Falmouth Zoning Board Approves Three Conditional Use Requests

[0:00] Chair (presiding officer): Good evening, this is the I'm going to call to order the September 22nd 2026 Board of Zoning Appeals. Let's take a roll call. Start with you Peter. Present. Sarah Verville. I'm present. John. Present. Chris. President. Kevin just made it. Yep, and we've got four of our five regular voting members, so we have a quorum. We'll start with item one, which is approval of meeting minutes. We're going to take them one by one. Does anyone have any comments on the June 23rd BZA minutes? Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion to approve? Motion to approve. Second. Okay. Okay. I'm going to abstain since I wasn't at that meeting. Peter, how do you vote? [1:05] Speaker B (unidentified): Vote to approve. John? I wasn't there either, so abstain. Okay. Chris? Vote to approve. Kevin? [1:11] Chair (presiding officer): Vote to approve. Okay. Let's move on to the July 28th meeting minutes. Does anyone have any comments? Motion to approve. Okay. Second. All right. I'll start with you, Kevin. Vote to approve. Chris? Were you there? No, you weren't. Okay. So you abstain? I'm abstaining yes okay John photo proof I vote to approve Sarah verbal abstain okay moving on to October excuse me August 25th bza minutes does anyone have any comments nope all right anybody would like to make a motion to approve. Second. Okay, Kevin? Vote to approve. Chris? Vote to approve. John? Vote to approve. [1:59] Chair (presiding officer): Sarah, I vote to approve. Peter? Vote to approve. Okay, let's move to item two, 19 Burgess Street. Request for conditional use approval under section 19-84 to tear down and rebuild a single family dwelling. Welling. Just to let you know how the procedure works, as the applicant, we'll hear first from the applicant, please go through your proposal, explain it to us, and how it meets the conditional use criteria. Once the applicant has finished, the board will then ask clarifying questions. Once the board has asked clarifying questions, there'll be a public comment period. period first from those in attendance in person and then from those on zoom public comments are precisely that please direct you any public comments to the board it is not a question and answer scenario nor is it an opportunity to debate with the applicant should there be disagreement after board deliver it will then have board deliberation and decision and when you come to the podium please make sure to speak directly into the microphone as you are being recorded and make sure to state your name okay I don't normally do this but I'm gonna cut in okay I just want to put on the record that I made an error in the agenda item so this was sent to the newspaper and sent out to abutter notices as 18 Burgess Street, not 19 Burgess Street. Everything else was accurate. We noticed from the map and lot number, not the address that doesn't exist. So the cards went out wide as they should have. It simply has an eight and not a nine. Okay. 18 instead of 19. So I just want to make that clear. Okay. Thank you. All right, please proceed. [4:08] Chris Herlihy (applicant's representative): Hello, my name is Chris Herlihy, and I'm here to present on behalf of David Rines and their house that they're looking to recreate at the same location that they live now. Is my presentation going to? [4:39] Chair (presiding officer): You're with me, Chris. I'm going to get into the application. I'm assuming you are looking to go to the plan set. [4:44] Chris Herlihy (applicant's representative): Yeah, I think we can go to the plan set. So this, these images here represent what we're looking to put in place of the house that's existing. We're mostly using the same footprint except we are shifting it away from the Casco Bay by the house itself by three feet. The front porch we're shifting it back four feet, and we're going to be lined up on the, when you're looking at it from Burgess Street, it's the right-hand side setback. We're moving to the setback to get as far away as we possibly can from the Casco Bay. We're using the existing setback off of Burges for the new structure, and the foundation is like, I think it's like two inches inside, yeah, two and a quarter inside the old one. If you look at this plan set you can see the shape of the, does this have a pointer on it? Here's the existing deck out here that's set back four foot two and a quarter, and then the house comes along this line here, and you can see there that it's set back three feet, and I think it's a half inch, you can't read it from here, for the new house, and then the two feet where we set it back here is we've moved it back two feet to make it more conforming, and then the rest of the building, there's the existing garage is essentially we're in the same location. You in your plans that you guys might be able to see better on your screens in front of you is we are actually inside the footprint there. Here, this little section here where you can see the dashed lines that come inside of the solid line, we are infilling that area of the structure with a new structure. But otherwise, we're greatly using the same footprint as the existing, besides the pulling it back as far as the volumes go. I can't read it over there. A lot covered, lot coverage is staying the same. We are increasing the size of the, we're allowed to increase nine hundred and forty four square feet. We are actually, I don't have the difference written down here, it's it's about a difference of 300, just shy of 300 square feet difference in floor plates. Volume wise, the proposed expansion is approximately nine percent larger within the hundred foot setback of the 30% allowable. So we are very much so within all the allowable volumes and square footage allowances. We're also in, as you can see in this image, is we have view corridors to work with. So that's part of why we were staying within the existing footprint. As we looked at what we were doing, I mapped out the different view corridors of the neighbors and spoke to the two people that were closest to the house and talked to them about what we were looking to do in between the trees and shrubs. We were minimally invading their view corridors, right, well looking towards the water, right and left, north and south if you will, and then they would actually increase their views over the house in many aspects. These renderings are developed from kind of a street view. If you're standing on the street, the house behind them, you're actually up about eight feet as you look out over the house, so the views increase significantly as you went up in the house to their second floor you want to show the elevations I think those kind of speak well to you can see the this is where the existing house is that's closest to Casco Bay you can see that it's back three feet you can see the deck here back four feet the volume of the second floor has been taken back and we re put that volume has been kind of added back here over the garage and then you can see how we've changed the roof lines to allow more skyline over it's kind of nice you can actually see the masts of the boats out in the water better than you could before. We see the other elevations as well. Once again, you're seeing the same stuff from a different angle here, that we're really tried to keep the house right inside the existing footprint, not intruding on people's views within the neighborhood. Okay, anything else? No, I can answer questions. Okay. [11:42] Chair (presiding officer): Are there any questions from any of the board members? Chris? John? I have no questions. I actually do have a question. I'm a little confused on the height, so maybe this might be for you, Justin, or the applicant. Your notes state that the proposed height is going to be 27 four and three-eighths inches, which is a reduction from the existing, correct? I'm a little confused when I look at, let's see, the view corridors map, so I think it's the last page of the application. Yes, so the number four, you've got the red lines, is that what's existing? Yeah, so this is [12:41] Chris Herlihy (applicant's representative): the red line is what's existing, and this is from street view versus up on the porch at the neighbor's house, and I went up on and visited with the neighbor last week after this was submitted and showed her kind of the, I have a model of the existing house and I turned that on and I just, then I can turn this one on and I can show the overlaps, and we went through kind of what the impediment would be in reality, and it was literally like a sliver like this as she was standing at [13:16] Chair (presiding officer): or kitchen sink. So on this particular same photo, where on the right hand side as you're looking at the photo, yeah, and you have the house expanding out toward the, tree, yeah, are you saying that could, that to me would be a blockage of view, but you're saying because [13:40] Chris Herlihy (applicant's representative): because the house up abutting or yeah, because it's up, if you look at this drawing you can see the where I took the photo from that I was using to map this out. I didn't have access to her porch at the time, yeah, so that was from the street, and you can see the foliage that just fills in and blocks the views in the first place. So she was really happy that she was going to be able to see over the house and up on her second floor is almost like three stories up and you really got a beautiful, okay, increase in view, but there was a, there's a little bit of a sliver on that right hand side on the second floor that she'll be losing during the winter. Okay, that was going [14:25] Chair (presiding officer): to be my next question. Yeah, okay, all right, those are my questions. I guess I noticed on the [14:32] Ellen Snyder (public commenter): site plan it looks like there's a sewer line running underneath the porch. I don't know if [14:36] Chris Herlihy (applicant's representative): If that's our purview or not, but I was just curious about that. Yeah, I actually, I met with sewer this morning and went over that with them, and we have a little bit of more kind of talking to do and coming up with the plan for it. But there's existing footings that are dodging the sewer at the moment. The sewer, we measured how far down it is, it's 10 foot 2 down, so porch footings being four feet shouldn't be much of an issue. And we also have a manhole right and left of the property that makes that access for them very easy. Got it. Now, one question I have as a follow-up to [15:16] Speaker B (unidentified): that, again, not getting into specific easements and stuff, but more from the title rights and interest perspective. Is there anything in the easement that prevents a permanent structure from being built within the right-of-way for the sewer? [15:29] Chris Herlihy (applicant's representative): So we need a—they've had a few of these happen over time, and they need a letter that gives them permission to access the property. And the idea that we spoke of this morning was to provide them with that and get it registered on the Registry of Deeds. [15:50] Speaker B (unidentified): Okay, so you will get a letter secured from them saying it's okay to build a permanent structure within the right-of-way for the sewer? [15:56] Chair (presiding officer): Yes. Okay. Any [16:01] Board member (Peter Rickett): other? Are you getting a letter from them saying it's okay, or you're giving them a [16:04] Chris Herlihy (applicant's representative): letter saying it's okay to access? We are going to work with them to develop the letter to what they need it to say, and then have it registered with the sewer department. So it's a letter [16:17] Chair (presiding officer): going from the landowner to the sewer department. Yes. Okay. Giving the sewer department access to maintain and repair? Yes, correct. Okay. I think that's what you were asking. Yeah, that's it. Yeah, thank you. Okay. [16:32] Speaker B (unidentified): Wouldn't you need to let her go in the other way also? Because depending upon what the language is within the actual easement itself. [16:39] Chris Herlihy (applicant's representative): So he didn't want to speak to it directly while we were there, and it's the first time I've dealt with one. They've done it with other neighbors, and we're going to work through it. [16:49] Speaker B (unidentified): And the reason why I ask is because ultimately if they have the right of way in the easement, they're the ones that have rights over the land. So that's more the question is granting the permission from a permanent structure capacity. [17:01] Chris Herlihy (applicant's representative): So the only part that we're aware of here is that the foundation for the house will be outside of it, and the deck will be within it. And part of the conversation was, do we design the deck in such a way that it could be taken apart easier, and it may possibly not attach to the house if there was an emergency situation. [17:31] Speaker B (unidentified): So more like a floating deck versus a... [17:33] Chris Herlihy (applicant's representative): Yeah, but, you know, he said that, you know, it could be overkill because really we've got a straight shot with two manholes on each side of the property. Property. There's two paper roads. Burgess is considered a paper road. There's a manhole right where the sewer line is, where it hits the property line. There's one there. And then the other side, I don't know if you can see it in that drawing. Yeah, if you can scroll that, you can see Mason. Yeah, up the other direction, you can see a little bit of Mason. If you come straight down that, there's another manhole right there on the other side of the property with two easy access points. And so it's a straight shot in from manhole to manhole. Basically, they're looking at it on, as depending on the site and what the condition is of the sewer running in between, there is how they would react to what we wanted to do. [18:43] Chair (presiding officer): Any other questions? Okay. We will now move to public hearing. Is there anyone in the room who would like to comment on this application? Mr. Hurley, you can have a seat. Thank you. [19:05] Odette Thurston (public commenter): Hi. My name is Odette Thurston, and my husband, Scott, and I, we are the neighbors who are directly behind the Rhines. And they did talk to us about this, and I just want to say that we support this project. It's going to be really traumatic for a while, but they've been fabulous neighbors, and they clearly have done their best to minimize any view impact, which we see right through their yard to Casco Bay. And as you know, for everybody who lives, even with a sliver of a view, every little sliver matters a lot. So I just wanted to say that we support their project. And we have an understanding that they will keep the landscaping in such a way that it won't block our view either. [20:02] Chair (presiding officer): All right, thank you very much. Are there any other, is there anyone else in the room that would like to comment on the Burgess application? Nope, all right. I don't think I see anyone on Zoom, but is there anyone on Zoom who would like to comment on the application? All right, we're gonna close the public hearing and we will move to board deliberation. Would anybody like to comment? I have no issues with this application. Anybody any other comments? [20:46] Speaker B (unidentified): Substantively, I have no issues with the application beyond just the titles rights and interest component that needs to be addressed to ensure that, you know, something's not being permanently affixed into something that they don't really have the interest to build a permanent structure in. Beyond that, I don't really have any issues with the application. I know it's not our purview to get into easements and address the legality of what is actually said debating [21:15] Chair (presiding officer): if I want to speak to that or not, but I'm gonna let it lie for a minute. Okay, because I will note I understand your concern, John, and I took a look, quick look at the deeds, and it is subject to an easement. However, what we have in front of us does not address the specifics. Now I will jump in. Sorry, this does come up occasionally, and these types of easements tend to be old enough to not be worded very well, and they may or may not speak to existing structures that exist, and they really don't give wastewater much guidance on how to approach these types of things. So I do think it's a relative judgment call with the mechanics in place to address what they feel is a comfortable approach. So I think that is, not that this is common, but standard practice for these types of things. Okay. Any other comments? [22:12] Board member (Peter Rickett): I will commend you on the thoroughness of your application and also your willingness to construct it in such a way that it did does not become an issue so many of them have been, so I thank you [22:25] Chair (presiding officer): for that. I have no concerns though. Would anyone like to make a motion? I can make [22:32] Speaker B (unidentified): a motion to approve the request for conditional use approval under section 19-84 to tear down or rebuild a single-family dwelling at 19 Burgess [22:39] Chair (presiding officer): Street. A second. Okay, any discussion on the motion? All right, take a vote. Kevin, you're an alternate. We've got a quorum. So last month I mistakenly called on you a few times. Peter pointed that out to me. So we'll go right to you, Chris. Vote to approve. John. Vote to approve. I, Sarah Verville, vote to approve. [23:07] Board member (Peter Rickett): Peter Rickett, vote to approve. All right. Yeah. [23:13] Chair (presiding officer): Okay. But we only need a quorum of four out of five. [23:17] Board member (Peter Rickett): Oh, okay. All right. Would you like to vote? Sure. I'll vote to approve. Okay. [23:23] Chair (presiding officer): All right. Okay, your application is approved. Good luck to you, and thank you very much. All right, we will now move on to item 3, 10 Woodlands Drive, the Woodlands Club, a request for conditional use approval under section 19 1 19 to expand the existing use of the club. Why don't we wait a sec till, so just to clarify too, [23:56] Speaker B (unidentified): before we jump in, I just want to make note for the record, I am a member of the Woodlands, but I don't have any vested interest in the outcome of this project, and for that purpose, as I'm not conflicted, to hear what is being [24:06] Board member (Peter Rickett): presented. Okay, and I would also, and I would also echo that, I also a member and [24:12] Chair (presiding officer): have no overly significant interest in this. Okay, please proceed. Hi everyone, my [24:32] Jenna Barry (engineer, Woodlands Club applicant): name is Jenna Barry. I work with CV and Mahore Engineers. I'm here today presenting for the Woodlands Club for this expanded existing conditional use that's been previously approved. As I understand, the club is interested in constructing a 32 by 48 foot standalone golf cart barn to store up to 20 golf carts. The golf carts are currently stored part in the main clubhouse building, so that will just be moved nearby, essentially across the drive aisle there. The cart barn will be accessed only by maintenance folks and folks that work for the Woodlands Club. There will be a small extension of a water service for a hose because they currently rinse their golf carts with water, so they will be attaching a hose to the building. This is an uninsulated structure. We are providing stormwater drainage as you can see there. This is going to be going in front of the planning board for site plan review. So these drawings are pretty much at that level already, speaking to the cart barn portion of the project. Other improvements going on at the Woodlands Club is a series of some renovations and reconfiguration of the main clubhouse building. A couple of spaces will be We moved around a little bit of an addition will be added for a dining room, a family dining area, as well as a bar. But that area will also include some additional kitchen space. The pro shop will be relocated. Some other areas that will be reconfigured will be the fitness center, the golf simulator room, and some of the storage areas for the push cart and existing golf cart storage will be reconfigured as well to make room for some of these other expanded areas. So at the main clubhouse, that will be a slight addition of 3,660 square feet. So with that addition plus the golf cart barn, that will be almost 5,200 square feet of additional area. And we've done the calculation to review maximum building lot coverage on this property, and we'll be still well under the maximum of 15% lot coverage required. That's my overview. So we can jump into questions now. Now. All right. [27:30] Chair (presiding officer): Do the board members have any questions? [27:38] Speaker B (unidentified): Several. So under the 19-119, there's specific criteria that we have to be able to address, you know, water flow, you know, impact to current aesthetics and all that stuff. And yes, there is drawings that substantively shows what the future project will look like, but it I didn't really see a substantive response to any of the specific criteria from A through J. Yeah, certainly I can go through line by line if that is appropriate. I can speak to each one. I just think it'd be good to get it on the record. Yeah, since it wasn't included in the application. Absolutely. I know Justin had the same comment, so [28:19] Jenna Barry (engineer, Woodlands Club applicant): So it would be, it would be good to go over. I know A, we are, compatible with the general character of the neighborhood. I drove, I drove past the club today and the, roof overhang and the siding of the building will be very similar to the new, the new additions that will be put in. And we can see that on the elevation views, that were provided by the architectural team. So this will, this will kind of, this will align with the existing uses that the club currently already maintains. Visual character will be very similar. The other, the other parts of number C include significant detrimental effect on the use, peaceful enjoyment of abutting properties, including noise, vibrations, fumes, odors, dust, light, or glare. The intended changes here do not fundamentally impact the current operations at the club, so I don't think that any of these items will be affected by these minor additions at the club [29:37] Speaker B (unidentified): property. Do you see any substantive change in the hours of operation tied to this project, or is it pretty much going to fit within the current parameters of what's been approved? That's a good question. [29:47] Jenna Barry (engineer, Woodlands Club applicant): I don't see there be any change in the hours of operations as part of this. Adjacent property values, I don't think those will be impacted because the club will continue to operate similar to how it is and will visually be appealing as it currently is. The potential for adverse impact to water views from adjacent nearby properties and public right of ways should not be of a significant impact because the cart barn will be set back a couple hundred feet from the main road heading into heading into the club. There will be stands of trees that will remain a block part of that view of the cart barn and there is supplemental landscaping proposed that was included in part of this application. There will be trees and shrubs provided to supplement the trees that need to be removed for the to add the cart barn there. One other question for that [31:04] Speaker B (unidentified): section so similar to the last application we saw so I know that there's the pumping station right there near the cart barn. Will any part of the permanent buildings span over what I assume they have a right-of-way to that area? No it will not [31:21] Jenna Barry (engineer, Woodlands Club applicant): span near or span across any of I just don't know how big on the drawing there was no picture [31:28] Speaker B (unidentified): of the right-of-way it shows the pumping station but yeah I did include a survey but that's a [31:34] Jenna Barry (engineer, Woodlands Club applicant): good question we may not have a great copy of what the right-of-way looks like there. It's down a couple pages just yeah it was that page right there I don't see keep going down it's this [31:55] Speaker B (unidentified): one that's the formal survey that's the road no I mean where you actually see the pumping station and the correlation to yeah [32:03] Jenna Barry (engineer, Woodlands Club applicant): So the yeah the utility drawings I've seen doesn't show a right of way through there okay and so we don't have that translated into our drawings right now [32:14] Speaker B (unidentified): I just want to make sure that we're not potentially building something on [32:19] Jenna Barry (engineer, Woodlands Club applicant): It's a good question and I and from the drawings that I've seen the sewer comes through the parking lot to the east on this plan not necessarily from the south of the parking lot where the [32:32] Speaker B (unidentified): building is yeah across the golf course and out so [32:40] Jenna Barry (engineer, Woodlands Club applicant): That's a good question we can certainly look at that closer when we go in front of the planning board because I'm I'm sure that they would like to have some clarification on that. [32:57] Board member (Peter Rickett): Page 56 of, yeah, you're on 57, so yeah, it's just one. [33:10] Speaker B (unidentified): The other one I think is just a different cut image. [33:12] Board member (Peter Rickett): It's just not a satellite image. It's the drawing, but it does show the pumping station in relation to the parking lot. [33:21] Speaker B (unidentified): Because I just know you got the tanks there too. Yeah, [33:27] Jenna Barry (engineer, Woodlands Club applicant): Those are the structures that were picked up on our survey right there. [33:33] Speaker B (unidentified): Sorry, just a separate question. [33:35] Jenna Barry (engineer, Woodlands Club applicant): No, don't be sorry at all. So like I mentioned, the cart barn will be accessed only by, the maintenance folks, the general, membership members and pedestrians will not be accessing this cart barn per se. They will be dropping them off and, folks, that work at the club will be driving them over here and cleaning them off in this area. I know that carts do have access to this area already, so I we don't anticipate any change in traffic or traffic congestion through this area [34:18] Chair (presiding officer): With respect to traffic so the entrance to the club is not changing correct those two entrances yes that's correct it's okay so there's no really no change to vehicular traffic then no that's That's correct. [34:45] Jenna Barry (engineer, Woodlands Club applicant): The next line item is G. The project will not result in significant fire danger. It should not. The architectural and structural team have been putting together a very comprehensive package for life safety for all of these new structures so that there should be no problem there. The project will also not result in significant flood hazards or flood damage, drainage issues, ground or surface water contamination, or soil erosion. We have put together erosion control plans for the new construction that does result in ground disturbance, and stormwater drainage is provided around the cart barn itself. Self. And I know that the, club expansion will be over, existing patio areas and existing, paved areas. So those, areas will be assessed. But significant drainage changes should not happen around the main clubhouse building. [35:59] Speaker B (unidentified): For the cart barn itself. Do you plan to have the water drain into the parking lot and then go through the regular? [36:06] Jenna Barry (engineer, Woodlands Club applicant): No. So are you asking about the,, rinsing of the carts, [36:10] Speaker B (unidentified): Carts the rinsing of the carts because I mean obviously you're dealing with pesticides and stuff coming off golf courses and stuff so you will be washing in a different area but also rainwater coming off the roof so you're going from a grass area now to a hardscaped building so is that just going to tie into the regular yeah [36:30] Jenna Barry (engineer, Woodlands Club applicant): The storage there, yeah. So that's a good question. So the existing drainage pattern of this area drains to the west. So we do have a new series of closed drainage that would direct any runoff to the west like it is currently. The cart barn has roof drip strips on either side that would collect runoff from the roof line, and the upland side has a catch basin that would, that would collect any runoff that would pool off to the side of the cart barn drip strip, and drainage to the west will continue to drain downslope like it does currently. Looks like you have a drain manhole to the right of the wash area. Yeah, there is that's, yeah, good observation. We do have a drain manhole and a kitch basin shows it on page 58. Yeah, the kitch basin is in the paved area by the, by the cart wash region, so any collection of water can be directed by curb into that catch basin, and the sump of that catch basin would collect the bulk of the sediment that would come off of those carts. So I think one of the last conditional use criteria items that I would like to comment on is the adequate service to public services and facilities including fire protection, sanitary sewer, road, water, and storm drainage systems. Public services will not be changing to both of these sites inside of the Woodlands Club property. The water connection will be the main tie-in off of, off of a public water, but understanding that the water inside of the club is private, and the electrical and fire protection services at both the cart barn and at the main clubhouse will not change from existing. [39:17] Chair (presiding officer): Justin, with respect to, I have, other town departments had an opportunity to comment, and did they have any comments? They have had an opportunity. It's been publicly posted. They did not specifically comment about this. Okay. I will say that public comment, department comment tends to be at the planning board level for detail work like that. Okay. Yes. All right. Any other questions, John? Others can ask questions to, yes, actually, absolutely, but I thought you, I'm good for questions for now, thank you. Okay, Chris, Kevin, let me just zip back to this [40:11] Speaker J (unidentified): picture again. I guess my only question that might come back, just, I was, there's a lot here. I noticed that the use of the word renovation was all over the place, so I'm a little confused as to, and I know you kind of went through it, what is the new building and what is just considered a renovation, interiorly, is that a word, interiorly? Yeah, the [40:39] Jenna Barry (engineer, Woodlands Club applicant): This there's a scope diagram that the architect team pulled together. It might be a couple, oh it's the sheet right here. So this shows square footage in the legend of what is new footprint, what is considered renovation, I think that's what that says, and what's considered a major versus a minor restoration. So I understand flooring will change, wall walls will be changed, internal walls may be knocked down and reconfigured, and to change some [41:22] Speaker B (unidentified): of these areas. There's to me there's a lot included here and just think blue is [41:29] Chair (presiding officer): blue is new. Thank you. Thank you. So just to follow up with respect to the major renovation areas, that is all interior work. It's there's nothing being proposed [41:42] Jenna Barry (engineer, Woodlands Club applicant): to be torn down. That's correct. Any tear down you could say would be internal renovation. Okay. Yeah okay thank you. Can have whatever carpets you [41:54] Speaker B (unidentified): like. There's there's expansion of the footprint right. I understand that substantive changes to the interior footprint of the building. Okay. That is [42:05] Board member (Peter Rickett): correct. The exterior deck it will become interior building. Yeah blue is new. What was new. Any other [42:12] Chair (presiding officer): questions from the board. Okay you can be seated and we will move on to the public comment period. Is there anyone in the room that would like to comment on the application? No. Is I don't see anyone on zoom. Is there anyone on zoom who would like to comment on the application? No. All right public comment is closed. We will move to board deliberation. Anyone like to offer any thoughts on this application? Nope I have no concerns. I'll [43:04] Speaker B (unidentified): make a motion to approve the request for conditional use under section 19 dash 119 to expand the existing use of the private club at 10 Woodlands Drive for the Woodlands Club. Second. All right Peter how do you vote? My vote to approve [43:19] Chair (presiding officer): I say a verbal vote to approve. John? Vote to approve. Chris? Vote to approve. Kevin? Vote to approve. All right. Good luck with the project and good luck at the planning board. [43:32] Board member (Peter Rickett): Good luck with the member vote. [43:36] Chair (presiding officer): Well, I thought that had already happened. No. Okay. Let me move. Okay. Item number four, one Underwood Road. Code, request for conditional use approval under 1977 to construct a detached accessory structure. [44:08] Ted Heidrich (applicant): Hi, good evening. I'm Ted Heidrich, and I'm here with my wife, Amy. Due to my Parkinson's, I may have trouble getting through this. I've also lost most of my hearing in the Marine Corps, so I may have to ask you to repeat yourself more than once. [44:21] Chair (presiding officer): Okay. Thank you for letting us know. [44:23] Ted Heidrich (applicant): I appreciate it. As you're aware, three years ago, I requested a building permit for an additional detached structure on my property located in 1 Underwood and 7 Underwood Road. It was approved by the board. However, due to family circumstances, my 91-year-old mother took ill and received care until she passed away later that year. The project was placed on hold. Tonight I come before you to request a permit as approved before, with the only change being in addition of a 12 by 18 foot garage on the north side of the building. All setbacks, height, in square foot limitations are still met with this addition. There was a delay in the issuance of the permit until the board did a site walkthrough, as one neighbor complained that the proposed building would limit their water views and should be declined. The board came to the conclusion that was not an issue and hopefully it's not tonight i understand that this building is not a dwelling nor can it be used as a rental unit it will have a single bathroom consisting of a toilet and a sink is allowable by code there was a question maybe in the question about the sewer when we renovated the cottage that was in on one underwood a completely new septic system was put in with a holding tank to design and design for three bedroom home our cottage is a one-bedroom cottage at this time and the building is going to be used for recreation, to store recreational gear such as my kayaks and yard tools, some space for gym, hobbies, and particularly family gatherings. Okay. [46:08] Chair (presiding officer): Are there any questions from the board? I do have a question. Sure. The proposed height is 24 plus feet. That was the proposed height of the structure that we approved several years ago. Is the garage, or this new 12 by 18 garage storage space, also the same height? Yeah, or lower. Yes, or lower. Okay, all right. Can you tell me where, with respect in relationship to the abutter who was concerned about view impact, where is the additional structure, the 12 by 18 space? It's, it's in front of [47:01] Ted Heidrich (applicant): the, it would be on the opposite water side of the of the building. Okay, so that [47:08] Chair (presiding officer): That particular butter might not have a new impact from this additional space? It would not change the impact. Okay. Would it have an impact on the other side? No. [47:19] Ted Heidrich (applicant): Actually, it's just filling in a space that was already blocking whatever minimal view it was. The board determined that it was less than a 4% change in the view. [47:29] Chair (presiding officer): Okay. All right. Those were my questions. Anybody else have questions? [47:37] Speaker J (unidentified): I do not. I remember this one. And I have no questions, yeah. [47:44] Chair (presiding officer): i think peter john and kevin were not on the board at the time do any of the three of you have questions i have no questions okay thank you okay all right that's all we have for you we will now open it up to public comment thank you 're welcome is there anyone in the room who would like to comment my [48:17] Ellen Snyder (public commenter): name is Ellen Snyder and I live at 13 Bay Site, which is the condo complex next door. We were quite a bit of the group that gathered for the first site review, and our main, my main concern tonight is when Ted first got his approval, it was going to be a workshop, and I don't believe at that time there was a bathroom. Tonight, Ted has commented that it's going to be for family gatherings and also a gym, along with storing things. Their dwelling is a fairly small home, and they have a very large family. And the Bayside community is concerned that it's going to become a bunkhouse, especially now that it has a bathroom. I do not believe there was a bathroom when he got his first approval. So we would like to limit the use to what was agreed upon when he first got his permit, and that was for storage and keeping a workshop and not having it as a bunk room. Also we're concerned about cutting trees. When he did the road to get into his unit, he not only cleared some of his land but he cleared a few Bayside trees, and after legal actions he put in new trees, but we were naive to think that he would not be putting an appropriate size, and they were gallon size department store trees, and it will take a great long time for them to grow. So I would ask that you ask the Ted if he is cutting trees and how he intends to, I, because they're so close to the water that he met he must replace the growth that he has cut down, and that he, that everyone be perfectly clear what the use of that building can be used for. Thank you. Yeah, are there any other [50:37] Chair (presiding officer): anyone else in the room who would like to comment? Excuse me, could you come back to the podium? I want to ask you a quick question. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify, you're commenting on your, on your behalf, not as a neighbor? Yes, all right, thank [51:04] Ellen Snyder (public commenter): you. I have met with the president of our board and we went over these okay concerns, but you're not representing the board? No, I am not. I was on the original board when we did the site [51:16] Chair (presiding officer): review. Right, the original site review. Okay, thank you so much. Is there anyone on zoom who would like to comment? I don't see anybody. Is there anyone on zoom with Their hand raised. Okay, all right, no one on Zoom. We are going to close the public hearing. I'll just make one comment. There was a relatively late public submittal this afternoon. I forwarded that onto the board that dealt with primarily with a concern about septic capacity and sewer connection. Okay, thank you all. Right, would anyone like to comment? Justin, can you confirm that in detached accessory structure may contain a half bath? It can, this as the applicant stated cannot be a dwelling unit. That was debated extensively the last hearing. The original plans that I pulled up from 2023, they are a little bit different, but it looks like they do show a similar sink bath, excuse me, sink toilet bath setup. That was my memory. [52:52] Speaker J (unidentified): That's why I got I was sting thinking of getting confused here, but the original request wasn't it for like exercise and a bath and sort of like an exercise space with a half bath and I [53:06] Chair (presiding officer): Can only speak to the half bath in the plan itself that there was a lot of discussion in context, but yeah, I don't I'm not sure it was ever so [53:16] Speaker B (unidentified): Strictly limited to use beyond what's shown. I did remember the half bath. That's yeah, I [53:25] Chair (presiding officer): Does anyone else want to provide any comments? I will note that it is a detached accessory structure. It cannot be used as a dwelling structure. Whether that means people can use it as a bunkhouse, I do know that people can use their detached accessory structures as long as they're complying with the ordinance as far as, you know, the building, the structure itself. [54:02] Speaker J (unidentified): From what I remember, I think the major concern was this was going to become an ADU. At the time. Not necessarily a bunkhouse, because not for nothing, you can have family come over and sleep in your garage, and nobody's going to stop you from doing that. [54:16] Chair (presiding officer): That's sort of where I'm going, Chris. Oh. Same idea. Okay. What I will say to that is, you know, taken on face value, There is no bedroom shown. There is no kitchen shown. With that in mind, there is no strict prohibition from someone creating, frankly, either a bedroom or a kitchen. When we group all those three together, bed, bath, kitchen, you then come into this category of dwelling unit, and the shoreland zone, if I recall, prohibits this in this section here. So there are other mechanisms to limit that. So taking the floor plan at its face. Right. Okay, thank you. [55:01] Speaker J (unidentified): If you were to add something like a kitchen, wouldn't they have to increase the size of their septic? [55:09] Chair (presiding officer): No. Possibly? No. By person? Yeah, the issue is it's based on bedroom. Gotcha. This was a big topic last time. So you can add 10 sinks. The math doesn't necessarily change for your septic. But the second you add a bedroom, it does. It's not perfect science, but in this instance, there's no bedroom shown. There's no capacity increase. You just have to find a place for that gray water. And with respect to the comment on vegetation, I mean, we don't, other than providing adequate screening, with respect to cutting down trees, we don't have jurisdiction over that. And if there was to be cutting down of trees and shoreland zone, that's a separate issue, an enforcement issue, correct? Or if it's on someone else's property, that is unfortunately nothing that we can do anything about. That is between the landowner and the applicant, that is. Correct, a shoreline zone permit was pulled, I believe, a year or two ago based on the point system by a professional to cut trees. I was aware of the claim of cutting on different property, but you're absolutely correct, that is a civil issue. Okay, all right, any other comments? Would anyone like to make a motion? I'll [56:44] Speaker J (unidentified): make a motion to approve the conditional use application for I just lost out one on [56:53] Speaker B (unidentified): one Underwood Road vote to approve under section dash 19 that's what I was looking for thank you constructed detached accessory structure thank you [57:04] Chair (presiding officer): that's what we need I'll second that okay board deliberation I'll offer one additional comment to the public comment that came in writing. Just want to reiterate that the board's decision tonight does not bind, does not impact the requirement or any requirement for sewer. So, let's say for instance all of this goes through and there's some argument to whether sewer needs to have a public connection, your decision tonight has no bearing on outside departments reviews. So, anyway, just on the record. And I just want to, under board deliberation, comment that should the use change, for instance, to an accessory dwelling unit, the applicant would need to come back for an additional approval. This approval is for an accessory building. [58:05] Speaker B (unidentified): Okay. Should we make that in the official motion? Sure. Let me do it. Yeah, you do. Great job. So make a motion to approve the request for conditional use under section 19-7 to construct a detached non-dwelling accessory structure at one Underwood Road. Okay, great. Second. Okay, we'll [58:34] Chair (presiding officer): Start with you, Kevin. Chris, vote to approve. John, vote to approve. I, Sarah, a verbal vote to approve. Peter Rickett, vote to approve. Okay, thank you very much. Your project is approved, and good luck to you all. Right, back to the agenda. Why these keep coming up. Okay, is there any other business we have any holidays is coming up that's usually our don't think so October 27th is the meeting date the deadline for that meeting given the five Tuesdays this month is actually next Tuesday. Okay, so you don't know yet what we could be looking at. I don't. Okay. I have an inkling, but I don't. Okay, great. Look at the sly smile. I don't like that. Okay, great. You're welcome, as always. Have a good night. Would anyone like to make a motion to adjourn? Motion to adjourn. Second. Everybody, anybody vote to approve? Aye. Aye. Okay, we are adjourned.