found yourself so close to the to the fence but uh that's just a an Optics here one thing that I saw are on that very tight easement that's there was a rolloff there and a BOS house is there any construction going on at the project right now um you have to come up to the yeah I just wondering Tony pelli owner oaka 29 uh so a couple things are going on the parcel in front of me um they contracted with Clancy doing their kitchen I allowed them to put dumpster on that site so they're the ones that are doing the work exactly thank you uh I am doing a kitchen remodel now in O 29 I have a permit uh with the town and we're mid midstage okay thank you for that clarification and uh just to reiterate in the new gazebo the ridge height is 15 ft 8 and 58 oh right it's um let me just get it in front of me Mr Peterson it's down from the 15' 8 and 5/8 in so just just under 159 okay yeah thank you yeah and it's just if I could with the kitchen too I I just was trying to be as candid as possible I know that sometimes when applicants come before there's always a question of oh enforcement and some the the property owner might go forward and do something but in full disclosure in Candor um he wants to use the property as I said for guests and his adult son but if he ever goes to sell it my my client is a builder by trade so he understands property values and buildings and so he just wants to kind of make it able to be turned into an Adu so that if somebody later comes along and buys the property they they could have that capability yeah no you know for Butters and things when they they they look at the application and it was very specific will not have a kitchen so it it was just slightly different than what was in the uh application that he submitted so well thank you for clarification yeah yeah I was just trying to tackle that head on CU I know sometimes it becomes a question I I don't have much um you you as far as the dry Wells are concerned the neighbor you have the option of uh rain Garden which I personally prefer but um I really don't see any problem here and uh you're a pretty Savvy guy if you thought there was any problem at all you could have just waited till next year and come in with an Adu that's right would have been by right and you wouldn't even come in front of us that that was a consideration but as I said you want to get this thing going this is what my client wants straight forward and above board and yeah I I have no issues I I should mention too we had a pre meeting with the Building Commissioner about this how he thought about it and he thought the combination of the Lots was a very good thing because it created access and Frontage you know for a nonconforming property you know puts the land to use right absolutely I have a couple questions certainly is there a landscape plan there's not other than what you see on the site plan he's he my client wants to have you know the driveway come in and he's going to have some gravel walkways um but there's there's not a landscape plan per se of like plants or anything like that he's not going to put like a buffer on that fence or 8ot fence um the fences are there one but that the side with the Gazebo is is that eight I thought that was only six there's a the fence over here six is um it's it's six here and six here and it's eight over here The Grudge fence all way yeah yeah I mean when I first saw the Gazebo I thought are these people having weddings wow it's it's pretty huge so I am glad that it's it's getting smaller and and again it was an opportunity that when my client bought this was owned by someone else and it's just a matter of i as I explained it got four clothes on M to give you a little bit more information a person who owns property on Martha's Vineyard um bought this on an you're getting to my client now well I just be careful be careful what I say he bought the property on an online auction for $25,000 which was amazing um but he what he did was he parked his a full-size 40ft bus and other proper other pieces of other vehicles and he would show up and then go to the um Palmer Avenue stop and take the ferry um and that that wasn't allowed under zoning so then when the lot was vacant again my client was able to purchase it from that person so it just kind of created and and he just wants to have the Gazebo to enjoy the property so I just think it might be helpful if you if you plant it cuz they're going to be looking at D struction now I I know the one's been gone for a while but if you're going to want your piece of quiet it might be nice to have trees around you too so you don't have to look at the neighbors lights that are on too so I I I can confer with my client about that I I will say that he has unlike the before he's consulted with the neighbors absolutely he's talked to I think all of them that surround yeah and um he's made every effort all the trees that you see here um are existing yeah he he's not cleared any trees whatsoever he's preserved erve them in fact he did some Landscaping um he called it a a storm cut where they take down the branches that might fall in a storm to keep the trees healthy is what what he's done and he did um to your point Mr Peterson about the setbacks my client did adjust the garage from its original location that you didn't see that it was before we submitted to preserve the trees he he actually shifted it to keep the trees in place thank you so yeah Madam chair when okay I have just a followup question you had mentioned when I was talking about the 10 foot uh easement which is going to be expunged um you said that there is an easement down below here I think that's number um I don't know what number that one is right there but fouth engineering did not pick up on any documentation of that he's been on the plan I'm just curious as to why it doesn't exist on the plan if that easement exists today because that's the only way in right now you are you talking about this this driveway right here all the way out all the way up to the street yeah yeah um what's right the the blank area there what is that why is there no EAS shown there I think Mr brelli can answer the question better than me but I if I'm wrong correct me Mike um the all the activity is over here and so it just was not necessary to show that but I can tell you from I think from the um I know my question is if the if there's a recorded easement why is it not showing up on the plan I think because it it's not being affected by this project and it's not relevant but I I will I it's I'm sorry not his property well but he does have the access easement so what I can tell you is that there there's a when this 81l I think it's only a written easement but yeah no it's written e yeah so when the 81l was done to create these three lots out of the on the person who did that was called Equity Investments or something um there's a document called uh easement agreement I think or Declaration of easements and it's about three or four pages long and it talks about lot 3A this one here having access uh you can this this doesn't show it but um it the the actual a access easement told you I wasn't as good as Kevin um if you notice the lot lines here the the driveway just doesn't follow the lot lines and just turn comes in as it would if you see this too Mr P um if you where my cursor is right here if I go to that photo that's right here that's the driveway it it's on it's on this side of the property here I I appreciate that I just want the clarification that generally speaking an easement shows up documentation wise of the registry that's then transferred onto a plan and I don't see that okay and I mean if you're telling me there's an easement I absolutely would believe you there's no reason not to believe you right it's just that it creates confusion if it's not on the plan I guess I didn't think of that when we were presenting because all the activities is over here if you want to add add as a condition we could submit a revised plan that shows that as part of the permit but I will absolutely represent to you that there's there's a document that provides cross easements back and forth and again not to repeat but very specific yeah lot this this property has access and and can park here my client's property has access and can park here this property has access over over the frontage because obviously if there was a dispute in the future he would not have access to a property or be in court about it right but I assure you that he he does I believe you yeah he absolutely does thank you yeah I have another quick question on lighting what are you doing for lighting for the garage in the Gazebo you want to answer that Tony oh so the Tony Pell again the garage doors are going to face your your in so the garage door faces the driveway see Brian you better than him yeah so the gar garage door is right right there again horseshoe shaped driveway the back of the building um pretty much U is a blank canvas my the bathroom is here living room is here when I met with John and Sue earlier they said hey we have a pool back here and grandkids uh so I shortened the window height in my living room both to accommodate him and also we don't want to look in the pool also might plock some noise when gr um so pretty much nothing back here to say I will need obviously at night going need some path lighting for safety reasons uh the Gazebo probably will have some Led recet SC for fighting want to hurt ourselves you know I don't have any Sports field all lights know I just want to keep it down for the neighbor yeah obviously we're going to comply uh with any zoning ordinance and we're I think we've I've own a place seven years interacted with neighbors and I think I've shown that uh we're good neighbors I I have great neighbors uh they work with me when we were pursuing his ordin ordinance infraction against uh the previous owner the neighbors all participated and helped us with that and I I appreciate that and it's going to be I think it's going to be an enhancement to to the area it was a shed uh burned down parking junk vehicles non-maintained I mean uh and we're taking pride in ownership and it's going to be enhancement and just a nosy question how do you guys figure out the plowing for that shared parking lot well you're in Fort Maya so you're probably not worried about we've been pretty lucky haven't been a lot of plowing but we we share the expense we work real well with three Neighbors work very well together yeah I was just wondering how you did that part now I got more driveway than them I'll probably buy a bigger pay a bigger share doesn't snow now that you said that we Jinx thanks Mike thanks a lot go ahead Scott quick question Mr belli since he came we might as well give him 30 seconds of Fame and he can tell us about going from three bedro by the word okay go ahead anything just uh quick overview going three bedrooms to four any oh no the uh stretch here for you or no the existing system has a capacity for four bedrooms the health department reviewed it and we proposed to tie the plumbing from the from the um garage building uh that we're proposing to that tank um if I can follow up on the easement matter it was not left off the plan on purpose uh my recollection is it's a written easement that described rights over the existing driveway so we didn't think it was necess necessary to delineate it on since it's an already well established and known easement there's no intent to not show it thank you yeah how you going to run the water L very careful by the word so we're going to work with the water department but they'll probably it'll be a 2-in size uh water service and it'll very likely be placed where the water department wants us to but since there's easement rights for such things as utilities it'll be a trench down the existing driveway a 2-in uh polyethylene pipe will run through the site and make a connection to um the building if you look closely we did show um a water service here we didn't continue it because we want to consult with the water department about where they actually want us to root it so there will be a a 2-in water service from Oakwood to that to that building do you anticipate any problems with the neighbors while that goes in can can I jump in for a second you scroll down so so actually oh you want to put it through here yeah I apologize so the water you might as well go back to the mic if you can nobody can hear if you don't speak exist that 10 foot stretch there yes that's where the existing water line is and the water meter is on Oakwood so the health department ask for a separate meter and a 2in line but it's going to go down down that stand 10 10t stretch there as well as the underground electric cuz the electric PO is right there also thank you very much thank you no further question anybody else have any follow-ups I appreciate you working with the neighbors it's I feel it's important well I was going to say I think where the rear of the garage faces toward the neighbors you there's not likely to be a necessity for lights installed there so you could just have if there is any that they be dark sky compliant so they're not shining toward the abuts okay and then I think the other point would be that um engineering likes to have some type of storm water recharge for any new roof area so I know you had agreed to dry Wells so um I think if you either install dry Wells or rain Garden or something they will want you to capture all the new roof area we we we would happily agree to conditions to both of those things the dark sky and uh the um dry Wells adequately sized and then Mr Boselli will do the math yeah and it you know might work well as a coordination cuz I'm sure the water Department's going to want you to add on the water line and all those things so maybe they can all be done together sure everybody all set up here for the public yep y anybody from the public want to comment thank you come together that is just a door she's going to chime in when I forget what I'm supposed to say you just need names and addresses yeah so uh my name is John England and this is Mary Sue England I'm Mary Sue England and uh good evening to everybody and thanks for all the time that you take to volunteer for fouth which is uh no mean feet um so we appreciate that um so by way of background we live at 44 lak View Avenue and um it's a very modest um Bungalow and it turns 100 years old um in 2025 so that'll be a momentous um occasion and um we're one of only two owners of that house in that 100-year span which is also kind of neat um we believe that we're probably the neighbors who are most affected by the development here you can see we're sort of off the map at the bottom there but we're closest to the major structure that's being proposed here which is about 40t long and almost 22 feet high so it's pretty significant and it looks directly over our swimming pool um we appreciate what Tony did in terms of trying to get the windows up a little higher um and we've got just a few issues to address and I just go through them you know one by one um we were a little bit surprised by the scope of the project it's pretty significant and I'm not a lawyer and I'm not an architect but or you know someone who knows all the regulations but it seems like it's non-conforming on top of non-conforming on top of non-conforming and so that concerns us a little bit given how significant the project is um we're happy about the drainage we actually in our letter requested an adequate drywall system and I hope that you would definitely include that in any conditions um you know with the permit um as far as screening goes I mentioned the window but we really would like some Evergreens back there in that space by the fence and that is our fence by the way just uh you know if there are any issues during construction um we don't want that to get damaged um so so that's an issue for us and then um the final point I wanted to make well our house is uh the lots are are sort of mostly bigger than what was described earlier ours is 0 40 acres I think Paul dryers is even bigger than ours he's got a nicer place than ours um but so there are many houses outside of this kind of weird um non-conforming area with these three houses that are have significantly bigger um properties and then really the final point that I wanted to make is you know I hope hope that the zoning board will condition any approval um and embrace all the recommendations from the fouth engineering and building departments as part of conditions so um Mr Duffy mentioned some of them earlier but I just want to mention one more building one that was uh that was missed that I think is kind of significant um here we are and that relates to the short-term rental issue so we were very surprised to not hear that they're willing to condition this um by saying there will not be short-term rentals that's completely new to us that concerns us a great deal the building department here um recommended um that a condition that the garage structure remain accessory to primary dwelling and shall not be um conveyed separately should require this regardless of future bylaw building CO I assume that's commissioner um should State no rental as proposed is extended family living so asking for just short-term rental to be part of a condition um you know I I think is uh is relatively reasonable so uh especially if it's single supposed to be single family living so yeah I just wanted to add a couple quick points that he missed I promised I would um one is um you know as as somebody mentioned there was a structure that burned down completely on that lot and it is sort of a narrow windy kind of an approach to that area I would be concerned whether or not a fire truck could actually get through there and whether or not the fire department has been consulted as to whether or not they could access that area back there um because it's not theoretical um so that's that's one thing um yeah and then that's easy to do I mean that's just a matter of getting that information yeah I mean simple I would hope um and then yeah to to reiterate you know John just said that the these first time we've heard this Adu uh word being used and and the fact that there could be a kitchen built at some point we do appreciate a few months ago um Paul dryer and his wife hosted a nice little get together and Tony came and let us know that he was planning to do this project but we never saw any specific plans I just want to be clear about that um so that we could have a interactive and there's been no context in s yeah no context in s so and you know we were appreciative that he was responsive to an email that we sent but we were not just to be clear had not seen any of the specific drawings or specific until they were on the website they were on the website here so just want to set that record there um I think I think that that does it Frank said he cannot he we requested a referral from the fire department they did not respond but they so apparently that suggest to me they're okay well I would I would be really would like to know that a nonresponse to me is not an affirmative response so if if I could request that that response from the fire department be provided um to the abutters I think that would go a long way to assuaging any concerns we have in that area yeah okay I would suggest that the uh fir truck can certainly turn into the property even if it couldn't get all the way down to the end they can drag a hose and I mean it is well then it'll be no problem for them to say I wouldn't think there's any problem that' be great May that's why they didn't respond but uh I I I I'm not an expert but I can't imagine that's a huge I'm not an expert either nether am I would hope that would be the case that would be great and um just as far as the uh Adu is concerned I mean next year it's going to be by right um I mean laws of State anywhere anywhere in the state and that's that comes from well in fou they I believe they they made it 4,000 square ft which is pretty small so I mean 7500 75 7500 7500 oh okay well still they're we they're well over that so um it's not going to be but that's not a short-term Rental Right adus are I don't know if they're how how limited they are but uh I mean he you know like I said if they didn't just put this off till next year it would have been by right and they would have have to come here in the first place for for long-term rent but you're not sure about the shortterm not sure how this goes but uh we certainly don't have a lot of enforcement drve are we done yeah thank you thank you very much we really do appreciate your time thank you anybody else from the public want to speak should we ask Mr drer if he knows come on up thank you good evening my name is David Patron I live at 45 Oakwood Avenue so to try to Enlighten some of you in regards I've I've heard a lot of information that I I greatly appreciate um I appreciated Paul having that initial meeting which I was out of town I was unable to attend and again tonight has been an eye openening for me I have not had any contact UM with uh Tony or anyone else since that meeting um so these drawings are brand new to me to give you a little bit of an Insight the entire property was owned by my grandfather at one point uh at the turn of the century my house will turn 100 years old um this this year and my grandfather actually purchased that property developed that property with his father and a couple of uncles um the property that now has been divided into three separate properties which ended up being better than what it was as an individual rental property um has certainly improved the value of my home um the vacant lot that Tony has since purchased which he wants to develop was originally owned by the lumbert family he owned from Wood Avenue right straight through to Lake View Avenue this lot that's vacant was actually originally part of Lake View Avenue which was owned by his daughter and he wanted to expand his garden and so he took over that and petitioned to make that part of that property so even when the whole property was sold however that happened that was still like registered as Lake View Avenue but for whatever that reason is the structure that was there was originally a paint shed that they turned into I don't even want to say it was a rental property it was a shed that had a bed in it and a bathroom and very minimal heat for that matter um speaking of the fir TR uh it was amazing when that property did burn um the firet truck could not get there so if you look at what originally is Tony's 10 ft cuz originally those houses on that that side of the house uh that side of the street they were all 100t uh uh Frontage the other side got divided cuz fouth changed the rules and allowed it to be 50 so again if you drive down that road you'll see the right hand side towards Lake few Avenues all 100 foot properties and the rest of them are all 50 foot if you look at my house my house is the only house that was actually built the way my grandfather designed that property to be with my house being in the dead center the rest of the homes were built one side or the other once they divided it to the 50ft frontage so when that building was on fire the 10-ft area was where the fire trucks tried to get down and then they were forced to line hoses to do that my only objection would be is hopefully if the um amendments or whatever you guys contingencies is that it certainly would not be um short-term rentals um I had another property on Oakwood Avenue which is owned by the hu Felder property that we came through the same board process here they made that an uh an auxiliary for family and I believe that that's the way it was contingen and the funny thing is is that when long before Tony had any part of the property that home was actually on the market as a four-bedroom property not a three-bedroom property which is actually registered now so that might be a concern I don't know if it's Creative Accounting or how they do that but if Tony's willing to make sure that it's not going to become you know a short-term r rental or I guess a year- round rental wouldn't be such an impact but my concern would be that it's not going to be used as a a retail place just trying to make money and bringing people in adding more noise and I think I've covered let me pull my glasses out see if I covered everything I definitely appreciate my other neighbors comments too I agree with that wholeheartedly and I don't think there's been there's only well I think I've lived in that neighborhood longer than anybody else um I've been there since 1959 I I grew up on the across the street so any questions for me we like history lessons I'm sorry what did you say has one Frank has one you were there are two easements on this property you said the fire department couldn't get there to put there was not two easements on the property there was origin no there there one up up up on the northern part between the house and the and the proper that was the original driveway so if you look at what originally when were they not able to go down when that wonderful shed in the backyard burnt no no what how did they try to get to there and they couldn't get there you didn't you through through the easement that is owned by Tony so if you look at the front of the house which I have no technical skills with this stuff at all if you look at the front of the house where the dumpster is that Clancy Tony is giving them easan to put that dumpster in the in the Porta body all right right that was the original driveway that went around behind the main house which is I think 33a or something like that then it went around and then there was a parking lot there okay so all of those the main structure was owned by myON lumbert he then put up which is now where the young couple lives in the back was a paint shed he expanded it he made it into an apartment when they went through this whole transformation they actually made a beautiful home out of it then where Tony lives was also a paint shed they made that a house that's how long I've lived in this area and then that got totally pretty much rehabbed well before Tony owned the property when I want to say attorney moan was representing um Lewis I can't think of his first name right now I'm Eddie Lewis thank you and they revamped that whole area in which going from a a rental transient rental the property now what the three houses are now certainly has increased the value of that area again my only concern is short-term rentals and and uh keeping it to family if he's going to let his son live there that's fine I have no problem with that at all but that original easement got absorbed when they put these redesigned the whole property proper they put the driveway as you're looking at the house to the left side which directly abuts my property all right well am I making sense there well if you look at that picture that the gentleman I'm sorry Mr wall I believe where a driveway is if you put that driveway up for me sure happy to help I'll just take my notes so I don't need them so where the driveway is right there where his cursor is my property abuts to the left hand side okay but that's not the access that the fire department used they used the one absolutely not that was not there they used that one but okay to the right this was not there until they L I'm sorry this easement was not there until they redeveloped the whole property okay that's fine and I thought I made that clear I apologize now it is now it is sorry the fire trucks couldn't get down because they went through the original driveway they had to turn behind the house dog Lake to the left that's correct couldn't make that turn so then they dropped the hoses there and pulled it through the now they can go down so very close I mean it's I don't think it's it's a tight curve but I mean I agree thank you thank you anybody else I'm good anybody have any further questions for the gentleman thank you for calling me a gentleman I appreciate that actually I helped some of the surveyors out with the original I have the original blueprint I was blessed to have that for that area oh you can back charge Borel you Haven need it I've got it remember that Mike so I think one up oh sorry go ahead Norine no I I all I was going to say was I think what may help here is that um engineering assigns addresses for various parcels and developments and what may make sense is to have engineering sign an address for the garage in the event that it is converted to a house and that at simultaneously there's a requirement to post the address out on Oakwood so that emergency vehicles know where to turn for Access yeah there only one access though well there's still The Building Commissioner would require that though or we can condition compliance with the numbering scheme that yeah yeah and it becomes part of 29 when the Lots merge doesn't it cuz I I think the way it's currently laid out you still can pull in that Northerly access area right there's only one turn so you would want to direct people to that the second just need your name and address please I like this teamwork stuff tonight we have weired um Allison Manchester 39 Oakwood AV Matt Manchester also 39 Oakwood AV um so we live in the home that shares the driveway with Mr perelli most directly so we believe that we would be most impacted by the construction of the project and also the access to the eventual garage and gazebo and we just wanted to express our support of the project since the persell have lived in the home and we've gotten to know them they've been fully transparent about all of their plans very respectful and I think at one point it was mentioned in Mr Wall's remarks would this be a positive negative or neutral change to the neighborhood and he said neutral and I think we would say positive for sure especially in light of the property's history um so we just wanted to express our support of the project great thanks thank you and Matt Matt's the one who shovels the driveway by hand well he's sunbathing negotiate a little more come on go ahead do I need to repeat my name and stuff again yes okay we got you no I'm I'm a little concerned in regards to the way you were analyzing the traffic pattern I was under the understanding since Tony purchased that proper property that it was now going to be one specific address am I wrong in assuming that that he's absorbing zero to 29 am I correct or am I wrong that's my understand okay because the way the way this young lady was making it sound was like your garage apartment or dwelling was going to be a separate address am I correct no so what happens is if there's more than one structure on a lot which is what would take place here there's typically a letter like a that is assigned to the second structure so if the fire department gets a call for the address they're looking to go they're differentiating between going to the main house and going to the garage understood so yeah so it won't be a separate parel it would just have say typically the letter a um as the address so that emergency vehicles are going to the correct structure well that that would be a thought process cuz there is already a uh B and what no how how did they have it on the on the poll there's yeah there's three addresses right okay but no again as long as it's not a short-term short-term rental I'm I'm good you want to address sure uh just very briefly um so the the three structures on the front lot I'll have I would just like to picture of the the fence just say a couple words on okay let me just do this first so the the three um dwellings on the front lot I'll have separate addresses I don't exactly know there's 29 34 but they they they have separate addresses they're on there the front3 oh yeah they're on the that's right 29 33 and 39 okay 29 33 and whatever um just really briefly I think Mr Duffy kind of established when the fire was in relation to when the easement was um I am not an expert so I wouldn't purport to say whether fire truck can get down or not but I will tell you I was involved in the zoning enforcement matter and one of the issues that was going on was the person D that was driving down there was driving a fullsize greyhound size 40ft bus and they were able to get in there and park the bus no no problem um my client has met with neighbors and with regard to the landscape he's not willing to agree to a condition because we don't have a plan so he he wouldn't know what he's agreeing to but he is willing to agree to meet with the neighbors and discuss a landscape plan with them um I wonder if I could ask the board for a a poll here I I don't we're not trying to avoid the short-term rental issue but what I'm trying to say is is that as habitable space without a kitchen it's not legally able to be rented so I think it's kind of going beyond the scope of the the project to condition a short-term rental issue but if I'd like to know if that's going to be kind of a deal breaker because I I would like not want to see the project be denied on on something like that does does the board agree with what I'm saying or is the B board concerned that with this issue I I was going to have short-term rental condition that's what I was hoping we were going to have so if if that's the case again I I don't I think it would be illegal for my client to rent that as it is but if the board is concerned about that he would simply like to Define what a short-term rental is because we have this concept but without a statute or a regulation so would it be okay to condition it that it won't be rented for terms less than 30 days so I I think just to clarify at this point in time where there's no kitchen what the board has typically done is to state that the lot as a whole is a single family use and that the structure the accessory structure cannot separately be rented and I think that would just be in place until there's a change in the law that would other otherwise allow it I think that would be fine um because again the intent is not to rent but I know properties change hands and therefore the board is concerned about that what my client's trying to do is set this up that in the event he decides to stay in Florida permanently or he gets to the point where he's going to sell the property he's he's making it available for the next owner to say oh I could have an Adu there which I believe are not allowed for short-term rentals I believe that one of the state condition state law conditions is it's long-term rentals so we're just trying to not condition the property for the future that that's what condition okay yeah that's fine isn't shortterm rental defined as under 30 days well again there's no kitchen so I I think there's not there's not a rental option for this at this this is going to exist if he do violation it then becomes subject to both zoning as well as Board of Health restrictions and the town could get an injunction right but I mean I think if you have it as part of your decision that it is part of the single family use of the lot and that it's not separately rentable until and unless there's a change in the bylaw right so I thought last week wasn't it a shortterm rental considered 30 days or less that was a commercial accommodation so that was a separate Arrangement that the board made for that but that was specifically a different use no listen he just wants to ask a ask a question thank you yeah so uh I think it was an American president who once says said trust but verify so I'm a little concerned about what I'm hearing here so what I heard most recently is that you might consider not putting a condition on no short-term rentals because until Tony puts in a kitchen and wants to rent it as a short-term rent it's not an issue or if it's an Adu I think an Adu has certain requirements which whatever they are they are which is fine but it sounds like you're just lifting the short-term you know rental condition completely from this outside of the future possibility of it being classified as an Adu she said no rentals right so so I think what we're doing is sort of precluding that option and that what you're saying now as of today is there's no kitchen so there's no separate rental so the use of the structure as of today would be part of the single family use of the lot and that that would be in place until there's a change in the law that may allow that to be an accessory dwelling unit in which case they put in a kitchen someone can live there and then they would have to abide by the laws and the rules that are attached to those so would it be possible to say no short-term rentals until the Adu rules Come into place as opposed to just being silent on no short-term rentals well so I think you're still saying excluding rentals period shortterm longterm because can you say that though because there's no kitchen cannot rent that unit there's no kitchen I cannot rent the unit when there's a kitchen though you you could right have to get a permit you have to come so John yeah I cannot rent that unit okay if I decide if the law says hey you can rent that unit I have to go in for a permit to rent that at that time whatever conditions exist or conditions that need to be put on it can be discussed at that time but I can't rent the unit so why would we discuss the term of that rent I can't rent so may I respond to that sure so that's what concerns me um so it's like deferring this and then whenever you know conditions change and Tony puts in a kitchen and he can consider rentals then this is a whole another process and a different process than the one we're going through now unless I I'm completely missing something no it's a different process so so for now it's like now I think now is a time to condition this right right but so as of today we have to discreetly look at what he's asking for which is habitable space but no kitchen so it's not possible to rent that structure today and so what the decision would say is that it's habitable space overflow part of the single family use of the lot so there's no rental at all and there can't be a rental until and unless there's a bylaw change that allows the accessory dwelling unit and at which point in time he would have to come into compliance with that law so he could only rent it if it's an Adu in the future correct okay I just so that's under uh Mass state law definition of short-term rental C A short-term rental is under 31 consecutive calendar days right but but we're we're not we're asking for we're not permitting a rental because there was no request and there's no no but you're asking for a condition and the definition of a short-term rental is under 31 consecutive calendar days right but the applicant has stated that they're not renting so what the decision would say is it's not being rented it's just so you're not you're not attaching a term because you're saying no so I mean just theoretically what happens a year from now Tony does not apply for to be used as an Adu but he's put in a kitchen and he would like to rent it so that's not allowed if the bylaw changes that allows a use he's entitled to make use of that as is anyone else so but it would only apply to adus as I'm hearing it is that correct but the the state law is going to supersede the bylaw well it's going to be by the town the town's bylaw will match the state as well so so he can't regardless of the kitchen he cannot rent that um you know uh garage um until he qualifies or wanted to qualify as an Adu and there's no other circumstance under which he he's allowed to rent it at all correct yeah okay got it you hit it right you got it so not not to beat a dead horse but I think terminology is really important Tony kept using the word unit which I was going to jump up and say that's not correct and Mr England was saying we have to the condition this what is this it's habitable space above a garage it's not a dwelling unit because you can't you don't have a dwelling unit without cooking facilities it can't be rented it's not it's not a rentable entity period until there's a change and if there's a change he has to come back before the town and and and get proper per I think norine's language is fine I'm agreeable with that I think that's perfect yeah okay you have another question yes I do if my memory was correct though I believe he is actually Plumbing The Establishment for a future kitchen am I correct yep so the handwriting is on the wall yep okay thank you anybody else have any further questions up here no anybody from the public have any further questions all set dorine you in good shape you you're all set everybody up here motion to close second we have a motion to close any further discussion all those in favor of closing I I opposed none what do you want to do Scott motion to approve with conditions second we have a motion to approve the conditions and a second any discussion yes um we didn't discuss this during the hearing but Mr wall has asked for the special permit to include a finding under Section 2 46.6 B which provides that you need a special permit for a garage for more than two cars if the garage is more than 900 square ft this garage is 931 Square ft so whether or not he needs a special permit I think he's just asking one I think he used the phrase belt and suspenders but I would move that the decision if it's approved include a special permit under 6.6 B for the garage in excess of 900 square ft thank you FR good catch on that um where were we we had a motion in a second right so findings so now we need to do findings okay a little complicated here but we'll try that it is the two properties are zero Oakwood Avenue in Falmouth and 29 Oakwood Avenue in fouth the zoning district is RC they've applied for a special permit under Section 240 10.2 a which is respect for the house and 246 6B to construct additions to the existing non-conforming structure and a gazebo and it detached twocc car garage with habitable space above um there's no noted overlay District there's no uh the flood zone district is X um the existing dwelling is at number 29 is uh um, 1400 Square ft the proposed single family dwelling is 1514 Square ft with the three additions that he has asked for um the um combined lot now when the zero lot and the 29 lot are combined there will it will be 16,8 84 Square ft in the zoning District which requires 40,000 uh the street Frontage remains at 10 ft um in a district which requires 100 it's a public right of way um the plan conf that combines the two lots has been approved or it's been represented that the plan which approve which combines the two lots has been approved by the planning board and must be recorded in the registry of deeds prior to commencing any work under this special permit if it's if it's voted um the lot coverage by structure on the combined Lots will be 18.5% the lot coverage by Structure Parking and Paving on the combined Lots will be 23.8% the habitable space over the garage will have no kitchen um the non-conformity uh of lot of the house on 29 Oakwood Avenue is 1.1 ft to the north that will remain all other dimensional requirements of the zoning BW are being observed the uh height of the Gazebo will be 15 15t 8 in the height of the garage will be 21 ft 9 in um we have an ease 10 foot easement which has represented will be abandoned and access to the property will be over the driveway which runs through the uh the structures on the property um we have four I count four letters no excuse me three letters uh we have ample test we had uh various people testifying at the hearing um with respect to the um uh special permit under 246.50 B uh it is being granted because the garage is more than 900 square ft uh 10.2 240 10.2 a we make a finding that the proposed addition and the additional structures will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conforming structures and under the 2401 12.1 e special permit we're making a finding that the site is adequate for the proposed uses it is suitable for the proposed uses there's no impact on traffic flow and safety there's no impact on neighborhood visual visual character views investors there's adequate Provisions for the collection and treatment of sewage uh for the this the Board of Health has so notified us there is adequate utilities and there's no impact on affordable housing um there's also uh the applicant has agreed to put dry Wells on the new garage structure um and there'll be he's agreed to a provision that there will be that the uh habitable space over the garage will be treated as being part of the single family use of the lot and will not be separately rented do you want to do any um easements in the findings uh the easement per ples well the E the 10 foot easement will be abandoned um and the access to the property will be over the existing easement running through the property from Ood Avenue received testimony from the applicant concerning current accet motor vehical access which was confirmed by the property owner at lot 3A that accesses granted all three Parcels over an existing pave driveway I want finding to uh the non-conforming lot size is being reduced with the murder of the Lots any other further findings can you think of any Norine oh I think that's good conditions reir the plan merging the Lots um the height on the garage will have to be checked have to be verified verify um all Bo boards all boards yeah dark sky compant compant lighting to remain single family use not to exceed four bedroom unless the septic is improved with a permit from Bo of he uh as stated by the applicant that he will meet with the neighbors to discuss landscape I you get the dry Wells y yep we got dry Wells right dry Wells is one of the findings so you can put it as a condition they agreed to that or rain Garden um construction vehicles not to block the common driveway they to be there's plenty of space in the back to get done don't obstruct the common driveway work hours standard work hours work hours think of anything else anybody uh the assessor has uh requested inspection we did all board so yeah we just thr and comply with numbering of um numbering of dwellings as the building inspector determines yeah engineering does the addressing but yeah and and certainly whatever compliance they want at Oakwood so that vehicles are properly directed fire department and conditions what are we going to say can we address can we address the fire department in conditions I don't private dri I'm not going to make a finding but I can tell you as a former fireman of 10 years and Buffs u i could get my fire truck through that existing driveway to the back it need be I'll be very comfortable I had to drive I I had to drive through the camp meeting associate the gingerbread Cottages full size fire truck so those were your old bless people I that burn down and just for clarification for the abuts when we're saying all board some of the uh components that you read in your when when you're up at the podium we're saying that all of those have to be uh applied will be applied here just so you understand that you're welcome sorry thank you anybody come up with any other ones are we you all set nor yes okay so we have a motion in a second no further discussion all those in favor posos done all set thank you all for coming out happy holidays I get everything but my agenda again open meeting there it is got mine find it all right minutes November 14 only I'll make a motion has everybody read November 14 I'll make a motion to accept November 14th second you have a motion to Second all those in favor I I zoning updates I think you you've seen enough of me weekly yes board discussion uh just real quick I at some point I guess we're going to meet with the Selectmen and I thought that we should maybe craft up some agenda or talking points for whenever we get closer to that date we had a I will double check we were supposed to have uh a date ass sign in January um it has not been confirmed with me yet but I will come home I'll be I'll be around yeah second yeah um just want to make the process a little tighter so we not it'd be just nice I think I like to have an agenda we are going to have to have an executive session at some point we don't know when yet with litigation that's just a discussion we don't have to discuss it it's an update we'll give it as an update um any other board updates future agenda items we have the 26th off yes there you go what is our next Christmas our next meeting Saturday meeting oh our next Saturday going to be Springtime September September okay after I retire April and September right yeah we did one in the in the spring let's get through the winter first so we're all set right yes after we get back to meeting twice a month our next meeting is December 19th at 6 and now we're calling on Mark to do his job motion to adjourn and FL the hugy G there you go all those in favor of a journey all right we go e