2026-10-15 - Zoning Board of Appeals

00:05Good afternoon everyone. Uh welcome to

00:07the October 9 uh excuse me October 15th

00:12uh zoning board of appeals. Um

00:16uh this meeting is being uh recorded

00:29all of uh staff and board members. Uh

00:42>> present.

00:43>> Lisa Bachelli

00:47>> present.

00:47>> Bobby Constable

00:49>> present.

00:51And I think Jim is coming later. Uh so

00:55see Tristan Tristan.

00:58Sorry Tristan Brown. No, sorry. Uh, uh,

01:04Billy Sab here. Okay.

01:08All right. Um,

01:10okay. Uh, let's move on to the, uh, may

01:14I get a motion to approve the agenda as

01:17written?

01:18>> So moved.

01:20>> Second.

01:20>> Made a second. Any further discussion on

01:22the motion?

01:25>> Hearing hearing none. All those in

01:27favor, please say I.

01:28>> I.

01:28>> I. Uh let's we'll go to the next item on

01:31the agenda. Public comment. Is there any

01:33uh any members of the public who wish to

01:35comment on matters that are not on the

01:37agenda?

01:40Do we have anybody online?

01:45No. All right. Fantastic. Um moving on.

01:48We'll do the uh approval of the minutes.

01:50Um I hope everybody's had a chance to

01:52read the minutes of September 10th, 2026

01:54and September 30th, 2026.

01:56>> Before you go on, I have someone with

01:58their hand up online. Oh, for public

02:00comment. Okay. Uh, let's let's go for

02:04it.

02:10>> You're on.

02:11>> I'm just gonna preface this, Mr. Chair.

02:13This is Billy Sud. Uh, Mr. Hughes, if

02:15you want to comment on a matter that is

02:18listed on the agenda, you'll need to

02:20wait for that agenda item to come up.

02:22>> Oh, yeah. That's that that's fine. I

02:24just I thought you wanted me to let you

02:26know that I'm online. I thought that's

02:27what the chairman had asked.

02:29>> No, you're good.

02:30>> No, all set. Thank Mr. Hughes.

02:33>> Um, okay. Uh, may I have a motion to

02:36approve the minutes of September 10th,

02:382026?

02:39>> So moved.

02:40>> Motion made. Is there a second?

02:41>> Second.

02:42>> Motion made second. All those in favor,

02:43please say I.

02:44>> I.

02:45>> And we'll do another motion for

02:46September 30th, 2026 minutes.

02:50>> Uh, so moved.

02:51>> Thank you. Motion made. Is there a

02:52second?

02:53>> Second.

02:53>> Motion made second. Uh any further

02:55discussion on the motion hearing? None.

02:57All those in favor, please say I.

02:59>> I.

02:59>> I.

03:00>> That carries unanimously as well. Um

03:03okay. Uh I think we should do uh old We

03:06have one item on old business, but and

03:08it's requested to be continued to

03:10November 19th, 2026. Can I have a motion

03:13to uh grant the extension request to

03:16November 19th, 2026?

03:18>> So moved. Second.

03:19>> Made

03:21and seconded. Any further discussion on

03:23the motion? Hearing none. All those in

03:24favor, please say I. I.

03:26>> I.

03:27>> Uh, then we'll uh we'll go to our first

03:29item on the agenda. 2026-0045,

03:33Robert W. Osgood 4th and Emily M.

03:36Ozgood. I am recused as is Miss Qu. The

03:41applicant's representative isn't here

03:43yet. Is there anyone else in the crowd

03:46>> that would be representing this item?

03:52And do we have anybody online? Chris,

04:00>> maybe skip over this one.

04:01>> I was going to say for now.

04:03>> I was say if you'll all if you'll all

04:05indulge me, why don't we skip to the

04:07next item

04:09um which will be 2026-0046

04:14Michael James Warren and Lynn Karen

04:16Talento 12 Madak Sham Valley Road. Uh

04:19Arthur Reed for the applicant.

04:22Mr. Reed online.

04:28>> He might not have been ready. Thinking

04:29he was second.

04:32>> Uh Arthur, if you can hear us, if you're

04:34ready, we're we're ready for you.

04:47Let's see.

04:54>> I was about to say we have Dan Malloy in

04:55the

04:56>> Mr.

04:57Mr. Mallaloy. Oh, there's Arthur. Uh,

05:01Arthur. Arthur, you're you're muted.

05:09>> Okay. Can you hear me now?

05:10>> Yes, sir.

05:11>> Okay, great. Thank you very much and my

05:13apologies. Uh this is a situation out at

05:17the end of Marasham Valley Road, you

05:21know, east of the airport,

05:23uh in which the subject property has an

05:26existing house. Now, you're looking at

05:28the proposed conditions plan. I think

05:30you want to start out with the existing

05:31conditions, which is that plan. And as

05:34you can see, there is uh a house out

05:39there that is uh uh

05:42closer than we would like to have it be

05:45to the top of the bank. Uh it's uh it's

05:48now as shown on the plan uh

05:51approximately

05:53uh 61 ft from the top of the bank.

05:57Continuing erosion taking place over a

05:59long period of time. You know the story

06:01on that. And uh we therefore want to

06:05move that house back, make some minor

06:07alterations to it, but move it to the

06:09north as close as reasonably feasible to

06:12the line of the lot along Madakam Valley

06:15Road.

06:17Madakam Valley Road shows as public 40T

06:20wide. Uh in fact, the roadway ends at

06:24this lot. Uh the existing driveway as

06:28it's shown on the plan coming in from

06:30the northwesterly corner of the property

06:32serves this lot and beyond that point

06:35Madakasham Valley Road is unconstructed

06:38and the land to the north and the land

06:40to the east all belongs to the land

06:42bank. So there's no situation in which

06:45that's ever going to be opened up. Uh

06:48and we don't want to open it up.

06:51So, what we're proposing to do, as you

06:53will see, if you can flip over to the

06:55proposed conditions plan, thank you. Is

06:59to extend the existing driveway so that

07:01it parallels the line of Madakam Valley

07:04Road, but within the lot. That the

07:07existing house would be relocated with a

07:09very small addition, a 204 square foot

07:11edition.

07:13and that my clients uh Michael Warren

07:17and Lynn Talento uh would like to build

07:20a new secondary dwelling which they

07:22would put put up in the northeasterly

07:24corner of the lot.

07:27Mr. Warren is is at the meeting today, I

07:29believe, by the way, and uh I know he'll

07:31want to say a few things uh uh uh about

07:34this as we go on. And I know they're

07:37very much concerned that the existing

07:39house uh you know, one of the reasons

07:41for the secondary dwelling is that they

07:43don't want to make major changes to the

07:45existing house, which has been there for

07:47a long time and which uh they and I

07:50think a lot of other people in the area

07:52know and like and remember and love. Uh

07:56so in any event uh that's the concept in

07:59terms of what we would do as to the

08:01layout. Once again the driveway running

08:03parallel to the road line so that we

08:05don't have to have a second curb cut nor

08:08do it make any changes to Madak Sham

08:10Valley Road which is basically un

08:12undisturbed land that is for all

08:14practical purposes is uh uh uh adjacent

08:18to and [clears throat] and controlled by

08:20the landback.

08:23I think that's basically what we have to

08:25present. I know you'll have some

08:27questions and things to discuss and I'll

08:29look forward to talking about those. I

08:32think Dan Mallaloy was going to be at

08:34the meeting as well. I'm not sure that

08:35he's there in the audience as yet and I

08:37am assuming that uh Mr. Warren is there

08:40as well if they if they want to get up

08:41and say something. Uh but questions for

08:44me, I guess.

08:45>> Great. Thank you, Arthur. Uh board

08:48members, do you have any questions for

08:49Mr. Reid this time?

08:55Okay. Uh hearing none. Um anybody else

08:59in the audience wish to speak on this

09:02matter?

09:04No. Um okay. Uh and do we have anybody

09:08online with their hand raised for this?

09:11>> Not at this time. No.

09:12>> Okay. Um so I will just remind the board

09:15that we have a that new variance

09:18standard to apply here uh where it is

09:21the practical difficulty instead of the

09:22substantial hardship. Um I don't have

09:26any comments or concerns about any of

09:28this either. Um

09:31I guess at this point I would entertain

09:33a motion from Mr.

09:34>> Chair. Yes.

09:35>> One question.

09:38>> Um so the the the house is being moved

09:41out. I understand that. But does it need

09:44to be moved so far that it's within the

09:46setback.

09:50>> And is it

09:52And you're proposing to build a new

09:55structure within the setback as well.

09:57Right.

10:00>> And how far into this front setback are

10:03they?

10:03>> 30 30 feet. Well, for the second

10:07>> Right. So they're

10:08>> they're going to be four

10:09>> more than halfway in.

10:10>> Yeah. The the Yeah. Yeah, the one on the

10:12right, the proposed is only four feet

10:14away.

10:15>> Uh, attorney Reed or Mr. Mallaloy, would

10:19you like to

10:20>> I I can answer them. So, the the

10:22existing dwelling is being pulled

10:23forward, so it's about 18 ft off the

10:26front. The second dwelling is being

10:28pulled forward. It's just about four

10:29feet off the front. The the reason for

10:32this stagger is simply to provide a

10:33driveway so we can get to the other

10:35dwelling without having to open up Madak

10:37Shim Valley Road and have two curves.

10:42So the intent is to pull it as far

10:44forward as physically possible and util

10:46get it as far from the bank as we can so

10:48we're not back here at some future date

10:51with another erosion concern. This is as

10:53far as we can practically go.

10:55>> I got you. So how how far are you moving

10:57it up again? Uh

11:00>> it's moving forward. The existing house

11:02is moving forward just over 100 ft.

11:06It's in the 60s now, moving into over

11:08100.

11:11>> Okay. Um,

11:14and then the second welling

11:17is put in that same non-performing

11:21situation

11:22>> because of the erosion.

11:28>> That's correct.

11:29>> Okay.

11:31>> And that's even closer to the road. But

11:34the can I ask a question? I think I'm

11:36correct. And

11:38>> the road even though the road is a paper

11:41road is not um improved. Correct. The

11:45road basically ends at this driveway.

11:47>> That's right.

11:48>> So in order to

11:51perceive the road, it would be hard to

11:53perceive where that property line is

11:55because of vegetation.

11:57>> It's completely vegetated. There's

11:59nothing. You can't tell where the line

12:01is on the ground.

12:04And would there be any chance of that

12:05road wanting to be opened for any

12:07reason?

12:09>> There should

12:10>> I can't imagine it.

12:12The the way that people travel through

12:14that area is through, as you can see on

12:16this uh on this picture, you can see

12:18that the actual travel road proceeds,

12:21you know, without any legal status. Uh

12:24but as you drive out between uh Tom

12:26Never's Head and uh and south of the

12:29airport where this is uh that's the road

12:32that everybody for generations has

12:34traveled.

12:35>> And uh with the land bank owning the

12:38property uh uh to the east of this

12:43uh uh I can't imagine any circumstance

12:46in which anyone would want to open up

12:48the u that roadway.

12:56And and just so I uh can

12:59have an understanding of the current

13:01parking. So currently they park away

13:04from the house.

13:07Pretty far away from the house. Is that

13:08right when I look at this?

13:12And

13:13>> by the way, I'm having a terribly hard

13:15time hearing anything.

13:16>> I'm sorry. It could be me, Arthur. I I

13:18just I my question is they currently

13:21there's a distance between the driveway

13:23and the and the house.

13:25>> Yeah.

13:26>> Um so I'm not sure why we would need to

13:30put the second dwelling so close for

13:33parking purposes if it currently is not

13:36that close to the dwelling.

13:42Well, I think obviously the point would

13:45be to get everything including the

13:47parking and the houses up to the

13:50northerly end of the house so that we're

13:53not back looking for more relief

13:56>> 10 years or 20 years or 30 years from

13:59now uh when the u um uh you know when

14:03when erosion inexraably continues its

14:07northward part march

14:11I think having everything

14:13organized this way and of course we have

14:15to show in connection with the second

14:17dwelling approval and the uh building

14:20permit application how the parking

14:22spaces the required four parking spaces

14:25uh will be laid out and uh so therefore

14:28we want to have them up as far up as

14:32close up as we can.

14:35Billy,

14:36>> I um I I just wanted to point out when I

14:38was talking with the applicant on this,

14:40a secondary dwelling could be built

14:43zoning compliant as it stands right now,

14:46but I believe they're trying to factor

14:48for future erosion given given the area.

14:52>> Yes,

14:53>> that was going to be my point. Um

14:58I don't think it's necessary to have two

15:01twostory structures.

15:04one being new

15:07that far into the front setback.

15:10Um,

15:12I don't see why the new structure, and

15:15to tell you the truth,

15:19I would like to see both structures out

15:21of that front setback,

15:23right on the line, but I think it's a

15:26little odd to have two

15:29twostory structures

15:32that close in in

15:35more than halfway into the setback.

15:40Um,

15:42>> yes. I mean, I I don't disagree with

15:45Alisa, although I do think we have given

15:47relief um

15:49[clears throat]

15:50I I think pretty recently for people to

15:52get as far away as possible. I don't I I

15:55mean, so I don't really have an issue

15:57with the relocated dwelling. I think

15:59getting 4.1 feet away seems with a new

16:02structure seems a little um problematic.

16:06I would much prefer that to you know, be

16:09staggered to maybe the end of the double

16:11parking space,

16:13you know, like to pull it back to Sorry,

16:15I'm gonna stand up to this point,

16:19>> you know, so that there is to at least

16:21this point there's a little bit of

16:22staggering.

16:25So, it's still 18 to 20 ft. It's 15 ft

16:28within the setback. four seems a little

16:31close

16:34>> that

16:35>> once again nothing is ever going to be

16:36happening in that roadway. So I'm not

16:39sure that there's there should be a

16:41great concern about that. Uh,

16:45one, um, uh, other thing is that we

16:48would be bringing the main dwelling up

16:50closer to the roadway if it weren't for

16:52the fact that we need to provide for

16:54the, uh, driveway and, uh, and parking

16:57area as it's shown on here, which is why

16:58we're going as far back from the uh,

17:01northerly line in our proposal as uh, as

17:04is shown here.

17:06I just feel like the secondary dwelling

17:08the the should feel like a secondary

17:11dwelling because the way it is right now

17:13I feel like it's just two primary

17:17dwellings as far forward as possible and

17:22if everybody on that entire road went as

17:26far forward as possible and built their

17:29main structure or move their main

17:30structure that's two stories and then

17:32their secondary structure that's two

17:34stories

17:35right up on the road. I think um there's

17:40there's something wrong with that. It's

17:41not the way it's supposed to. You know,

17:43one structure is more dominant than the

17:45secondary structure. And I don't think

17:48that that's what's happening here. I

17:51think you know, are you through HTC yet

17:55for the second structure?

17:58>> I believe are Yes. Yes, we are through

18:01HTC.

18:04Do we have those approvals in the

18:05package?

18:06>> Yes.

18:08>> Let me

18:08>> I can pull it up if you'd like.

18:10>> Okay, that'd be great.

18:13>> Just to be clear, I I

18:16I could go along with the main structure

18:18being pulled that far into the setback,

18:21but the secondary structure,

18:23I like the idea of it not being as close

18:27to the front property line. And

18:31>> I just had a thought

18:33And I think this would be feasible. What

18:36if we switched the main house and the

18:39secondary dwelling

18:41and brought the main house up into the

18:45location where we're showing the

18:47secondary dwelling. And the secondary

18:50dwelling would be set further back uh in

18:54in approximate location of the main

18:56house as where uh as it's depicted on

18:59the plan that you have before you. my

19:01opinion, that's still not enough.

19:04That's just my opinion. I feel like it

19:06should be further back, like Lisa

19:09pointed out, maybe more behind the

19:12parking.

19:14Just these two twostory structures

19:17basically feeling like they're next to

19:19each other as far forward as possible.

19:24I'm I don't like it.

19:28any

19:29>> well we don't like erosion uh and

19:31obviously that's that's why we want to

19:34get them up as far to the north as far

19:36as we can uh and also not have to come

19:40back before the board as I said in the

19:42next 5 10 20 30 years to uh uh have them

19:47moved up again to get closer to the road

19:49because obviously that that's the limit

19:51in terms of how far we can go

19:54>> but then do we take every single house

19:55on Nantucket that's waterfront and move

19:58every single house as far forward on the

20:00property as possible.

20:02>> That's exactly what's encouraged by the

20:04coastal resiliency people. Uh that

20:06retreat is the favorable is is the most

20:09favored uh uh approach to dealing with

20:13uh with erosion. uh rather than uh

20:16coastal engineering structures or

20:18anything along that line. Uh people

20:21should be encouraged to move their

20:22houses back as far as they can across

20:25the street if they own the property

20:27across the street as is available in

20:29some places but not here. But uh that is

20:33is is exactly what it should be. And in

20:35a case where this is a road that is

20:38never going to be opened up for

20:39practical purposes, the end of the road

20:41is always going to be the place where

20:43this driveway, as shown on these plans,

20:46comes into this lot at the present time.

20:48That road isn't really serving any uh

20:50any purpose as a roadway. Nobody's going

20:52to be going up and down it. Nobody's

20:54going to be building on the other side

20:56of it. It's owned by the land bank. U so

20:59I don't I don't see the um I don't see

21:02the harm. And I I in fact I see a lot of

21:04good public policy in favor of allowing

21:06this.

21:09>> Sean, yes. Um Arthur, I completely

21:12understand what you're saying about the

21:13road. I see that. Too bad these guys

21:16couldn't obtain that section of the

21:18road, you know, through through through

21:20some But um they are big huge buildings

21:24though. I mean, I hadn't looked at the

21:26HGC drawings and I was sort of hoping it

21:28was like a cute little onetory or one

21:31and a half story. It's it's two massive

21:34buildings and um which is fine. I think

21:37what's what makes a little bit more

21:38difficult is it's a new construction.

21:41Often times we are taking buildings that

21:43exist and retreating them into the

21:45setback because they are not because

21:47they exist.

21:49>> Not allowing people to build within the

21:52front yard setback for something new.

21:54This is kind of new territory. I think

21:57>> I I I agree with you, Lisa, in the sense

22:00that I

22:01>> interestingly had you all like had the

22:04second dwelling existed, I think we

22:06would be way more favorable to allowing

22:09it to go in both the dwellings to go in

22:11their location. The the nuance and the

22:14wrinkle here is that it is new. And I I

22:18understand the arguments completely

22:20about erosion, about wanting to to get

22:24this as far away from the coastal bank

22:27as as conceivably possible. And I I I

22:30appreciate that. I think the again I

22:32think the challenge is that the second

22:35dwelling is proposed that it's not we're

22:38not relocating something. It is truly a

22:40brand new structure.

22:43>> Bear in mind that we would have the

22:44ability to build a second dwelling. Oh,

22:47agreed.

22:47>> If we m if we maintain the setback, we

22:49have planning board approval for it or

22:51getting planning board approval for it.

22:53Uh and from a zoning standpoint, if we

22:56maintain that that setback, we'd uh be

22:58able to do it and then we'd be able to

23:00come back in uh in a few years and say,

23:02"Hey, we got a

23:02>> building."

23:04Agreed. And it's it's just interesting

23:06that you're you're you're effectively

23:08jumping to a conclusion that we probably

23:10would have granted without you taking

23:12all the steps of actually constructing

23:13the second dwelling even though and then

23:15having to relocate it. I that that that

23:18point is not lost on us, believe me.

23:20>> Right.

23:21>> Um

23:22>> but it just opens up the door of you

23:25know somebody creating a hard well

23:27actually there is a hardship there is

23:28erosion but

23:30>> but for the existing house

23:35Yes. All right. And

23:36>> but Arthur, um, sorry, John, please go

23:39ahead.

23:41>> Is it your position? So, say this lot

23:43was empty

23:45that you could build these two uh, not

23:49could by right, but you have the right

23:51to build two structures, but you could

23:54[clears throat] build them within the

23:55the setback

23:57based on this.

24:00your statement about retreat is the best

24:04plan for erosion.

24:06>> Yeah, I mean obviously we could we

24:11wouldn't be here if we were going to

24:13maintain the 35 ft setback which we

24:15obviously could do but then would be uh

24:19once again back in sooner rather than

24:21later for uh uh further relief. Again, I

24:25think it's we don't have an issue with

24:27the building that exists being relocated

24:30within the setback because you are

24:33retreating and that makes sense. I think

24:34it's the new construction that

24:37is giving us pause.

24:39>> Mr. Chairman,

24:40>> yes,

24:42>> just a question. This these new the new

24:46buildings are set a skew in the lot and

24:49if you look at the plan for the existing

24:51building, it is not a skew if you

24:53understand what I'm saying.

24:55It's

24:56>> if they were aligned parallel to that I

24:59guess that's the northern

25:02>> the northern lot line if they were

25:03aligned parallel

25:05then that secondary dwelling

25:08would not be you know inserting itself

25:11into the setback at that you know that

25:13the way it is in that corner what was

25:15the reason for doing that skewing them

25:19if anybody knows

25:21>> I I I think that's right I think I think

25:23the initial So initial one was parking,

25:26but I guess the question is if if they

25:28can rotate rotate it ever so slightly.

25:31>> That's that's my question. If you just

25:32rotated them clockwise so they're

25:34parallel to that lot line, that solves

25:37lease's problem.

25:38>> Well, they'd both be in the setback

25:40though, but by by less.

25:43>> They'd be like 20 ft away. I would like

25:46to see the new structure

25:49pulled back further than the

25:53pre-existing structure that's getting

25:54moved that far forward from

25:59just because I don't want to approve a

26:01new dwelling going that far into the

26:04setback just because we're approving it

26:07for an existing building

26:10because of reasons, you know, erosion

26:13beyond the owner's control, but

26:17there's something about putting a brand

26:19new structure in that same place that

26:23doesn't feel right to me.

26:25>> Mr. Moy

26:27>> uh well just one question which I'm not

26:29sure if you've had a chance to touch on

26:30in the other applications that is the

26:32new the new variance threshold about

26:34practical difficulty

26:37and how you would look at that and apply

26:39it to this where instead of meeting the

26:42the harder threshold of variance now

26:44it's a practical difficult

26:46>> and so the variance request practical

26:49difficulty is they're going to go

26:51through the effort to put these houses

26:52in let's say compliant with setbacks or

26:54some different variation

26:56And the practical difficulty is now

26:58coming back at a future date to do this

27:00all over again at the cost of then

27:02moving it forward again.

27:04So part of the question is do they meet

27:07the new threshold for variance versus

27:10what we're all used to from a few months

27:12ago?

27:14>> I think trying to I think we're trying

27:16to resolve a pre-existing practical

27:19difficulty. But by building a second

27:21dwelling, in my opinion, you are

27:23creating

27:25a dwelling. You are purposely creating a

27:28dwelling that you're creating your own

27:30practical difficulty

27:32>> in my opinion,

27:33>> which is an exception.

27:36And I'm not saying that it

27:41I'm not saying it shouldn't be in the

27:42front setback, but it this um two two

27:48stories front row right next to each

27:50other that close to the front yard

27:53setback.

27:55>> You know, that's why we're here. We're

27:56the zoning board and it doesn't feel

27:59right to me. In that case, if you were

28:02on Main Street or Old South Road, I can

28:06understand putting a building right up

28:07against the street line.

28:09>> In this case, the the street in front of

28:12us isn't a street. It's it's it's with

28:15our driveway. There is no street. We're

28:17not really encumbering up on up on a

28:19street.

28:19>> Property line. Maybe I should reverted

28:22that.

28:22>> Visually speaking, we're not up

28:25on something anyone's going to perceive

28:27as being on the front of the street. two

28:29twostory dwellings right next to each

28:31other anywhere feels weird to me

28:34>> unless you're on Main Street.

28:36>> Unless you're on Main Street and it's

28:37formal whailing captain's house.

28:42>> Uh Mr. Chair through you. I I think I

28:44understand your point and I it is much

28:46different than Main Street, but

28:50um

28:51you know the zoning should be fixed then

28:53to allow this closer to the to the road

28:56in this area. I don't think

28:58We make an assessment that just because

29:00there's nothing around it, uh, we'll

29:03just grant the exception.

29:06That's my view.

29:10Any other comments from the board?

29:13>> I have a question. Yes, please, Mr.

29:14Garrett.

29:15>> So, if you look at 16 Madak Sham, it's

29:18two doors down. That's is there a

29:20precedent on

29:23um when we allow people to move it back

29:25from the the bluff whether it's 5t 10 ft

29:2920 ft or does it depend on every

29:30situation and if you look at 16 that

29:33looks like it's

29:35super close for example so just curious

29:39um

29:42generally speaking it's a case by case

29:44basis and we encou we historically we've

29:47encouraged moving them as close as

29:49feasibly possible to your lot line. Um,

29:53again, I think the the nuance to this

29:56one

29:57is that second dwelling and that and and

30:00and frankly the I think the issue is

30:03that the second dwelling is the new

30:06construction is closer to the lot line

30:09than the existing structure.

30:12That that's where that's where I think

30:13we're we're going to find ourselves

30:15getting hung up. Um I I I personally I

30:19don't have an issue with either of these

30:21being in the setback, but I can

30:24appreciate but I am having pause giving

30:28a variance for the new structure being

30:30the closer of the two

30:32>> and so close.

30:33>> I I'm not I'm not as gi given where the

30:36site is, I'm not as concerned about it

30:37being that close. Um but as Mr. Tul used

30:42to say, I'm just one vote.

30:44[laughter]

30:45Um yeah, again please. Let's say this

30:48lot went back a thousand feet.

30:52Um how do we determine how far back is

30:57acceptable or not? Is there Dan? Is

30:59there um an estimated amount of erosion

31:02in a 100 years of how how far back we

31:05expect?

31:05>> I mean so there is no threshold. It's

31:08this could erode five feet this year,

31:10could erode 20 feet depending on how bad

31:13this you might get an average of two or

31:15three feet a year. Some the years it was

31:16more, some of the years it was less. Uh

31:19what John said is I mean historically

31:23any application that comes before this

31:25board for this type of relief is always

31:26pushed and asked to move as far forward

31:29as physically possible. In a lot of

31:31places it's right on the front line or

31:33within inches of it. So it's it's very

31:35common to make that request bring it up

31:38or existing dwellings. I'm not talking

31:39about new existing.

31:41>> Uh however with the changes in the

31:43regulation now

31:45it's it's the board shall it's it's the

31:49difficulty to the owner now is the

31:52presumption rather than everything that

31:54we're used to applying. So it's the

31:57production of housing. What's the

31:58difficulty? What's the harm on the

31:59neighborhood?

32:02Looking at the new requirements versus

32:03what we're asking,

32:05I think it meets those requirements.

32:08The separation from the houses is

32:11aesthetic, but does that affect the

32:13neighborhood? And is that part of the

32:15threshold we should be looking at for

32:17the request?

32:20It's all it's all new. The regulation is

32:21new. So, it's

32:22>> Yeah,

32:23>> it's not something we're doing all the

32:25time.

32:26>> Yeah, it's hard. It's it's difficult. I

32:28mean the new regulations are difficult

32:30and

32:32you know the production of housing to

32:34benefit one person is that reason to

32:37grant a variance in my opinion no but

32:40you know who knows how the state looks

32:42at it I don't think anybody's tested

32:44this yet and um

32:48you know I I think it's who says that

32:50you have to have a second dwelling who

32:52says that you know if this has that much

32:54erosion maybe it doesn't make sense to

32:56build another building on this site I I

32:58mean, sometimes logic has to play into

33:03these equations for us

33:06and it just it it just gets hard with

33:08the new regulations. I mean, again, I

33:10think we've always been open to the

33:13relocation of existing houses close

33:15enough close to the property line in the

33:17setback because of that. But it it it's

33:20harder when it's new when it's new

33:22construction.

33:24>> So, I don't know how to deal with it.

33:26>> Yeah. I'm just curious. I mean, I'm

33:28looking at the the footprint of the

33:30second dwelling and then I'm looking at

33:33the deck on the back of it. Both

33:35structures have decks on the back.

33:38Would your client be interested in

33:41taking that second dwelling and putting

33:44it where Lisa suggested where the two

33:47parking spots are that are between the

33:49structures now pulling that secondary

33:51dwelling, the new dwelling, new

33:53construction back.

33:56um and having it sort of in the vicinity

34:00of

34:02behind the parking or

34:05just not encroaching that far into the

34:07setback. Lisa, are you are you

34:09suggesting I mean I'm looking at uh the

34:11site plan here and I believe I if I have

34:14this correct

34:15>> that the back of the relocated dwelling

34:19is 148 ft from the bank

34:22>> and the deck of the the back of the deck

34:26of the proposed second dwelling is 176.

34:30>> Are you would you want those both to be

34:33148? like you want to make it

34:35>> so that so that they're you know sort of

34:37equidistant from the bank.

34:39>> Yeah. I mean the only thing that I'm

34:40going to say is this does not reflect

34:42the HTC approved footprint of this

34:44building.

34:45>> Uh

34:46>> you know if you look at this the

34:48footprint is more of a T. It would

34:50>> Yeah, I did notice that

34:51>> it would be helpful maybe to see

34:55the other design on this site plan.

34:59And

35:00>> doesn't that that doesn't look like that

35:02just

35:04um

35:07so

35:10>> that would be a starting point I think

35:12>> maybe

35:13>> perhaps and having the footprints

35:16of the plans match the footprint on the

35:20you know the HTC plans matching this

35:23>> the proposed proposed plot plan. Dan,

35:26when when are you planning on doing the

35:28relocation?

35:29>> Uh, the intent is to start work as soon

35:32as possible. So, as soon as we get

35:33through the processing and permits,

35:35they're intended to start.

35:37>> Could we is there any way to break this

35:39into two discussions or that's hard?

35:41>> Well, so I was actually going to say

35:42does, you know, as as we're going

35:44through this um does any any board

35:47member have any issues with the actual

35:48relocation of the existing structure?

35:50>> No.

35:51>> Okay. So I I think I think you can sort

35:53of take comfort in in that the the so

35:58I don't want to speak for the entire

35:59board here but I'd say that you you have

36:01support for them for the relocation of

36:03the existing structure. Uh I in terms of

36:07your permitting I don't want know if you

36:09want to se try to separate these two or

36:12and and move on with just the relocation

36:14and then come back for the second

36:16dwelling uh or have the two still lump

36:19together and come back because I it

36:21sounds like it doesn't sound like we're

36:24in a position to make a a favorable

36:28decision on the location of the second

36:29dwelling right now. Yeah, I I am I am uh

36:32if I may at the point where I would

36:35suggest that we continue this until the

36:38November meeting and meanwhile I will

36:42confer with uh my clients and with uh

36:46Dan and with their architect

36:49uh and see if we can make some tweaks to

36:52this that might be u more uh in line

36:55with the suggestions that you've made

36:57and would be um acceptable to the whole

36:59board.

37:02Yeah, and I think if I could request an

37:04updated plan from Dan that just shows

37:06that footprint with the parking and, you

37:10know, look at maybe being able to pull

37:12it back a little, you know, just

37:13evaluate it.

37:16>> Yeah, we we we we hear you.

37:19>> Okay. Uh, good. Um,

37:23okay. Uh, any further comments from the

37:27public?

37:29If not, may I have a motion to continue

37:31this to November 19th, please?

37:33>> So moved.

37:34>> Motion is second.

37:35>> Motion made and second. All those in

37:36favor, please say I.

37:38>> I. Thank you. We'll see you in a little

37:40bit.

37:41>> Thank you.

37:42>> Um in

37:44I'm going to suggest that we continue uh

37:48with uh 2020, go to 20260047.

37:53Uh since it is Mr. read again and we can

37:55get him get him out and then we can

37:58circle back to the Ozgoods.

38:03>> Arthur, I hope you're okay. I just

38:04noticed you were in a hospital room with

38:06us.

38:07>> I am. I You see the flowers behind me?

38:10>> Yeah, this this is a first. You're

38:11welcome actually on the board to have

38:13someone present.

38:14>> Yeah, I'm I'm I'm looking for all the

38:16sympathy I can get. But yeah, I actually

38:20had a fall at home last week and uh have

38:22a

38:23>> cracked vertebrae and

38:26uh broken collarbone, but uh I'm up and

38:29around and functioning from from

38:32Nantucket Cottage Hospital right now.

38:35>> Yeah. Well, you got a nice view it look.

38:37There you go.

38:37>> Yeah.

38:38>> Um all right. Why don't we do to uh go

38:40to 2026-000047

38:43Smooth Hummus LLC for the applicant

38:47attorney Arthur Reid and I see Mr.

38:49Gasparo as well.

38:50>> Thank you again.

38:52And this is surprise surprise a matter

38:55in which my clients are moving their

38:58house back from the Southshore because

39:00of erosion.

39:03In this case uh we're not asking for any

39:06relief as far as setbacks are concerned.

39:09Uh this property is uh uh has quite a

39:12lot of uh north south uh distance uh and

39:17uh is uh and the house right now as you

39:20can see the shadow down at the bottom uh

39:23is is uh is uncomfortably close to the

39:26top of the bank. The reason we're before

39:29you is because this is within the

39:30Morland's management district.

39:33Uh and uh you can see that we are moving

39:38the house back not all the way to the

39:40north but to a point where it would be

39:43able to be served by the existing

39:45driveway that comes in over the land to

39:48the west. Uh uh it's it this is the uh

39:52landbank property that surrounds it on

39:54all sides. uh and uh that is that long

39:58established access is the only access

40:01that in fact is really available for

40:03use. So simply moving the driveway so

40:05that it runs uh uh perpendicular to the

40:09lot line more or less coming across to

40:11the new house location which is moving

40:13being moved back uh ground cover

40:16unchanged slight slight change uh not in

40:21footprint for ground cover purposes but

40:23just in the terms of being an outdoor

40:25stair that doesn't count for uh uh

40:27ground cover uh because uh uh that will

40:32provide access into the uh uh into the

40:35basement. Um

40:38that is basically as you see on the plan

40:40what what we propose to do. I reviewed

40:43the staff recommendations uh as to

40:46conditions and I have only one issue

40:48with regard to that. There's a

40:50recommendation in there that the board

40:52uh uh limit uh uh exterior construction

40:57to prohibit it between June 15 and

41:00September 15. And you know that is

41:03normally applied in situations and quite

41:05rightly so where nobody would want there

41:08to be construction taking place in the

41:10neighborhood in a uh in an area where

41:13there are other homes around the area

41:15and other neighbors who would be

41:17potentially disturbed during that time.

41:19And that makes all the sense in the

41:20world in circumstances like this. But

41:23there are literally no neighbors to this

41:25property. This is this is out, you know,

41:27basically surrounded by land bank and

41:30conservation foundation owned property.

41:32Uh there's nobody to disturb. Uh anybody

41:36would be disturbed would be just as

41:38disturbed uh uh any other season of the

41:40year as as now and would basically

41:43involve wildlife. And we have a sign off

41:45from Natural Heritage as far as wildlife

41:48is concerned. And we have Concom

41:50approval and HDC approval by the way. So

41:53with that, I would like to see that

41:55condition

41:56removed. Uh if if we could uh ask for

42:00that. Other than that, we're perfectly

42:02fine with all the suggestions and

42:04conditions that were set forth in the

42:06staff report.

42:08And again, at this point, I'm open to

42:10questions. And I I think Art Gasparrow

42:13is there also in case there are any

42:15questions for him.

42:17>> Great. Thank you, Arthur. Billy,

42:19>> I just wanted to provide the board with

42:20a little context on that. Historically,

42:23we have included a prohibition on

42:26construction in the MMD with any

42:28approvals in the MMD, but I I did I had

42:31emailed with Arthur and I I do see his

42:33point, but this would be at the

42:34discretion of the board.

42:38>> Okay. Thank you. Uh board members, any

42:41comments or questions? Yes, Miss Bell.

42:44>> I just have a question. Who who is

42:46sitting on this?

42:48>> Ah, I was going to go down the line.

42:49We'll do Jim, myself, Alisa, Tom, and

42:52you.

42:53>> Okay. Um, I don't have a problem with

42:56this. Um, I guess my only comment would

42:58be um that it is, even though it is

43:01surrounded by conservation land, it's a

43:03very active, you know, um, beach area in

43:07the summer where lots

43:10breeding. So, um, but that's

43:15Mr. Chair.

43:16>> Yes, Chief. Uh, just a question for Art.

43:19We just went through

43:21um the previous case where there was a

43:24push to move it right up to the property

43:26line making the argument the farther

43:28better. I'm guessing the topography or

43:31whatever may don't require not require,

43:35but why wouldn't you move it to the uh

43:38within just outside the setback in the

43:41northern area?

43:42>> Um through you, Mr. Chair. Uh, I think

43:44this is just the preferred location at

43:46this point to, you know, not go so far

43:50away from the beach. It is a beach

43:52cottage shack that, you know, um, and so

43:55trying to split the difference, I think,

43:56is most likely was is the owner's

43:59preference. And again, we're coming back

44:01175 feet, it's going to put us a couple

44:02hundred feet back from the bank. And,

44:05um, you know, it would just be a longer

44:07walk to the beach from your beach

44:10cottage

44:11>> and a longer time to

44:13for it to be taken apart. Thank you.

44:16>> Thank you. Um I have actually a question

44:18for staff. I I understand why I sort of

44:23understand why this is under our

44:24jurisdiction. Have we seen a lot of

44:27house relocations in MMD or has has

44:30planning

44:32>> planning?

44:33>> By the way, I haven't been able to hear

44:34any of the last discussion. Uh, I was

44:38just asking Arthur through uh to staff

44:40if have if planning has seen a lot of

44:43house moves in MMD, not not new

44:47construction, not or but just relocation

44:50of the houses, existing homes.

44:52>> Planning has seen similar applications

44:54to that along with improvements to to

44:58different properties.

44:59>> Okay. Thank you. I I I have no real

45:02concerns with this.

45:03>> Neither do I. Um, any other comments

45:06from board members?

45:09Not any comments from the public?

45:14You want to hear any? Um,

45:17okay. I think the o only other the only

45:19question uh that I I think perhaps the

45:21board wants to discuss before we close

45:23the public hearing would be the

45:24condition about um no exterior

45:27construction between uh June 15th and

45:31September 15th. Um, I understand I I see

45:34both sides to this. Uh, frankly, I'm I'm

45:36I tend to be inclined to have the

45:39conditions be standard and and that

45:41we've we've granted them for previous

45:44applications that we should still

45:47continue that standard, but I'm I'm all

45:50ears.

45:51>> I'm just a question for Billy. I I

45:53thought that uh part of these new zoning

45:56was we I don't know why I was thinking

45:58this. We couldn't we could no longer put

46:00this type of

46:02restriction.

46:03>> MMD is a special permit.

46:05>> Oh, okay. Okay. I got you.

46:07>> Good point.

46:07>> Because uh going forward though on

46:10others, are we now not allowed to put

46:13those unless it's the property owner

46:15agrees to

46:16>> my knowledge or my understanding of it

46:19is that that only applies to the changes

46:21to the variance. The okay, you know,

46:23conditions, a special permit granting

46:25authority can still issue conditions for

46:28an approval of a special permit.

46:31Thank you.

46:34>> Um, any other board comments on the

46:36>> I'll just I'll just uh follow up with

46:38the three months of no exterior

46:40construction.

46:43Uh, I think we stay with that time

46:46frame. It's just exterior construction.

46:48They can be working away inside all

46:50summer long if they want. Um, but as far

46:53as framing and shingling and setting

46:56windows and

46:58all of that for three months, um, I

47:01would like to stay with that time frame

47:04of refraining from doing outside work.

47:09>> Just for the record, I'm I'm okay with

47:12if we um

47:15didn't require this

47:18>> because of the location.

47:20>> Understood.

47:22Uh, any additional comments from the

47:23board? Any comments from the public

47:26still before we close the public

47:27hearing?

47:33>> I'm a member of the concom. We did

47:35approve this.

47:36>> Who are you?

47:36>> Linda Williams.

47:37>> Oh, thank you.

47:39>> I'm not speaking on behalf of the

47:40concom. I'm speaking on behalf of if you

47:42put that restriction on, which having

47:44been with zoning since 1983 when I

47:47started on the zoning,

47:50we'd never put that that condition on

47:52outside of the old historic district or

47:54where there are congested um

47:56construction ever. And we never did it

47:59on these uh for a reason. If there is a

48:02storm, which there's likely going to be

48:05between May 15th and September 15th,

48:07whatever those dates that you're using,

48:09>> June 15th.

48:10>> June 15th, they're going to have to move

48:12that house. It could be in danger of

48:14where it's located, which is why those

48:16conditions were never ever put on these

48:18outlying areas that are very large lots

48:21and there isn't another house within a

48:22mile of this place. But they may have to

48:25move it, which would be prohibited if

48:28you put the no exterior construction

48:30because construction means you pick it

48:31up and you move it down the lot. And I

48:34know natural heritage I know Art can

48:36probably speak to that. I don't know if

48:37Natural Heritage put a condition

48:39[clears throat] on it because of the

48:40large lots because of endangered species

48:42and whatnot, but I haven't looked at the

48:44um Natural Heritage decision. I just

48:46know the Kong decision. So I would be

48:49hesitant to put any restriction on any

48:51of these ones that are in danger of

48:53being eroded at any time.

48:56>> Thank you. Um Art, do you have a

48:59timeline for this work?

49:01>> I think they would like to proceed as as

49:04soon as they're able and um there is no

49:06time of year restriction imposed from

49:09natural heritage. And I would just add

49:11you're so far from anybody to to

49:13disturb. Uh and there'll be no work on

49:16the beach. at all. You know, your

49:17exterior construction is going to end up

49:19being a couple hundred feet back from

49:21the beach. Uh they're just picking this

49:23house up that doesn't it's on Piers. Got

49:26it.

49:26>> So, the work near the beach is, you

49:28know, um not going to be all that much.

49:31And then if you're the concern, you have

49:35no neighbor disturbance concern. If the

49:37concern is for beachgoers, again, you're

49:39hundreds of feet back where the actual

49:41house is is going to be being worked on.

49:44So, um I'm not sure what um public

49:48interest standard or is met by by the

49:52restriction, but that that's you know by

49:55day.

49:56>> Thank you.

49:57>> I do have one followup.

49:58>> Yes.

49:58>> Um wondering about reveating the area

50:01that the the um house is getting lifted

50:04from and the path being used and the

50:08driveway.

50:10What's the plan on reveating

50:11>> beach?

50:13just beach grass.

50:16Do we have that in the um conditions?

50:18>> Native native beach grass.

50:23>> If you um look at condition number four,

50:28it says the previously disturbed areas

50:30identified for identified for reveation

50:33shall be reveated in accordance with the

50:35approved plans.

50:37And just to clarify that, that would be

50:39native species.

50:42>> Yeah. Yeah, I mean to the extent you

50:43know you have to buy you your sources of

50:46American beach grass are from New

50:48Jersey. You know we get them in either a

50:49plug. So I don't I don't know it's

50:52American beach grass that we plant.

50:53>> I'll defer and the thousands

50:56>> on the island every year.

50:58>> Oh yeah I know.

51:00>> Can we put

51:04Isn't Isn't this within the concom

51:06permit anyway?

51:08>> Yeah probably is. Yeah.

51:09>> Yeah. just it's just the I believe that

51:11it was somewhat vague in terms of uh

51:14restoration, you know, to match the

51:16surrounding area. Again, we're not

51:18>> we're not dealing with having to refill

51:20a foundation hole. We'll remove any

51:21debris from concrete blocks or anything

51:24that might be there. Um maintain

51:26existing grade. We don't have to I don't

51:28envision having to bring fill in, you

51:30know, for that. And uh and again, we

51:32would probably just plug it with with

51:34beach grass at 18 inches on center and

51:36let it do let it do its thing.

51:40Thank you. Uh any other comments from

51:42the board?

51:42>> Just uh one I just want to respond to

51:45public comment please. Uh

51:47>> I my experience on the board is we have

51:50even though I'm not for it here we have

51:52imposed these restrictions on

51:55uh properties outside the historic

51:57district commission on a number of

51:59occasion may

52:01Billy knows. I just want to clarify

52:03that. Thank you.

52:04>> Thank you. Um all right any other

52:06comments from the public or the board?

52:08Anybody online?

52:10No,

52:10>> not at this time.

52:11>> Great. All right. May I have a motion to

52:13close the public hearing? So move.

52:15>> Motion made. Is there a second?

52:17>> Second.

52:17>> Motion made in second. All those in

52:19favor, please say I.

52:20>> I.

52:20>> I.

52:21>> Um, okay. Uh, board members, what would

52:25you like to do here?

52:29We're not through.

52:30>> Yeah.

52:32We're not

52:37want to go first.

52:38>> Tom hit it.

52:39>> I'm I'm good with it. And I also as far

52:42as the

52:44restriction on when they can work

52:46outside. I don't see the need to have it

52:48because if they were just building an

52:49800 foot structure, they wouldn't have

52:52that restriction. So I would vote to let

52:56them move it and work through the uh

52:58through the summer.

53:00>> Okay. Mr. Chair, just a point of order.

53:03Um,

53:03>> I would make the motion with the

53:05findings and conditions in the staff

53:07report

53:08>> less or or with the removal of condition

53:11number five.

53:12>> Five.

53:14Is that your mo is that a motion?

53:19>> Um, yes.

53:20>> All right. Motion made. Is there is

53:21there a second to the motion?

53:22>> So move.

53:23>> Motion made in second. Any further

53:25discussion on the motion?

53:27All right. Hearing none, uh, all those

53:29in favor, please say I. I

53:31>> I

53:32>> Any opposed? All right, that passes

53:34unanimously.

53:36>> Thank you very much.

53:37>> Thank you. Um and I think we'll go back

53:40to

53:42our first item on the agenda.

53:4620260045

53:48Robert W. Ozgood IV and Emily M. Osgood.

53:52And both Alisa and I are conflicted. So

53:55Miss Bacelli, you are up.

53:57>> Oh boy.

53:58>> All right. Who's my board then?

54:03So there's the five of us. Okay, hold

54:06on.

54:11Jesse.

54:16Okay.

54:17>> Okay, got it. So this is application

54:20202645.

54:23Robert W. Osgood IVth and Emily M.

54:26Osgood.

54:27um for the applicant, Linda Williams.

54:30>> Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Um I

54:32seem to be the pool queen of medicate

54:35these days.

54:38Um this is a if you looked at the HCC

54:41approval and the site plan, you have to

54:43airlift in here to find this pool, which

54:46is one of the more unusual uh lots

54:49because it's a combination of multiple

54:512500 and 5,000 foot lots. There's a

54:54house to the north separating us from

54:57the public way. There's a house to the

55:00south. Their [clears throat] house is to

55:02the east. And the pool equipment is

55:05behind the shed. And there's nothing

55:06down on Washington Avenue because it

55:08basically terminates there on a dirt

55:10road. It doesn't go all the way through.

55:12It's 18x40.

55:14The uh there is a fence on the north

55:16side. There is embedded deer fence or

55:19actually only a 4 foot high wire fence

55:22in existing vegetation which is visible

55:24on the aerials and there's a 4ft picket

55:28fence um running across from the north

55:30to south between the house and the pool

55:32because they have grandchildren. It does

55:34have an automatic pool cover. The

55:36standard conditions are in the addendum

55:39and uh they are fine with those

55:41conditions.

55:43There's not much else to say about it

55:45except that it's in the middle of

55:46nowhere.

55:49>> Unless you have any questions.

55:51>> Okay.

55:53>> Oh, I was just uh curious. Is there ve

55:56vegetation

55:58vegetation that's not shown on there?

56:00>> Go to your aerials.

56:02>> Oh, okay.

56:04>> They're pretty heavy.

56:08>> It should be in your packets. The whole

56:09thing's in the packet including the HDC

56:11presentation.

56:13>> It's very heavily vegetated.

56:15>> Okay.

56:16>> And they want it that way

56:18>> with the drive. So looks

56:22>> and HC has that that standard

56:25>> not visible at the time of inspection.

56:27Yeah.

56:27>> Or or thereafter.

56:29>> Or thereafter. And there's no change in

56:30grade. It's a really flat lot.

56:32>> Okay.

56:34>> Billy, if you want to go down to the

56:35next one. It's there's a better one.

56:38Next page

56:38>> that back into the HDC stuff. There's a

56:40very good aerial. The GIS is taken in

56:43the middle of nowhere.

56:48>> Where do they actually Oh, there you go.

56:50>> Okay.

56:52So, their front door is facing

56:53Washington Avenue. Is that right?

56:59No, it faces actually Tennessee because

57:01that's where they come in for the

57:02driveway, but they've got a deck in the

57:04back with doors and a side door that

57:07goes to the driveway. So, it's sort of

57:09they've got a deck in the front of the

57:10house towards the north and so it's got

57:12multiple access,

57:13>> but but their driveway is essentially a

57:15road. It's L Street.

57:17>> It is, but it's

57:18>> the other Do other people pass on it?

57:20>> No, it terminates at their house.

57:23>> Well, it looks like it can go through.

57:25that goes to the back of the house. Not

57:27part of the layout.

57:29>> Got it. Okay.

57:31Just because there doesn't appear to be

57:33any screening along that side of the L

57:35street. So, I was just questioning the

57:37visibility.

57:38>> Yeah. But once you get past once you get

57:39up, you still can't see in it because

57:41there's a fence there. There's going to

57:42be a whole fence there. And there's

57:43still a lot of vegetation running

57:44through around the house.

57:46>> Okay.

57:47>> It's kind of a unique situation in

57:48Madakquette. Of all the ones I've done,

57:50this is the hardest to say.

57:52>> Okay. Anybody else have any other uh

57:55questions, comments? Anybody in the

57:56audience?

57:59>> Any letters? Any

58:02No, nothing was received on this.

58:05>> People to the north are happy there's a

58:07fence.

58:11>> Okay. So, um, anyone want to make a

58:14motion to close the public hearing?

58:16>> I'll make that motion.

58:17>> Okay.

58:20>> Second.

58:20>> Great. Thank you. All those in favor?

58:24>> I

58:26um

58:29>> do we need to deliberate anymore?

58:31Anybody want to

58:34>> I'm okay with it.

58:35>> Okay.

58:35>> No comment.

58:38>> Seems straightforward to me.

58:39>> So I'll make the motion to approve as

58:42requested with which includes our u list

58:46of

58:47>> conditions.

58:48>> Conditions.

58:48>> Yep. Okay. Uh, Jim makes that motion. Is

58:51there a second?

58:52>> Second.

58:53>> Okay, Tommy. Um, okay. All those in

58:55favor?

58:56>> I

58:57>> I. Thank you very much.

58:59>> I was number I was late because I was

59:01number 64 standby last night to get the

59:04car out.

59:04>> Oh, okay.

59:05>> And now I'm four.

59:07Yay.

59:10>> Funny. This time of year, it's a

59:12struggle.

59:13>> Everybody's afraid of the weather.

59:16>> Are we getting more weather?

59:17>> Yeah.

59:37One

59:40two,

59:4517.

1:00:16>> [snorts]

1:00:23>> Yes.

1:00:25>> How you doing, Steve?

1:00:26>> I'm excellent, thanks, Jim.

1:00:28>> Good to see your pretty face.

1:00:30>> See you.

1:00:31>> Good.

1:00:32>> Highlight of my day. It's wonderful. All

1:00:35right. Uh, thank you. Uh, uh, next up is

1:00:392026-0048

1:00:42NACK LLC or maybe Knack LLC, whatever it

1:00:46is. Uh for the applicant,

1:00:48Ernie Cohen.

1:00:50>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh Steven Cohen

1:00:52for the applicant. This is an MMD

1:00:55application uh for a lot that is a two

1:00:59um 2acre lot in 10 acre zoning. As

1:01:01you're aware, there's about five or six

1:01:04um of these in the corner in the

1:01:06northwest corner of the MMD district.

1:01:09They're all two two they're all twoacre

1:01:12lots and they're all basically developed

1:01:14that way.

1:01:15This lot has a pre-existing MMD permit

1:01:18that was issued by the planning board

1:01:20for a house and a garage and a pool and

1:01:22a generator and was developed that way

1:01:2510 years ago. Um, and my client recently

1:01:28purchased the property and would like to

1:01:30redevelop the lot. Um, we would like to

1:01:32do it in a way that has uh several

1:01:34benefits. the um pre-existing non-con or

1:01:38the the approved house and ground cover

1:01:42is uh 2,890

1:01:44ft and we would be recreating that at

1:01:482,880

1:01:49ft. So a small reduction but still a

1:01:52reduction. Um the impervious surface is

1:01:56currently uh 2,19

1:01:59ft and we would be reducing that to 2,10

1:02:03ft. So, a 99 ft² reduction. You know,

1:02:07about about 100 ft is a a decent

1:02:09reduction. Um, the house and garage and

1:02:13pool uh relocation have all been

1:02:16approved by the HTC. Um, the pool is

1:02:19going to be the same size, 17x 38 of the

1:02:22existing pool and would have a small uh

1:02:25um surround but no patio or deck, just

1:02:28grass, which is the existing condition.

1:02:30Um the generator and the pool equipment

1:02:33is in gravel and it'll stay that way. Um

1:02:35and then there's a small blue stone path

1:02:37from the driveway. The the existing

1:02:40driveway is right inside the 50ft buffer

1:02:44and actually go spills deep into the

1:02:46road um which is right next to the the

1:02:49protected Morlands and Heathlands. And

1:02:51so we're going to be moving that about

1:02:53100 feet uh to the to the to the west uh

1:02:57and north away from that. um to move the

1:03:00the parking the the area that's in the

1:03:03setback is currently disturbed. Um and

1:03:06that area is going to be reused um so

1:03:09that the new disturbance is in

1:03:12essentially grass and the existing

1:03:15disturbance that's going to be reused is

1:03:17in is in the vegetation. So although

1:03:19we're making a significant ch and then

1:03:20we will reveate the the area where the

1:03:24current driveway is. So that's a

1:03:25significant increase that that in that

1:03:27area that that will go from a large

1:03:30disturbed area with parking to a very

1:03:32small disturbed area with with more

1:03:34vegetation.

1:03:36Um we will also make making a

1:03:38significant improvement to the pool by

1:03:40relocating it and recreating it with low

1:03:42lumens lighting. So essentially you

1:03:45would go from lighting that's as light

1:03:47as a that mimics a car headlight down to

1:03:50a basically a living room lamp. So, you

1:03:53know, that is in in simple terms

1:03:56significantly less light pollution. Um,

1:03:58and you know, frankly, I think should be

1:04:00mandatory uh for all pools. Um, we would

1:04:03be you can see to the to the west of of

1:04:06the developed area, there's a jagged

1:04:09line uh where Heler's Way is and and

1:04:11that that whole half of the yard has

1:04:14never been disturbed except for Heler's

1:04:15Way going through it. Um, and our you

1:04:18can see none of the disturbance is

1:04:20within that area. Um during some during

1:04:23the construction and relocation of some

1:04:25of these uh buildings and the pool, um

1:04:28there's some uh non-native decorative

1:04:31plantings that are there and those would

1:04:32all be relocated. Um the landscaper is

1:04:36here and can speak to that if you want

1:04:37more detail, but essentially we're going

1:04:39to be removing some landscaping but then

1:04:42rec then replacing it uh nearby to

1:04:45maintain the screening and maintain uh

1:04:48the the the all the vegetation that's

1:04:50there now um with with the uh just

1:04:53relocating it. Um the current house and

1:04:57garage are being donated to Bartlett's

1:05:00farm and they're going to come and move

1:05:01them out. Um, so we're really happy

1:05:03about that. That that will we I think go

1:05:06probably to employee housing. Not

1:05:07entirely sure what they're going to do

1:05:09with it, but that's my guess. Um, but

1:05:11it's good that both buildings are going

1:05:12to be relocated uh to Bartlett's Farm.

1:05:15So, I think that is basically where we

1:05:19are that we are we already have an MMD

1:05:21permit for this lot. We are making

1:05:24adjustments to it that reduce the impact

1:05:26of the ground cover, reduce the impact

1:05:28of the impervious surface, reduce the

1:05:31light pollution from the pool, um reduce

1:05:34the amount of disturbed area near the

1:05:36vegetation uh near the Morlands and

1:05:38Heathlands, um and have no new impact on

1:05:42the Morlands and Heathlands. Um and u we

1:05:46have reviewed the conditions proposed by

1:05:48the staff and we have no concerns with

1:05:50any of them. Um, and in fact, and

1:05:53especially the the um the one about time

1:05:57of year construction, um, you know, I

1:05:59didn't want to bring it up during

1:06:00Arthur's uh, activity, but it actually

1:06:02has nothing to do with the neighbors. It

1:06:04has to do with the endangered species

1:06:07and the time of year that they spawn and

1:06:08those kind of things. So, we would

1:06:10encourage you to not only keep that for

1:06:12us, but for future applications. But

1:06:14that's just a side note. Uh, has, you

1:06:17know, nothing to do with this one. Well,

1:06:19except that we accept the condition. Um,

1:06:21this property also has a pre-existing

1:06:24non-conforming shed that is in the

1:06:26setback. We're happy to leave it there.

1:06:28We're happy to move it. We don't really

1:06:30want to move it because it'll cause a

1:06:32little disturbance, but we're happy to

1:06:34move it, you know, to the like over by

1:06:36the driveway if the board wants it out.

1:06:37And if the board doesn't care, we don't

1:06:39care either.

1:06:41I'm happy to take questions.

1:06:44>> Thank you. Uh, any comments or questions

1:06:46from the board? Oh, all right. Miss Bell

1:06:49is recusing.

1:06:52So, all right. So, here's our sitting

1:06:53board. Okay. Uh, any comments,

1:06:56questions, observations from board

1:06:58members on this?

1:07:00>> I'd like to ask,

1:07:02>> hi, Steve. Um, is there a reason that

1:07:05the pool equipment and the generator are

1:07:08as far back from the proposed structure

1:07:11as they are? Is there a reason that

1:07:14they're not? Yeah, just for noise

1:07:16disturbance there. We tried to put them

1:07:18as far away from the, you know, to put

1:07:21them behind the garage so they don't

1:07:22cause any noise disturbance.

1:07:25>> But could they be closer to the garage?

1:07:27Could they be like they sort of feel

1:07:30like they're out there in no man's land?

1:07:32Could they be both up against the back

1:07:34of the garage? And what is foundation of

1:07:37the garage? Is that a full basement or

1:07:39just a poured slab or what is that?

1:07:42Um,

1:07:44so there's no reason why they can't be

1:07:46closer to the garage. They they

1:07:47certainly could be. Um, I think you It's

1:07:50pretty It's pretty close. Uh, the garage

1:07:53is a slab. The um

1:07:57I think they're maybe 5 or 10 feet away.

1:07:59They're they're not really that far, but

1:08:00we're happy to happy to move them closer

1:08:02if that's the desired.

1:08:05>> We can move

1:08:06>> 3 ft or 5t or you know, but obviously

1:08:09they have to be far enough away. So they

1:08:11have to be far enough away for

1:08:12>> around both.

1:08:14>> Yeah, we could do that if the board

1:08:16prefers.

1:08:16>> Feel like they're hanging out there and

1:08:18unnecessarily.

1:08:21>> Uh yeah, we could move them, let's say,

1:08:235T from the garage and put a cedar fence

1:08:26around them if that's preference.

1:08:28>> I have no problem leaving the shed where

1:08:30it is.

1:08:31>> Okay.

1:08:32>> And I really don't have a problem with

1:08:33um anything else in this proposal.

1:08:37>> Okay. If Billy wants to add that as a

1:08:39condition to move the shed and the

1:08:41generator and buy, you know, within

1:08:45the garage and put a fence around

1:08:47>> shed and move the pool equipment and the

1:08:49generator all hugging the back of the

1:08:53>> Well, could we say five feet?

1:08:55>> Sure.

1:08:56>> For maintenance purposes.

1:08:57>> Yeah. Yes.

1:08:58>> Yeah. Five feet. And then and then we'll

1:09:00put a a um HTC approved uh cedar fence.

1:09:06>> Great. and then the shed can stay in my

1:09:08opinion.

1:09:09>> Thank you.

1:09:11>> Um,

1:09:15any other uh comments from board

1:09:17members?

1:09:19Mr. Garrett,

1:09:20>> was the shed approved to be where it is

1:09:23now?

1:09:23>> No, it was built uh without the permit

1:09:28by the previous owner.

1:09:32Oh.

1:09:34Obviously,

1:09:41you'd never get a permit to build a shed

1:09:43inside the setback.

1:09:48>> Um, any other comments, questions from

1:09:51board members? Um, I think my only

1:09:54question and Stephen I I think this all

1:09:57looks very good on my end. Um my only

1:10:01question is uh per the sort of staff

1:10:04conditions did we get a landscape plan

1:10:07Billy?

1:10:09Uh condition 11.

1:10:13>> No. So I mean that is something that

1:10:16typically with the MMD permits we do get

1:10:19some sort of landscape plan. So, if the

1:10:21board was inclined to approve,

1:10:24if if you all would feel comfortable

1:10:26with staff reviewing the landscape plan

1:10:28and in uh in conformance with the site

1:10:31plan.

1:10:31>> Beautiful.

1:10:32>> Yeah, I'm fine with that condition. No

1:10:34problem.

1:10:37>> Um, any other comments from board

1:10:39members at this time?

1:10:41No. Okay. Uh, any comments from the

1:10:44public?

1:10:46>> Mr. Chair, I do have one out. I would

1:10:48love let's let's hear from the public

1:10:51online. Mr. Hughes.

1:11:00>> Uh Mr. Hughes.

1:11:04>> Okay. I'm sorry. Can you hear me now?

1:11:06>> Yes. Can you just state your name for

1:11:07the record, please?

1:11:08>> Uh yes. It's uh Gregory Hughes.

1:11:10>> Great. Thank you.

1:11:11>> I'm the owner of uh Six Wallbang Avenue,

1:11:14which uh abuts this property. So, and I

1:11:18have a a couple of issues. Um, the first

1:11:21is the notification, which was

1:11:23completely inappropriate. I got it back

1:11:27back here in Florida. It was postmarked

1:11:30in Boston on September 19th and asked

1:11:33for feedback by October 8th. And in the

1:11:38in your in the public notice, it gives

1:11:41it doesn't nearly give a description of

1:11:43what it is you have taking place here.

1:11:46So, and not only did I not get it, my

1:11:50neighbor at four WBang Avenue who is in

1:11:53a butter didn't get the notification

1:11:55either. So, you're pushing this through

1:11:59without letting people actually comment

1:12:00on it. So, and you have a proposed new

1:12:04structure there at the top of the

1:12:06driveway, which my

1:12:09my kitchen window is going to be looking

1:12:12right onto that. So I most certainly

1:12:14would like to know what's actually going

1:12:17in there. So and again I would of course

1:12:22this is the same program that Steve did

1:12:25at 8w wall bang. He pushed through and

1:12:27nobody was actually able to know what

1:12:30was going on there or comment. And I end

1:12:33up losing two summers with that property

1:12:36being under construction. They dug out

1:12:38the entire basement of the house and it

1:12:41was like having an earthquake at six

1:12:43wall bang. So, and two summers at 7 a.m.

1:12:48of trucks beeping and going backwards

1:12:50and construction all day long. So, I I

1:12:53think it's completely inappropriate that

1:12:56this be approved before having a much

1:12:58better understanding of exactly what's

1:13:01going in here and making sure that

1:13:03people actually received appropriate

1:13:05notification. And most certainly, I

1:13:08would plead with the board to not allow

1:13:10construction during the summer months

1:13:13because it's going to completely

1:13:15interfere with the enjoyment of our

1:13:18property during the summer months.

1:13:24Okay. Uh, thank you. Any any anything

1:13:26else on that or is

1:13:30Mr.

1:13:30>> Could I respond?

1:13:32>> Uh, by all means.

1:13:33>> Okay. So, um, as I stated earlier, we

1:13:36have no problem with the proposed

1:13:37condition of a ban from June 15th to

1:13:41September 15th. So hopefully that will

1:13:43satisfy Mr. Hughes. Um, I would note I

1:13:47actually got an MMD permit from Mr.

1:13:48views to get a pool on his property. Uh,

1:13:52but regardless, the

1:13:55>> I do know I I do know that, Steve, and

1:13:58it would have been nice it would have

1:13:59been nice for you to tell me that you're

1:14:00representing my neighbors.

1:14:02>> Well, the the the I don't know if

1:14:06there's any problem with the mail, but

1:14:07we did a not butter notification

1:14:10according to the law just like everybody

1:14:13else. And I know that that those are all

1:14:15stamped and it's all kosher, you know.

1:14:18You you you timestamped it on September

1:14:2019th out of Boston to go to Florida.

1:14:23Steve, why not go over and put it in my

1:14:24mailbox since it's right next

1:14:29right next to my

1:14:30>> No, no, no cross, sir.

1:14:32>> Please.

1:14:33>> All right. Listen, first of all, we

1:14:35follow the law and that's what everybody

1:14:37does for zoning. And you know, but but

1:14:40frankly, you know, the MMD doesn't

1:14:42protect Mr. Hughes's view from his

1:14:44kitchen window. It protects the Morlands

1:14:47and Heathllands. And you know, he hasn't

1:14:50made any comments about the Morlands and

1:14:51Heathllands. He's commenting about he

1:14:53hasn't had enough time to see how this

1:14:55looks like from his window. Well, that's

1:14:58really an HTC issue. And again, there

1:15:00was there was a butter notice about the

1:15:02HTC issues. He's a director Butter. He

1:15:04should have received notice. Um, I

1:15:06appreciate his concern wanting to know

1:15:08about what's going on in his neighbor's

1:15:10property. I appreciate his concern about

1:15:12not wanting to have construction during

1:15:14the summer, which we're not going to

1:15:15have. And but at the end of the day,

1:15:18this permit is in completely in line

1:15:19with the MMD guidelines and with the

1:15:22zoning um rules.

1:15:27>> Thank you. Uh Billy,

1:15:28>> Mr. Chair, I'd just like to point out a

1:15:31a fact here. The applicant submitted a

1:15:34certified abutters list. The addresses

1:15:37listed on the abutters list are what are

1:15:39on file with the tax assessor's office.

1:15:41If any property owner has an issue with

1:15:43the address listed there, they need to

1:15:45address that with the tax assessor's

1:15:47office.

1:15:48Thank you. Um, any other comments from

1:15:53the public at this time?

1:15:58Any other comments from the board?

1:16:04Okay. Um, hearing none, I'll I would

1:16:09entertain a motion to close the public

1:16:11hearing.

1:16:12>> So moved.

1:16:13>> Motion made. Is there a second?

1:16:15>> Second.

1:16:16>> Motion made and second to close the

1:16:17public hearing. All those in favor,

1:16:19please say I.

1:16:20>> I.

1:16:20>> I. Okay. Uh, what is the pleasure of the

1:16:24board? We've heard from concerns about

1:16:26the neighbor from the neighbor um on

1:16:28both a sort of a a process issue. Uh,

1:16:31some of which is gerine to us, some not.

1:16:33Um and uh especially as it relates to uh

1:16:38the exterior construction um and the

1:16:41question about uh the landscape plan

1:16:44that we have in the conditions. Um any

1:16:48other comments from the board here?

1:16:53I am willing to approve this

1:16:57as submitted with the exception of

1:16:59moving the generator and the pool

1:17:01equipment closer to the back of the

1:17:03garage.

1:17:03>> Okay.

1:17:04>> Um

1:17:06I would be happy if they submitted a

1:17:10landscape plan, but that I don't the

1:17:13landscape plan is not going to affect my

1:17:15vote, but I think it should be included

1:17:17in the approval. Um, and I also commend

1:17:21the applicant on being um, forthcoming

1:17:24and saying they would agree to the no

1:17:30outside work June 15th to September

1:17:3215th.

1:17:34>> Agreed.

1:17:37>> Um, any other comments from board

1:17:39members on on this?

1:17:41>> I I agree with Alisa um, in terms of

1:17:45approving

1:17:46>> Okay.

1:17:46>> the way it's proposed. uh with two two

1:17:49caveats on it. I don't know where Billy

1:17:51went, but I just wanna

1:17:52>> I mean, are we making this uh can we

1:17:55address this um delivery or

1:17:59can we [clears throat]

1:18:01>> not I think that's a much bigger

1:18:03discussion to be honest with you and I

1:18:05think I think some of the advice we've

1:18:07gotten from KP law about that is you

1:18:09know sort of ever ever shifting which is

1:18:12which is

1:18:13>> certainly frustrating and if there's a

1:18:14sort of common concern um but I don't I

1:18:16don't think we can address it now. I

1:18:18just think we save time if it is an

1:18:21issue, but I don't Sounds like it's not

1:18:23an issue.

1:18:26>> Delivery and and how the law is changing

1:18:27as it relates to uh notifications.

1:18:29>> No, I mean we we notice uh we notice to

1:18:33statutory requirements and we include we

1:18:36we typically make the applicant include

1:18:38a copy of the certified abutters list

1:18:40which must be obtained from the tax

1:18:42assessor's office. And I might add, if

1:18:45his letter was posted September 19th,

1:18:49that's pretty good. That's that's almost

1:18:51a full month in advance that we got that

1:18:52letter out as staff.

1:18:55>> Mr. Chair, if I could also add to

1:18:57Billy's, please.

1:18:58>> Um,

1:19:00>> our public not is also posted in the

1:19:03inro two cycles prior to the meeting.

1:19:06So, that's also a place for folks to

1:19:07find um what's going on at the next

1:19:10meeting.

1:19:10>> Right.

1:19:12And just to add one more piece, and

1:19:14again in in line with statutory

1:19:16requirements, it's posted at the at the

1:19:18town clerk's office as well.

1:19:21>> Thank you. Yes, Jim.

1:19:23>> The uh the only other thing is the shed

1:19:26and I can go either way on on the shed.

1:19:29Uh but I kind of like the idea of fixing

1:19:33things. I mean, I don't you know, we

1:19:35kind of harp on that on other projects.

1:19:39So, for that reason, I would be for it,

1:19:42but

1:19:43it's not going to hold up my vote to

1:19:45agree.

1:19:49>> Tom,

1:19:51I would agree with Jim on I'm okay with

1:19:54the

1:19:56the work from the other structures, but

1:19:58the shed I think needs to be addressed.

1:20:00Otherwise, it sets a precedent that you

1:20:02can just go build a shed in the

1:20:03setbacks,

1:20:05which we don't want to allow. So,

1:20:07>> yep. Um,

1:20:10>> does anybody know if the shed is in the

1:20:11lawn or in the

1:20:14>> brush?

1:20:17It It looks to be in the brush from the

1:20:212025 GIS.

1:20:23>> It's in trees.

1:20:24>> Yeah,

1:20:26>> I guess that was the only reason the

1:20:28situation that I didn't have

1:20:32trees.

1:20:35I guess that would just be it. But

1:20:40was

1:20:42I would say in compiance but

1:20:45circumstance I can go either way too

1:21:07>> I believe the sheds in this region.

1:21:09Correct me if I'm wrong, Stephen.

1:21:10>> That's correct

1:21:22>> on the shed. I would leave it for no

1:21:25>> just to avoid any further disturbance.

1:21:30>> Um, all right. Does someone want to make

1:21:32a motion at this point?

1:21:34>> Mr. Sure.

1:21:37>> Where I am on this on the shed,

1:21:41>> you know, if I if I'm if I'm being if

1:21:44I'm being honest on the shed, I feel

1:21:45like and given while I appreciate that

1:21:48we really should be cleaning up zoning

1:21:50issues. I I I that's our job. Um, in

1:21:55this particular application, we're also

1:21:57we also need to be sensitive of

1:21:59disturbance. And if if if we're in the

1:22:03lawn, absolutely remove it, relocate it.

1:22:06But if it's going to cause if we're

1:22:08going to need if we're going to need to

1:22:10disturb trees and other vegetation to

1:22:12get it out, I'd say leave it by by from

1:22:16what I can tell it's been there for at

1:22:17least somewhere between 5 to seven

1:22:20years. So I may arguably be protected

1:22:23anyway. So I'd say just leave it or

1:22:27that's where I'm that's where I'm

1:22:28coming. I'll

1:22:30>> I'll [clears throat] make the motion to

1:22:32approve as

1:22:35applied.

1:22:37with with the condition

1:22:38>> with the conditions that Alisa stated

1:22:41which

1:22:43>> Oh, right. And the

1:22:45>> Yeah.

1:22:52>> landscape plan

1:22:53>> and a landscape plan to be approved by

1:22:54staff.

1:22:57>> Okay, that's my motion.

1:22:58>> That's your motion. Is there a

1:22:59>> There's a motion made and seconded. Any

1:23:01further discussion on the motion? No.

1:23:03All right. Hearing none. Uh, all those

1:23:06in favor, please say I.

1:23:07>> I.

1:23:08>> I. I.

1:23:08>> Any opposed? Hearing none. That passes

1:23:11unanimously. All right.

1:23:13>> Thank you everybody. I appreciate it.

1:23:15>> Thank you. I am recused for the next

1:23:18call. So, uh, it's a

1:23:20>> Billy, could you mute me?

1:23:23>> Yeah. Tristan, you have that?

1:23:29>> Yes. Give me one second.

1:23:32>> We getting him removed. Uh Stephen, he's

1:23:35not on for the next one.

1:23:39>> He does remote

1:23:45change back to attendee. There you go.

1:23:52>> Thanks for reminding us on that

1:23:54notification.

1:24:02>> Are we going to Fox? Great. Now,

1:24:04>> yeah. So, we have one we have one

1:24:06remaining item. Uh, hang on one second.

1:24:08Let me get let me get uh We're missing

1:24:11two members.

1:24:12>> Yes.

1:24:27>> Yeah.

1:24:55And are you ready for me, Madam Chair?

1:24:58>> Yes, sir.

1:24:59>> All right. We have we have one last

1:25:01remaining on the agenda. Uh one last

1:25:03item remaining on the agenda. It's a

1:25:04non-public hearing item,

1:25:06>> but it is a request for the property

1:25:10located at

1:25:138 Fox Grape Lane. And this is a request

1:25:16for an insubstantial modification to a

1:25:19previously issued site plan which was

1:25:22for the comprehensive permit for Beach

1:25:23Plum or Rugged Scott is what it was

1:25:26originally known as. Okay.

1:25:28>> Um, hang on one second. All right. So,

1:25:33some of you might remember it was two or

1:25:35three years ago we approved a pool at

1:25:37number six Fox Grape and the applicant

1:25:41uh included a a copy of this plan with

1:25:44their submission.

1:25:48>> Did it have stairs going to the basement

1:25:51that were

1:25:54>> I'm trying to remember. No, I'm gonna

1:25:57share my screen. Hang on one second.

1:26:08I forget at the time. There have been

1:26:11there have been a number of pools

1:26:12approved on different lots within this

1:26:15within this subdivision.

1:26:17So, this was our

1:26:20the prior property owner at number six.

1:26:24This might tell a better story here.

1:26:28In here is an easement for the property

1:26:31owner at number six to travel to their

1:26:34driveway. They came in for a

1:26:36modification in which they got rid of

1:26:38their driveway and requested that the

1:26:41board approve a pool in its place. Their

1:26:43driveway is up in this region now. So,

1:26:47the current owner of eight fox crepe is

1:26:49asking for the board to recognize that

1:26:51this easement is no longer needed to

1:26:53access a parking area that doesn't

1:26:55exist.

1:26:59>> And Mr. Glidden, who's representing

1:27:01them, is in the crowd. It is a

1:27:03non-public hearing item. So, I would say

1:27:05if you have any specific questions, he

1:27:07can answer them, but it it shouldn't

1:27:08really be a back and forth between the

1:27:10applicant and the board at this point.

1:27:12So is there a site plan Billy that shows

1:27:15this proposed?

1:27:16>> Yes, that would be helpful.

1:27:18>> And were was there any a butter

1:27:20notification in this? Are there any

1:27:22comments from abutters or neighbors or

1:27:26>> there is not as this is a request for

1:27:29insubstant or in insubstantial

1:27:31modification? It's a non-public hearing

1:27:32item and um notification is not required

1:27:36to a butters or you know we don't we

1:27:38don't publicly notice for non-public

1:27:41hearing items.

1:27:42>> Okay. But

1:27:44>> if I understand it if we do deem it

1:27:46substantial then we have public hearings

1:27:49and

1:27:50>> correct we'd have to if we deem it

1:27:51substantial it would be a modification

1:27:53of the comprehensive permit that would

1:27:56be required.

1:27:58>> Okay. So lot eight is So

1:28:01>> lot eight is requesting

1:28:03>> getting rid of

1:28:04>> that easement

1:28:06>> and their parking is now on the left.

1:28:09Lot seven's parking is on the left now.

1:28:12>> Here lot six is the one that got the

1:28:15pool.

1:28:17>> Oh

1:28:18that's the ement.

1:28:19>> Yes. This is the easement

1:28:22>> here. Is that correct?

1:28:23>> Here I

1:28:25>> Mr. Glenn. No,

1:28:27>> there's a garage in here.

1:28:29>> So, yeah, it must come in.

1:28:31>> This is

1:28:32>> Yeah, I think it comes in

1:28:33>> something that shows that.

1:28:35>> Yeah. Was was there a

1:28:39>> Will you go back to the picture with the

1:28:40red

1:28:41>> the Here you go. Asville garage.

1:28:45>> So, this is now the parking

1:28:47>> pull in the car. Correct.

1:28:49>> And the easement that we that they want

1:28:52to get rid of is here.

1:28:53>> Correct. And where you see driveway

1:28:54under construction, that is now where

1:28:56you see the pool.

1:28:58>> Okay. And then and then on the site

1:28:59plan, there's area A and area B. What

1:29:01are the differences?

1:29:03Is it two different easements or

1:29:08would you mind just mic? Sorry.

1:29:17>> Get old. [laughter]

1:29:21>> My name is Richard Glidden. I'm the

1:29:23attorney for the applicant. The there

1:29:26were the original easement with the

1:29:29driveway easement was for the parking

1:29:30space parking lot and then when they

1:29:33were I don't know when the developer

1:29:35decided that

1:29:37>> he needed to extend the easement because

1:29:39they couldn't back they needed

1:29:42>> to be able to back out of their driveway

1:29:43onto the easement to

1:29:46>> front again. So there's two easements

1:29:49imposed by the developer.

1:29:51>> Okay. Okay. So, lot B was the lot B was

1:29:54the newest one. Area A was the original,

1:29:57I think.

1:29:58>> Yeah. The B

1:30:02>> Yeah.

1:30:02>> Yeah. So, A and B, they made B so they

1:30:04could back out of the

1:30:05>> Y

1:30:06>> park space onto their driveway

1:30:08>> and then head out front first without

1:30:10having to back out of the cuz that

1:30:12wouldn't make any sense. And then they

1:30:14decided

1:30:15>> they wanted to put the driveway in. Is

1:30:19there any plan showing the now existing

1:30:22driveway next to where this garage is

1:30:25where on the aerial that shows the red

1:30:29jeep? It looks like there's a tree

1:30:30there. Did they take the tree out?

1:30:35>> That's

1:30:36>> Give me one Give me one second because I

1:30:38can pull up the approved plan with with

1:30:40six the pool which would have shown what

1:30:43they what they did.

1:30:45I just think we should be

1:30:49acknowledging where these people are

1:30:51parking now before we get rid of the E.

1:30:53>> Yeah, they have like just a single thing

1:30:55that goes to the garage and then maybe

1:30:58another little thing

1:30:59>> we did. Uh I'm sorry, my microphone's

1:31:01not on.

1:31:02>> This was part of that discussion. So,

1:31:04this is R5 zoning for primary dwelling

1:31:07on a lot. One single parking space is

1:31:10required under the zoning,

1:31:11>> which is fine. That's good to know. I

1:31:13just want to

1:31:15want to see where it is now.

1:31:18>> But this is a 40B, so it's whatever's

1:31:23approved. It doesn't it's not

1:31:24necessarily R5.

1:31:26>> I think um I I think going back through

1:31:29the documents, I believe this was done,

1:31:31if you look at an overhead, this is

1:31:34abnormal R5. When you look at the

1:31:36overall map, it it's it's essentially R5

1:31:40in a random spot.

1:31:43Um, my only I I just want to go into

1:31:47Alisa's point that make sure the cleanup

1:31:49is shown there. So, have we move So,

1:31:52have we created an easement on that

1:31:54property now where they park?

1:31:56>> Can you go to photo number eight,

1:31:58please?

1:32:01>> Okay,

1:32:01>> hang on one second.

1:32:02>> Everyone really do his thing here.

1:32:04>> Let me get myself situated. I want to

1:32:06pull up the letter for the for the prior

1:32:09pool because that letter included the

1:32:12approved site plan that that traveled

1:32:14with it and I think that's important for

1:32:16you all to see.

1:32:20>> See that's already there.

1:32:21>> I'm really clear on where the easement

1:32:24is. Part A and part B. I got that.

1:32:30That is it's basically where the red

1:32:33jeep is back to here. I'm just gonna

1:32:36show you the exhibit A that

1:32:37>> that was

1:32:43>> second I just added

1:32:44>> so I don't think we're created enough

1:32:46informative

1:32:48>> this was the exhibit A plan that was

1:32:51attached to their pool approval

1:32:54>> so they you know we we're adding they

1:32:57were adding a hedge and I believe this

1:32:59was to uh jive with their HDC approval

1:33:02but they were adding screening here

1:33:05because a pool cannot be visible for HTC

1:33:07purposes. So, they were effectively

1:33:10blocking off the parking area from their

1:33:12ement.

1:33:13>> And where did they show their parking?

1:33:15Oh, over the back

1:33:16>> up into here. And then I have um

1:33:18>> up into where where that tree is though,

1:33:20right?

1:33:21>> Well, on that plan, it showed coming to

1:33:22the back of the garage.

1:33:25>> I just think we need a plan with an

1:33:28accurate Wait a minute.

1:33:29>> Shell parking.

1:33:29>> Shell parking. And this is the side of

1:33:31the garage that it goes into.

1:33:34go on the aerial.

1:33:37>> Hold on. Let's see if it captured that.

1:33:40>> Again, here was the plan. Here was the

1:33:42surveyed plan that also traveled with

1:33:44that.

1:33:45>> And this is what we were looking at in

1:33:48the in what the applicant submitted.

1:33:53>> Okay.

1:33:53>> So, that is where they're showing.

1:33:55>> Okay. There's the park.

1:33:56>> Yeah. Yep.

1:33:57>> Makes sense.

1:33:58>> Mhm. that goes.

1:34:00>> And the parking space in the garage

1:34:02counts as a parking space on a lot

1:34:04>> in the garage.

1:34:06>> Yes.

1:34:06>> So they have oodles of parking

1:34:08>> exterior and interior parking spaces

1:34:10count towards your parking on a lot. You

1:34:12can have one space at 7 by 17 a compact

1:34:15spot and then after that everything's 9

1:34:17by 9 by 20 I believe.

1:34:20>> Billy, can you please go to picture

1:34:22number eight or

1:34:23>> Yeah, let me go back in a different um

1:34:26>> Okay, thank you. So, is this one of

1:34:28those where the house has benefit of the

1:34:30garage that's located on the other

1:34:32property?

1:34:32>> No, it's located on their property.

1:34:35I remember that whole discussion, but

1:34:38>> I just I I want to make sure it's

1:34:39cleaned up of record. I don't know if

1:34:41the land records show it. I mean, this

1:34:4340B stuff's a little different. And to

1:34:46me, it's sacred how it's planned. And

1:34:49then we, you know, we can change it, but

1:34:51I I want to make sure everything

1:34:53>> there's no written ement. The developer

1:34:55imposed driveway easements and parking

1:34:57areas on all the lots in the development

1:35:01>> and didn't show it on a plan.

1:35:02>> Oh, no. It did. It showed on the plan.

1:35:04It showed on go to the registry of

1:35:06deeds.

1:35:06>> Yeah.

1:35:07>> And then

1:35:08>> now the one of the owner of sixes said,

1:35:12"I want to change the parking area. I'm

1:35:15going to move it to the front of my

1:35:16lot." And he build a pool where my

1:35:20parking was going to be, which he did.

1:35:22and it's pulls up and the fence is up

1:35:24and the hedge is up. But now he there's

1:35:26no

1:35:28reason for him to go turn right.

1:35:33>> The I completely understand I completely

1:35:36understand the the concept of what

1:35:39you're trying to do. It's just I wanted

1:35:41to see where that car will now park. But

1:35:44it's going to park behind this garage to

1:35:47the left. Correct. To

1:35:48>> left. If you scroll over, Billy, you'll

1:35:50see it.

1:35:53I think we got

1:35:53>> go to the right there.

1:35:55>> So that new driveway number one in you

1:35:58services that house.

1:36:01>> No.

1:36:02>> Is that correct?

1:36:03>> Number one services this back house.

1:36:06>> Oh,

1:36:08>> hang on.

1:36:08>> Well,

1:36:09>> I can't get my Oh, that's why

1:36:15>> new driving

1:36:16>> number one services this one. this house

1:36:20right here.

1:36:20>> Oh, really?

1:36:21>> Oh, well then

1:36:22>> even though it's on

1:36:23>> that plan, the plan that they submitted

1:36:25seems to be misrepresenting what goes on

1:36:29there because

1:36:30>> this is this is more the way I took it.

1:36:34>> So, yeah, I would like to see where that

1:36:37red Jeep would park now. Do you know

1:36:40that

1:36:40>> the red Jeep is the owner of this house,

1:36:43which is the holder of the easement or

1:36:45the the one encumbered by the easement

1:36:48going back here. So, okay. So, people in

1:36:50this house with the pool, where do they

1:36:51park? I think in that little

1:36:53>> This is their This is their Jeep.

1:36:55>> That's their That's their Jeep. Got it.

1:36:57>> That hose and

1:36:59>> I don't know if that's their Jeep.

1:37:00That's their garage.

1:37:02>> Jeep. I didn't see the Jeep.

1:37:04>> I didn't either.

1:37:04>> So, this is one of the lots where I

1:37:08think

1:37:09>> where the garage benefits

1:37:12that property, but is located on the

1:37:14next

1:37:14>> behind it. Yeah,

1:37:16>> it was a bigish.

1:37:17>> I get it now. big issue.

1:37:19>> Wait, wait. The garage benefits that

1:37:21property in the back left.

1:37:22>> No, this was a this was a separate issue

1:37:24of the garages being I know what

1:37:27>> what Jim's talking about, but this is a

1:37:29totally separate issue from what what

1:37:31>> this

1:37:33I know what you're saying.

1:37:35>> But that's why they're parking the way

1:37:37they are. Yes.

1:37:37>> Got it. Um,

1:37:40so if we remove this easement, does that

1:37:45is an I show a property line that goes

1:37:48around it. Is it a true easement over

1:37:51their property?

1:37:52>> Yeah, it is.

1:37:53>> Or do they gain property by getting rid

1:37:55of this easement?

1:37:56>> No, no. The easement easement is on on

1:37:59their own on their lot.

1:38:01>> Great blame.

1:38:04>> So they're no longer granting the

1:38:05easement to the neighbor. puts there

1:38:07nowhere for the neighbor to go.

1:38:08>> Got it. Yeah.

1:38:09>> I mean, he

1:38:10>> makes total sense.

1:38:11>> If he drives over the easement, what

1:38:13does he do? He

1:38:14>> I get it.

1:38:15>> It's interesting that you don't have to

1:38:16notify the person that's beneficial of

1:38:19the easement because what happens if

1:38:20they decide to take their pool out,

1:38:23>> right? So, then they

1:38:26were going to park the hearing, I guess.

1:38:27So, the way this is shown now, this now

1:38:30I'm concerned.

1:38:32So they are the owner of Fox Grape Lane,

1:38:35the entire lane.

1:38:37>> This one is that owns the easement. I

1:38:38mean, yeah.

1:38:40>> And so how does that work? They

1:38:42obviously have a cross easement.

1:38:44>> No,

1:38:45>> they own that for parking.

1:38:47>> It's just for parking. These people own

1:38:49it.

1:38:49>> They're subject to

1:38:50>> this is where the pool is now.

1:38:52>> Get rid of the easement. So they're

1:38:53allowed and they can park on it

1:38:54themselves.

1:38:54>> But when they when they come and when

1:38:56these people come and park in their

1:38:58garage, where do they go?

1:38:59>> They can go like up here and go this

1:39:00way. That's They're on their lot seven's

1:39:03properties. Why?

1:39:03>> Yeah, but that's not the easement. If

1:39:05you go back to the easement plan.

1:39:07>> Yeah,

1:39:07>> the easement is only where the red jeep

1:39:09is.

1:39:10>> Yeah, it's only here and here is only on

1:39:12>> they can still get to that other

1:39:14driveway.

1:39:15>> Well, I think we've discovered a bigger

1:39:16problem because

1:39:18>> But see, they can still get that be. But

1:39:20this is all public.

1:39:21>> Let me see. You're my way

1:39:23>> for everyone.

1:39:24>> Yeah,

1:39:24>> everybody can get in there. So, they can

1:39:26still get to their garage. That's so

1:39:27screwed up because

1:39:30it's they own that. They are fee owners

1:39:33to that lane there. The entire lane

1:39:37>> actually access easement though

1:39:41>> that they can't get rid of

1:39:44>> which is separate from these other two

1:39:45easements I assume.

1:39:47>> What page is that?

1:39:47>> The common access easement to use this

1:39:50road

1:39:51>> is different than these two ements.

1:39:54>> Yes.

1:39:54>> I'm just I'm going to go to a different

1:39:55page. Bobby wants to point something

1:39:57out.

1:39:58>> The developer put in the common

1:40:00easement, but the parking ement was put

1:40:02on by the property owner.

1:40:06>> If you look at lot eight,

1:40:08>> which is the problem, that's my editor.

1:40:12>> Lot seven, who is giving the easement

1:40:15>> to lot eight?

1:40:18>> Lot six. I thought

1:40:19>> lot six is the one in question.

1:40:21>> So lot

1:40:22>> looks like an eight.

1:40:23>> Lot seven.

1:40:23>> Oh, sorry. Lots lot nine has the road

1:40:27and lot six have the road.

1:40:31>> That's not how this shows on this plan

1:40:32though.

1:40:33>> 8 8 10 12 six is you right.

1:40:36>> Yes. I'm sorry. You're right. You're

1:40:38right.

1:40:38>> 9 11.

1:40:39>> You're right.

1:40:40>> So these are the two.

1:40:41>> Yes, you're right.

1:40:42>> So just let me move over. There we go.

1:40:45>> There you go.

1:40:45>> That was my issue.

1:40:46>> I was turned around.

1:40:48>> Just to Jim's point, you were saying

1:40:50seven owns in essence is love. owns

1:40:53this. They granted an easement,

1:40:55>> right,

1:40:56>> to six, the park,

1:40:57>> but do you see the property boundaries

1:40:59of seven?

1:41:01>> You see seven.

1:41:02>> Yeah. Do you see how what Jim's pointing

1:41:04out?

1:41:04>> Well, if they want to, they can put a

1:41:06gate right in the end of that road.

1:41:09Uh it without a cross easements and

1:41:11stuff. And that's my concern.

1:41:13>> Gate put a gate right here. Nope.

1:41:15Farther out here. Nope.

1:41:17>> Stand right there.

1:41:18>> Nope.

1:41:19>> All the way down to that other road. No,

1:41:21that's the common

1:41:23>> they have to give access through here.

1:41:25>> Yeah,

1:41:26>> existing common. Yeah, thank you.

1:41:30>> Where's the main road?

1:41:34>> Mr.

1:41:35>> Everyone in the subdivision has a right

1:41:36to use Fox grade lane for access to the

1:41:39property. The the extension of the

1:41:43easement is limited to the next door lot

1:41:46for his drive driveway purposes so he

1:41:48can get to his parking lot. I do have

1:41:50one I'm going to make one point though

1:41:51to Jim's point. Sorry if not everybody

1:41:54can see me. This is um A, right?

1:41:57>> Yeah.

1:41:58>> Yeah.

1:41:58>> The dotted line.

1:41:59>> This is B section.

1:42:00>> No, that's

1:42:02this is a different ement.

1:42:04>> That's a utility ement.

1:42:06And then they extended it to here.

1:42:08>> Got it.

1:42:09>> So that's no longer part of the common

1:42:14access easement. Is there paperwork that

1:42:16shows that that little section that

1:42:19you're now asking us to wave is not part

1:42:22of the common access easement?

1:42:23>> Well, it's part it's it was created on

1:42:27the plan as a driveway easement.

1:42:29>> Well, it's it's not it's just it didn't

1:42:31show that way on that plan that we were

1:42:33just looking at.

1:42:33>> Where is plan?

1:42:36>> I think this is it, right?

1:42:37>> This is it right here.

1:42:38>> Yeah. See, there's the utility easement

1:42:40and then below that there's no other

1:42:42easement. A there's a color drawing in

1:42:44the packet that

1:42:45>> there's a there's a plan by the markers

1:42:48submitted showing the two page three

1:42:52>> here.

1:42:52>> Yeah,

1:42:54>> those are the two movements that exist.

1:42:57>> A

1:42:59>> I think Jim just wants to make you just

1:43:01want to make that area A

1:43:03>> conceptually I'm okay with it. But

1:43:05>> yeah,

1:43:06>> this is where things go ary down the

1:43:09road,

1:43:09>> right? That's

1:43:10>> and people start fighting over parking

1:43:11spots. You see that this remains a

1:43:13common access easement for Fox Grape.

1:43:16This is 14 foot wide common access

1:43:18easement. It becomes this area up here.

1:43:21That's that's within quite

1:43:22>> But can we change can we change the

1:43:24common access?

1:43:25>> That's 40 ft of property. So I you know

1:43:29the 15.47 47 and the 25.37.

1:43:34That's a big

1:43:36We need to define where that start and

1:43:38stops with the common easement and the

1:43:40easement we're getting rid of.

1:43:42>> Yeah. So, it would be like this plan

1:43:44though, right? And they're not gaining

1:43:46any more lot area. They could always

1:43:48>> Well, that's why that was

1:43:49>> they were always they always were in

1:43:52>> and that was their lot size.

1:43:54>> No, that's within their lot. That's my

1:43:56point.

1:43:56>> Yeah, that's their lot. So they not

1:43:58subject to this driveway easement at the

1:44:00moment.

1:44:01>> And they're not gaining any more

1:44:03buildability necessarily.

1:44:04>> They are just like just like the others

1:44:06were able to put their pool in their

1:44:08spot. Although I don't know if that was

1:44:10an easement.

1:44:11>> They don't get they don't get any

1:44:12additional area ground cover.

1:44:14That's it. It is what it is. So they

1:44:17could just put a driveway there.

1:44:19>> Uh

1:44:19>> where did they park normally? Where did

1:44:21they park?

1:44:22>> They parked there.

1:44:23>> They parked there. They they kind of

1:44:24park what was happening prior to the

1:44:26pool was side by side. You'd have the

1:44:29lot owner here parking here and a lot of

1:44:32lot six parking on this side.

1:44:33>> Wow. They really arrow.

1:44:35>> Yeah.

1:44:35>> And he wasn't and the lot six was not

1:44:38supposed to park in it's a driveway even

1:44:41it's acts as an egress to his property.

1:44:44>> He's supposed to go onto the

1:44:46>> on his he chose to use it as a pool.

1:44:48>> It's not allowed to park on the

1:44:50driveway.

1:44:50>> Right. Yeah. Got it. And he but he after

1:44:53he did build the pool, he didn't have

1:44:55any pocket space till he moved it to the

1:44:57front

1:44:58>> to over here.

1:44:59>> It's just uh confusing on those lot

1:45:02lines because he

1:45:04>> So by getting rid of the easement of A

1:45:08and B, it turns that property

1:45:12back into sole ownership of lot 7.

1:45:18>> Well, it doesn't turn it back into it.

1:45:19It still is. It still is, but there's no

1:45:22easement and that person can either park

1:45:25on it, but it's not part of the common

1:45:27access.

1:45:27>> That's correct.

1:45:28>> Got it. Okay.

1:45:29>> I think I think it needs to be predicted

1:45:31where where the common ends at.

1:45:35>> I think that does at that 14 foot thing

1:45:38with the green is where the common's

1:45:39going to end.

1:45:41>> Well,

1:45:41>> A and B, right where Yeah.

1:45:44>> When when the pool was added, did the

1:45:46ZBA

1:45:48weigh in on that? Yeah, apparently we

1:45:50did. I don't remember.

1:45:51>> I don't remember it.

1:45:53>> So that's what I don't

1:45:55>> the 40bs.

1:45:56>> But I guess I want to make sure that

1:45:58that should have been approved by

1:46:00>> I assume approved by Zmore because to

1:46:02point earlier, what if they got rid of

1:46:03that pool later and say, "Hey, I want to

1:46:04park."

1:46:05>> Well, that's what's so funny about not

1:46:07noticing the butter.

1:46:09>> So,

1:46:09>> seems a little Yeah,

1:46:10>> they had come in with a pool request and

1:46:13that was similar to at least eight or 10

1:46:16properties prior to them

1:46:17>> and we we approved that.

1:46:19Yeah,

1:46:21>> at a meeting and we determined it was

1:46:23not

1:46:23>> we deter the board determined that it

1:46:26was an insubstantial modification

1:46:28because there was a track record for the

1:46:31board allowing pools on lots that that

1:46:34could accommodate them. I don't know

1:46:37that the applicant necessarily divulged

1:46:40this this whole easement section or if

1:46:43we glossed over it when we looked at it,

1:46:45but they were providing one parking

1:46:47space in the front which would satisfy

1:46:49the requirement under the zoning bylaw.

1:46:52>> I just think it needs to be illustrated

1:46:54more clearly. So these dotted lines need

1:46:57to round that off, square it off because

1:47:02the their property goes all the way down

1:47:05here. And just like other properties,

1:47:08that dotted line indicates

1:47:10the common easement just like it did

1:47:12here.

1:47:15And I just say it a dotted line needs to

1:47:17go off in you know the rounded or

1:47:19something to indicate where common axis

1:47:22is that

1:47:23>> where it stops. Yeah, where you know

1:47:25>> doesn't it just stop right at that

1:47:26corner where the dotted line stops

1:47:29>> like this is dotted here make so even 14

1:47:33ft wide this is not in the common axis

1:47:36>> that's a property line then here the

1:47:39common axis even right there

1:47:41>> and then that's fine

1:47:44>> consistent with this if I were looking

1:47:45>> but the other side of the road isn't

1:47:47dotted

1:47:48>> because it's in fact it's confusing

1:47:51because of the property line but the

1:47:53dotted matches is the outside dotted

1:47:55line of 10 fox grape. Somebody

1:48:00>> line there,

1:48:01right?

1:48:02>> That's right. Right across here, right?

1:48:04>> I think it's just a map,

1:48:05>> but they're using the same dotted line

1:48:07for this structure. So, I think whoever

1:48:09did this plan is in their

1:48:13>> in their key of using dotted and solid

1:48:18lines.

1:48:19>> So, so I mean I don't have any issue

1:48:22with it. I am a little concerned about

1:48:23just eliminating it. I don't know. But

1:48:27I'd be bummed out if I were

1:48:28>> It appears we did it with the

1:48:31>> when we allowed pooling.

1:48:33>> Yeah. Was that a driveway there or that

1:48:36was their access ement

1:48:40>> to their parking lot?

1:48:41>> It's an easement which means they have

1:48:43no rights to

1:48:44>> park there. Does it that can only travel

1:48:47through it or

1:48:49>> the purpose of the driveway easement

1:48:51under the subdivision documents is

1:48:54driveway easements lead to parking areas

1:48:56and therefore access and e ingress and

1:48:58egress to the parking area. That's the

1:49:01only right anyone has to use that

1:49:03driveway easement on from lot six.

1:49:06>> So legally today as it is can the owner

1:49:08of lot eight park the car there?

1:49:11>> Yeah. Because not not with the not with

1:49:13the easement

1:49:15>> without the ement access. They can drive

1:49:17off. They could drive down back out.

1:49:20>> They should overnight.

1:49:21>> Yeah.

1:49:23>> But taking that away, lot eight can use

1:49:26that as their driveway

1:49:28>> if they so choose.

1:49:29>> They can use it as a lawn. They can use

1:49:31it as

1:49:32>> whatever they want. Got it. So does uh I

1:49:35just think it needs to be removed and

1:49:38that accesses been rounded there where

1:49:41the 14 foot line is.

1:49:44>> Oh, you mean in the plan?

1:49:46>> Where's parking now?

1:49:47>> Yeah, good question. Where they they

1:49:50>> they park right alongside the house

1:49:51right in adjacent to the parking

1:49:54easement. I mean to the driveway eman

1:49:56>> which will no longer be an eman today.

1:49:58They parked here.

1:49:59>> Yes.

1:50:00>> Oh. And after this meeting, they're

1:50:02going to park right there.

1:50:03>> This goes away. It has to be vegetated.

1:50:06They park here.

1:50:11>> Yeah. Which is fine. They gain some

1:50:12lawn. But I I don't think that would be

1:50:14clear.

1:50:16>> I don't know what you think, Dick. I

1:50:17mean, if if I were representing someone

1:50:19buying lot seven, it would be like,

1:50:22"Where is my lot? Where's the easement?"

1:50:23The way this shows it here, I know it

1:50:26says a band. Well, it says aband. I just

1:50:29think you could clearly just remove it

1:50:31like you did like they did. Well, they

1:50:33didn't do it there.

1:50:34>> They removed the the the driveway

1:50:38>> where it's not even shown there

1:50:40>> here.

1:50:41>> So, you would just have that lot with

1:50:43the with the utility easement at the

1:50:45top.

1:50:46>> Yeah.

1:50:46>> And then a dotted line that goes across

1:50:49the 14 ft.

1:50:50>> Billy, would you pull up this image?

1:50:53>> So, it's just a way of

1:50:54>> This is a good aerial.

1:50:55>> Yes.

1:50:56>> Got it. And uh it's number nine.

1:50:58>> I understand

1:50:59>> it's photo or on the application it's

1:51:01>> and it just shows nothing because they

1:51:03by removing the easement they now have

1:51:05it's their property.

1:51:06>> Will you scroll?

1:51:07>> Yep. One second. It takes it.

1:51:10>> All right. So that's what we're talking

1:51:12about.

1:51:13>> Yes.

1:51:13>> Where the red car is is the easement and

1:51:16where the black car is on plan looks

1:51:20like it's grass but it's not.

1:51:23>> Yeah. And it sounds like once if you

1:51:26go down here.

1:51:27>> Yep.

1:51:30>> So, it sounds like this is going to be

1:51:32rounded off here and then they could put

1:51:34a yard in there is what you're saying.

1:51:36If they Well, they could put a yard in.

1:51:38Now, it is rounded. I mean, it's the

1:51:41>> I'm not concerned about it being rounded

1:51:43or the straight line that shown now with

1:51:45the east. Well, I just I'm concerned

1:51:48because their lot by

1:51:50>> encompasses most of the end of that road

1:51:52or the other end of the road and it just

1:51:55clarifies what is what is theirs and

1:51:58what is subject to an easement. That's

1:52:00all.

1:52:00>> But I think the straight line indicates

1:52:03the lot line where they gave the

1:52:06easement. No,

1:52:07>> no, that's just the measurement of

1:52:08>> Oh, I see.

1:52:09>> No, go line. Is that is that

1:52:12>> Yeah, it's got it's like a lamb chop.

1:52:14>> Is there anything

1:52:16They put a pool there so it's obvious

1:52:17what is there anything codified that

1:52:20says that that parking spot was

1:52:22eliminated

1:52:24>> is what

1:52:25>> where the pool the parking spot where

1:52:27the pool is

1:52:28>> that was eliminated they put a pool but

1:52:30is it is that at the registry anywhere

1:52:33or

1:52:33>> well they came in they they came to get

1:52:36an insubstantial modification from the

1:52:39board saying that eliminating the

1:52:42parking and moving it and replacing it

1:52:44with a pool.

1:52:47This is what we want to do. And that's

1:52:48recorded with the town clerk, that

1:52:50decision of of an insubstantial

1:52:52modification.

1:52:53>> And I would further say that

1:52:56>> looking at it, you know, from a zoning

1:52:58standpoint, that is not a parking spot

1:53:00and would never be considered one where

1:53:02that pool is right now. So, they could

1:53:03never claim that's a zoning compliant

1:53:05parking area with a pool in it.

1:53:08>> No. No. If they were to remove

1:53:09>> they remove the pool and I bought they

1:53:12sell me the house and I buy it and like

1:53:14go out like the garage I want my parking

1:53:16spot.

1:53:17>> Yeah. I mean

1:53:18>> well then they'll have to go back and

1:53:19get

1:53:20>> but then they'll have to go back and get

1:53:21the private easement from

1:53:23>> then they're not going to get ever get

1:53:24it back

1:53:24>> first. First first up they would need to

1:53:26come to this board to remove that pool

1:53:28as a site plan change to the overall

1:53:30comprehensive permit site plan.

1:53:33>> Okay.

1:53:33>> Or they could just convert it to yard,

1:53:35right? It would still I believe they

1:53:37would need to modify the site plan as as

1:53:40there's a pool there right now.

1:53:42>> They would just have to go back to point

1:53:44point A.

1:53:45>> Right. So current I mean there is a site

1:53:47plan that creates that eman. And all I'm

1:53:50saying is in the chain of title, there

1:53:53should be a revised site plan showing

1:53:57depicting specifically the access

1:54:00easement

1:54:02>> that the non

1:54:03>> access

1:54:04>> that removes that out of the access

1:54:05>> because it's not a property. I have a

1:54:07question. If if you know Valero or not

1:54:12Valero, whatever the pool guy was coming

1:54:14and he just needed to maintain something

1:54:16on the pool

1:54:18>> can he leave his car running in that

1:54:20spot and go and do his thing?

1:54:23>> No. No.

1:54:23>> Not after the

1:54:24>> e

1:54:26can't even access.

1:54:26>> Where how do the how do the where do the

1:54:29pool guys get going to park? I mean this

1:54:30guy

1:54:31>> trash pool carpet cleaners. I mean

1:54:34that's just everything. So they're tight

1:54:36in there.

1:54:36>> It's tight. Like I'm not

1:54:38>> Yeah. No, I know. I'm just saying for

1:54:40this guy number six, just again, is this

1:54:43insubstantial or substantial? Does it

1:54:46need to go in front of the board in a

1:54:48public hearing? Because number six is

1:54:50just screwing the poop really basically

1:54:52by putting the pool in. And he's going

1:54:53to wake up one day and realize he has no

1:54:56access to that area anymore.

1:54:58>> He's he can put a a fence right up here.

1:55:01This

1:55:02>> no more access.

1:55:03>> That's right. Right. But he needs it.

1:55:04But but but the owner's estate wants to

1:55:07have a

1:55:09>> he could put a gate a gate there. I'm

1:55:11just trying to demonstrate that once we

1:55:14remove it, everything here is his own by

1:55:18him with no easement rights. Yeah.

1:55:20>> You can have his driveway to benefit

1:55:22himself. It's not an easement.

1:55:24>> But he gave the easement voluntarily in

1:55:26the first place.

1:55:27>> No,

1:55:28>> no, no, no. That was part of the 40B.

1:55:30you basically that oh I'm sorry

1:55:33>> that that's my that is my only concern

1:55:36about it really devalues or takes away

1:55:39something from lot six without them

1:55:40knowing about it

1:55:42>> and I think they probably know well

1:55:44>> I don't know we don't know because

1:55:46there's no

1:55:47>> good uh valid concerns that you no

1:55:50longer can walk along that property

1:55:53there which is his property that's

1:55:55currently has an access easement on it

1:55:58>> yeah with the stepping stones are

1:56:00>> you can't get there.

1:56:02He he he might be able to shoot you. I

1:56:04don't

1:56:06protecting his property.

1:56:07>> Okay. So, um let's reel it in for a

1:56:10minute and just say that we are not we

1:56:13do not have all the information that we

1:56:15seems like we require. Yeah,

1:56:18>> we don't have the plans in front of us

1:56:22that

1:56:25show what the result would be of us

1:56:28eliminating

1:56:30this easement, what the potential, you

1:56:33know, plan is and what it would look

1:56:35like. Um,

1:56:38and we probably need to know what the

1:56:45bylaw is or the 40B ruling is for

1:56:50um

1:56:52notifying a butters of

1:56:53>> we're we're jumping way ahead here.

1:56:55>> Okay.

1:56:55>> What's before the board is to determine

1:56:58whether this is insubstantial or not

1:57:00under the statutory guidelines.

1:57:02>> So I think we are

1:57:03>> Let me just let me just finish. I'm

1:57:05sorry. The board has 20 days to make

1:57:07this decision and notify the applicant.

1:57:09Otherwise, it's a constructive approval

1:57:11or a constructive grant.

1:57:13>> It's the same as what was going on with

1:57:15Surfside Crossing with the curb cut.

1:57:17>> So, we need to

1:57:18>> determine and write a letter regardless

1:57:21after this. We can't really continue

1:57:22this to the next meeting.

1:57:24>> Okay. So, maybe we should go member by

1:57:26member and see their opinion on whether

1:57:28this is substantial enough to create it

1:57:32as an application.

1:57:34And Bob, what do you think?

1:57:38>> I don't No, first of all, I don't think

1:57:40I'm sitting on this.

1:57:40>> Oh, you're not. Okay. Sorry, Jim. What

1:57:42do you think?

1:57:44>> I just want it cleaned up and and get

1:57:46some more comfort that everyone's

1:57:48sitting in green.

1:57:49>> So, we think it's substantial enough to

1:57:51turn into an actual application.

1:57:56>> Because if we go to an application, then

1:57:59we're talking this under uh six months.

1:58:04Uh, it's got to go to it's got to go to

1:58:06the housing authority to get approved.

1:58:10>> Well, that's what we're here to

1:58:11determine if it has to go to the next

1:58:13level.

1:58:13>> I don't think it does substantial

1:58:15enough.

1:58:15>> Yeah, I I I'm not comfortable approving

1:58:19or saying that it's uh insubstantial.

1:58:22So,

1:58:24so if we if it's substantial, we open up

1:58:26a hearing, we go six months, we get it

1:58:29approved by hack,

1:58:31>> have to get it approved by hack, right?

1:58:33>> We're going through a whole big deal is

1:58:37my point because it's within the 40B.

1:58:39>> Reopening any comprehensive permit is

1:58:41not a small undertaking,

1:58:43>> right? And public comment. So,

1:58:46>> and it butters notifications to everyone

1:58:48pretty much within that development. I

1:58:50don't think that needs to happen here.

1:58:53But you're telling telling me telling us

1:58:56that we have to make a decision on

1:58:59substantial and substantial.

1:59:00>> Yeah.

1:59:01>> Under under the guidelines.

1:59:03>> Yeah.

1:59:03>> If the change is determined to be

1:59:05insubstantial or if the board fails to

1:59:08notify the applicant by the end of a any

1:59:10s by the end of such 20-day period. Mhm.

1:59:14>> And this is where this is, again, not to

1:59:17bring up uh the other 40b, and I won't

1:59:20name it, but that's where in my dealings

1:59:23with George Pooie in our receiving of

1:59:25those applications, that's where I've

1:59:27learned of this like 20-day. We have 20

1:59:30days from the time it's filed.

1:59:32>> Yes. But but the but if I think Dick can

1:59:38ask for an extension of this 20-day

1:59:41period in which time we can get whatever

1:59:44information we we need to feel

1:59:46comfortable about it so that we can say

1:59:48it's insubstantial.

1:59:49>> My only concern there is I have I can't

1:59:51verify that at this stage.

1:59:55I mean extensions with the 40B I think

1:59:58extension

1:59:59>> if you give me a few minutes we have

2:00:00till about 3:30 because help's coming in

2:00:03here next and let me see what I can come

2:00:04up

2:00:05>> I yeah go ahead

2:00:09>> it's

2:00:10>> um and I'm new so uh the ZBA required

2:00:14this easement as part of the

2:00:16comprehensive permit

2:00:17>> well I didn't sit on that comprehensive

2:00:19permit but yeah it was in the plan

2:00:21>> so the developer probably presented it

2:00:23right and we We approved whatever the

2:00:26plan was with that

2:00:27>> the developer created driveway easements

2:00:30and parkings for every lot.

2:00:32>> Yeah.

2:00:32>> On the thing when that was part of the

2:00:34approval. They didn't do written

2:00:36easements. They just they just

2:00:38>> they created them.

2:00:39>> They created an easement. They put them

2:00:40on they put the all the driveway ements

2:00:43and all the parking spaces on every

2:00:44single lot so everyone knew.

2:00:46>> So it's there's no written easement

2:00:48document. It's just on a plan.

2:00:49>> It's on the plan. That's right. like the

2:00:52documents, the 40B

2:00:55master, whatever the heck he heck it is,

2:00:58says that the driveways and parking

2:01:01areas are shown on the plans approved by

2:01:04blah blah blah, but there's no written

2:01:05easement that explains what your rights

2:01:07are. Yeah,

2:01:08>> it's it's for egress and ingress. It

2:01:11clearly means that you can't park on a

2:01:14>> Jim brought up the good point of if you

2:01:15go back to that aerial, you can't even

2:01:17walk to their pool. Well, that's their

2:01:20fault. They figured they got to have it

2:01:21figured out. They do.

2:01:23>> Do they do they even know that the

2:01:24easement is disappearing?

2:01:25>> Well,

2:01:27I would imagine they must.

2:01:29>> Wow. Who's telling them?

2:01:31>> Well, they've been

2:01:33>> This hasn't been noticed, though.

2:01:34>> They've been discussing it with the

2:01:35neighbor for some time.

2:01:37>> I mean, hold on. Time out. Uh, Billy,

2:01:40just

2:01:42uh a question. Can we deny this straight

2:01:45out or are we just

2:01:47>> you would deem it substantial?

2:01:49>> We would then by denying it saying it's

2:01:51substantial enough. So we can't deny you

2:01:54would say the request is

2:01:57substantial which would you have to

2:01:59write a letter saying that the board

2:02:00found that the request haded change

2:02:02substantial.

2:02:03>> Yes. and in order for them to proceed.

2:02:06>> It's my feeling right now that the

2:02:08sitting members are not

2:02:12thinking that this is um insubstantial

2:02:16that it is substantial enough to go to

2:02:19the next level because we're in no frame

2:02:22of mind to approve it as is. Am I wrong?

2:02:25>> Well, I I have one question. Is there

2:02:27any document? If I had documentation

2:02:29from the owner of lot six that said, I

2:02:31realize this easement is gone and I'm

2:02:34okay with it. I would say it's

2:02:36completely insubstantial.

2:02:38>> Well, but what the I mean, that's the

2:02:41guy gave guy decided to put in a pool

2:02:44and put up a fence and a hedge so you

2:02:46can't get to this parking space.

2:02:48>> No, I'm not talking about the parking.

2:02:49I'm talking about the walkway to get to

2:02:51the pool.

2:02:52>> Stepping stones.

2:02:53>> They're stepping stones. Then all of a

2:02:54sudden he's not going to be able to

2:02:55access the pool. I I I that's my only I

2:02:59don't think it's a substantial change.

2:03:01>> Well, he's not going to access the pool

2:03:02from the parking area. He'll be able to

2:03:04access the pool from his yard.

2:03:06>> No, but from the common e

2:03:08>> from the common easement, correct? He's

2:03:10not going to be able to access

2:03:11>> that's how he access it looks like

2:03:12that's how he accesses his lot. You

2:03:14know, goes along the porch. I mean, that

2:03:17could be how he gets to his front door.

2:03:18We don't know that.

2:03:21>> I just think it could be cleared up

2:03:22pretty quickly. Yeah,

2:03:24>> get an extension.

2:03:25>> And I was actually just about to touch

2:03:27on that. And what I'm finding here, this

2:03:30is like a this is a hard 20-day rule

2:03:33>> and that the board has to determine

2:03:35whether the request was substantial or

2:03:37insubstantial because at the end of 20

2:03:40days, if we don't issue anything, it's

2:03:42an automatic

2:03:43>> approval. It's an automatic uh change.

2:03:46>> I understand it. you know, you know, in

2:03:48a typical 40B when we have the the full

2:03:51hearing, the six months or whatever, we

2:03:53extend that with their agreement. I

2:03:55mean, they don't have to agreement. And

2:03:57at that point,

2:03:58>> my only there's no statutory mechanism

2:04:00here. So, we're relying on an agreement

2:04:03and there's really I'm I'm a little I'm

2:04:06a little scared of that of that

2:04:09>> tactic. I understand. Uh

2:04:11>> so I

2:04:12>> one more one more look at this. Can you

2:04:15please pull up this picture on the

2:04:17screen one more time? Sorry to torture

2:04:20everyone, but

2:04:22um

2:04:22>> page nine or 10.

2:04:23>> Page uh this is page eight.

2:04:27>> So if you look at the house,

2:04:31>> I think what we're looking at

2:04:34the gable end is the side of the house.

2:04:38And I'm I'm guessing

2:04:39>> which house? Seven or six? the one that

2:04:42has the new pool or the pool. This is

2:04:46those those stepping stones

2:04:48>> access their house

2:04:50>> access the backyard. these stepping

2:04:53stones on this side from the parking

2:04:55area from what I can see access the I

2:04:59don't know what the front of this house

2:05:01is but those stepping stones that Billy

2:05:03is pointing out right now

2:05:05>> seem to be

2:05:08my guess or is about to be the main

2:05:11entrance to the house because I think

2:05:14they put the stepping stones in for

2:05:16convenience

2:05:18to the pool area from the parking area

2:05:21but I I don't think that they're being

2:05:23denied complete access to the pool if

2:05:26this easement were to go away.

2:05:29>> It's actually not just the pool. It's

2:05:31the access to the porch

2:05:34will end here,

2:05:35>> right?

2:05:36>> So, they're to get here. You're have to

2:05:38walk on their lawn

2:05:39>> origure

2:05:41the stepping stone.

2:05:42>> They're going to reconfig They're going

2:05:43to have to reconfigure their access to

2:05:45their backyard.

2:05:46>> I understand. I guess I just feel like

2:05:48as somebody that owns that piece of

2:05:50property, I know that they decided to

2:05:52put the pool in,

2:05:53>> but I feel like it's kind of a drag not

2:05:56to know that you're leaving the

2:05:59easement.

2:05:59>> I agree with that.

2:06:00>> So, as much as I don't think it's a

2:06:02substantial change if we had a letter

2:06:04from them that says, "We completely

2:06:05understand the easement's going away."

2:06:07Yeah.

2:06:07>> This would be a non-issue.

2:06:09>> I agree with that. If this was an

2:06:10easement of record, a written easement,

2:06:13you would need to do a termination and

2:06:15the other party that that benefits from

2:06:17it would sign off

2:06:19>> because then we're exposing ourselves to

2:06:23a legal situation.

2:06:25>> What is what is the legal situation?

2:06:27>> The legal situation is that this person

2:06:29in this house is being uh their access

2:06:32is being taken away without their

2:06:34knowledge that was previously their

2:06:37access. Even if it's just

2:06:38>> the only access the only access easement

2:06:41they enjoyed was the access easement to

2:06:45use that area as a driveway to get to

2:06:47their parking sp

2:06:49the parked car to get to the house to

2:06:53get to the porch. We don't know if

2:06:55[snorts] what those stepping stones are

2:06:56used for but

2:06:59I believe that person should if what if

2:07:03those stones are to their front porch to

2:07:05their front door? I'm I'm not sure. Not

2:07:07just can't could you eliminate the

2:07:10driveway easements with a condition that

2:07:12they that they be given an easement for

2:07:14foot access to the stepping stones?

2:07:16>> I think

2:07:17>> Well, that's a good idea.

2:07:19>> Yeah, I mean I

2:07:19>> that would do it.

2:07:20>> So then we're taking that line.

2:07:23>> What else is back there though?

2:07:26>> Back where? Yeah. What's that?

2:07:29>> There's a utility back there too.

2:07:31>> I can see it better on my screen. These

2:07:33are all trees right here. Yeah,

2:07:34>> this appears to be a fence in here.

2:07:37>> Uh,

2:07:38>> but what was the utility easement?

2:07:40>> Trash bin.

2:07:41>> Yeah.

2:07:42>> Uh,

2:07:43>> the utility easement was up here. Is

2:07:45that

2:07:45>> That looks like a manhole cover to me.

2:07:47>> Is that a Is that one of

2:07:49>> like a generator?

2:07:49>> Yeah. Is that an electrical

2:07:50>> pool equipment? I think

2:07:53>> that he needs that.

2:07:54>> Then he he really needs to know

2:07:57>> on their property.

2:08:00>> Property is the white line of the Is

2:08:02that a transformer?

2:08:03>> That's my thought. Right. So, it's on

2:08:05that guy's property if it's servicing

2:08:07the pool.

2:08:08>> Oh, this on this property. Oh, yeah.

2:08:10Yeah, that's what I was saying. Looks

2:08:11like a trash.

2:08:12>> Is there a plan, Richard, that shows us?

2:08:15>> You know what?

2:08:17>> What that is?

2:08:18>> This photo just shows that that

2:08:22that's [clears throat]

2:08:23clearly the pool equipment back there.

2:08:25>> That's the pool equipment.

2:08:27>> This is the easement now.

2:08:29>> Yeah, this is the straighton shot,

2:08:30right?

2:08:31>> Okay. So

2:08:32>> that's the property line between the two

2:08:35properties.

2:08:35>> Yeah. The utility easement is in the

2:08:37back.

2:08:38>> Yeah. It's further ahead. Further ahead.

2:08:40Yeah.

2:08:41>> The stepping stone.

2:08:42>> What we're But the new idea is to grant

2:08:47the easement.

2:08:48>> Not a driveway.

2:08:49>> Eliminate.

2:08:50>> They have the right to walk

2:08:52>> to the corner of this fence.

2:08:53>> They have the right to walk. They have

2:08:55the right to walk on there,

2:08:58>> but the easement

2:09:01>> eliminated

2:09:01>> gets eliminated from here.

2:09:03>> Gone. There's

2:09:04>> no not there.

2:09:04>> No, no, no, no, not there. Back. I think

2:09:07the easement is the easement would have

2:09:09to be rewritten to allow pedestrian

2:09:12easement

2:09:13>> to the

2:09:14>> not just that, but whatever that utility

2:09:15easement was put in place there for. Oh,

2:09:17yeah. In the back,

2:09:18>> they need to access

2:09:19>> later. What I That's right. But the guy

2:09:23who owns that property can suddenly say,

2:09:26>> "No, right. You can't access for the

2:09:28benefit of the

2:09:30>> right. We're not asking to get rid of

2:09:32that easement.

2:09:33>> Get to it.

2:09:35>> I know people."

2:09:36>> That's a good point.

2:09:37>> Well, he comes out with a shotgun and

2:09:39says

2:09:39>> through the back.

2:09:42>> You don't.

2:09:43>> The developer has access.

2:09:44>> You don't come out.

2:09:47>> So, get off my

2:09:48>> way around it or

2:09:49>> Yeah, that's a good point. When you get

2:09:50rid of that A and B easement,

2:09:53>> that land is no different than any other

2:09:55land around the utilities.

2:09:56>> That's true.

2:09:57>> Yeah. But utilities all throughout this

2:10:00whole development.

2:10:02>> Do they all have

2:10:02>> But how do you get to it?

2:10:04>> Do they have do they have access?

2:10:06>> So when when this and this go away, can

2:10:08he walk through here to get through it?

2:10:11>> No.

2:10:11>> No.

2:10:11>> That's no different than going through

2:10:13here once this goes away,

2:10:14>> right? He can't walk that through there.

2:10:18I'm just thinking worst case scenario.

2:10:20And

2:10:20>> that's that's an excellent point.

2:10:22>> I I think it's hard to make changes to

2:10:25something.

2:10:25>> Yes.

2:10:26>> In a to your point, it's messy to go

2:10:28back and open the compreh

2:10:32>> Yeah.

2:10:32>> what's going on with these easements

2:10:34>> eliminate them.

2:10:35>> Okay. Let me ask one more question,

2:10:38>> Billy. If would the applicant have the

2:10:42ability to withdraw the request so that

2:10:45we don't have to say it's substantial

2:10:48>> um enough. Yeah.

2:10:52>> Could they withdraw?

2:10:53>> We say it's substantial and we open it

2:10:56up but we make it a condensed version

2:10:58because he's not going to you know

2:11:00>> well there's a series of things that

2:11:02have to be done once we deem it.

2:11:06I'm wondering if the applicant were to

2:11:09withdraw the application without

2:11:11prejudice,

2:11:13could they submit? They could certainly

2:11:16withdraw their request

2:11:18>> because I instead of giving them a

2:11:21this seems like a bigger deal and then

2:11:24it goes into 40B land, would you want to

2:11:27withdraw the application,

2:11:30reconfigure

2:11:31the access the easement into foot

2:11:35traffic to the utility easement and to

2:11:38the stepping stones of the neighbors and

2:11:42um

2:11:42>> then it would become

2:11:44>> then we could deem it not substantial

2:11:46enough to go to 40B land.

2:11:49>> What do you think?

2:11:50>> But I would want to know

2:11:51>> but we would need a plan

2:11:53>> from that easement which could be that

2:11:55property owner could be the whole

2:11:56community is okay with these changes.

2:11:58Otherwise

2:11:59>> eliminating the

2:12:01>> well then we're not eliminating access

2:12:03to the but but then that goes into

2:12:05another level of

2:12:07>> but you're allowing that property owner

2:12:08to change the terms of their

2:12:10>> I'm not talking you I'm not promoting

2:12:12it. I'm saying this is an option, but if

2:12:14we deem it substantial enough, we can go

2:12:16to that level and everybody has to get

2:12:18notified.

2:12:19>> I don't want to do that. I think we

2:12:20should I think it should be withdrawn

2:12:22and resubmitted with

2:12:24>> with these thoughts in mind.

2:12:27>> Question mo most importantly that that

2:12:29adjoining property owner

2:12:31>> and the and the utility.

2:12:33>> Yeah. What is it for?

2:12:34>> Otherwise, it's going to blow up and

2:12:35turn into a 40b

2:12:38uh you know. So, what do you want to do?

2:12:40can request permission to withdraw and

2:12:43resubmit at a later date.

2:12:45>> I I'd like to make that motion

2:12:48without prejudice to

2:12:50>> without prejudice to withdraw altogether

2:12:52and resubmit.

2:12:53>> How do we feel about that? Is that

2:12:55>> okay?

2:12:56>> I'll move. Let's ask everyone.

2:13:00>> I mean, technically I'm I I can send you

2:13:04a withdrawal slip that will need to get

2:13:07filed at the town clerks. Well, I guess

2:13:09we're

2:13:11>> So, we don't vote on that.

2:13:13>> You don't have to vote on because

2:13:16um you're the what the decision

2:13:19to determine that this is substantial or

2:13:21insubstantial.

2:13:23>> Right.

2:13:23>> So, um the agreement that he's making

2:13:27>> we can follow through on um

2:13:29>> Yeah, but I think we're making an

2:13:30agreement that it's without prejudice

2:13:32which

2:13:32>> Yep. with back.

2:13:34>> Yeah. That I think um and we don't need

2:13:36to vote on that. I think

2:13:39>> should we vote on that?

2:13:41>> It doesn't hurt.

2:13:42>> Go for it. My my thing is is like

2:13:45suspenders.

2:13:46>> Okay.

2:13:46>> Yeah.

2:13:47>> So, you made the motion. I seconded it

2:13:49>> and and um let's ask the other board

2:13:52members if they're in favor of this uh

2:13:55idea.

2:13:57>> Voting. The applicant has agreed that

2:14:01they're that they would like to withdraw

2:14:03>> and we are in favor of supporting him

2:14:06doing that without prejudice is my

2:14:09understanding.

2:14:09>> Yes. Next month he can come back and

2:14:11resubmit

2:14:12>> under with a new question of whether

2:14:14it's substantial or insubstantial.

2:14:16>> Yeah. As if he was never here

2:14:18>> because we don't understand the 40b.

2:14:21>> That's correct. because we're trying to

2:14:23prevent it from turning into a 40B

2:14:27extravaganza.

2:14:29>> Yeah.

2:14:30>> Okay. So, and how do you feel about

2:14:32that, Tom? You good with that? Okay.

2:14:35Thank you.

2:14:36>> Wait, we didn't.

2:14:37>> All those in favor?

2:14:38>> Well, all those in favor

2:14:40>> say I.

2:14:41>> I. I. Thank you. This is why. All those

2:14:45opposed.

2:14:46Great.

2:14:47>> The eyes have it.

2:14:49>> And thank you. You need to practice.

2:14:51>> We have one last order of business

2:14:55and an adjournment.

2:14:56>> Oh,

2:14:58>> second.

2:15:03>> All right.

2:15:05>> Who uh

2:15:08>> well, so let's just shut down the

2:15:10meeting room.

2:15:11>> Okay.

2:15:12>> So, who died and made you the chair?

2:15:16>> She's the facto chair with Susan Sick

2:15:19and John. She is the She is you.

2:15:22>> No, I'm not.

2:15:22>> She's secretary. Alisa's secretary.