The Raynham Channel
Welcome to Raynham Community Access & Media (RAYCAM), where we engage, learn, and create community access media. We are dedicated to providing a platform for all voices to be heard and shared. Join us in creating a vibrant and inclusive media community.
The Raynham Channel
Board of Appeals 04/30/2025
(Episode Description is AI generated and may be errors in accuracy)
A fascinating glimpse into the delicate balance between development and preservation played out at the Raynham Board of Appeals meeting, where two distinct petitions highlighted the challenges of growing suburbs. As properties get divided and redeveloped, how do towns maintain their character while respecting property rights?
The first petition showcased Chris Gallagher's request to divide an irregularly-shaped lot into two buildable parcels. His compelling presentation detailed how soil conditions, topography, and the unusual L-shape created genuine hardships. Though the Board ultimately approved with conditions including road improvements, a poignant moment came when a concerned resident reminded everyone of the cumulative impact these individual decisions have on infrastructure—particularly the struggling school system facing potential tax overrides.
Even more complex was the second petition from a cranberry farmer seeking to build a dwelling on a 24-acre bog with no road frontage. The case illuminated the practical realities of agricultural operations—needing on-site presence for frost warnings and bog maintenance—against strict legal requirements for property access. When an abutter raised concerns about boundary disputes and easement limitations originally intended only for maintaining bog ditches, the Board thoughtfully suggested withdrawal without prejudice rather than outright denial.
These cases reveal the human stories behind zoning regulations: farmers trying to maintain viable operations, homeowners protecting their investments, and boards seeking fair solutions that honor both individual needs and community standards. For anyone navigating property development in changing communities, they demonstrate the value of thorough research, neighbor engagement, and creative problem-solving that addresses both personal needs and public impact.
What's your experience with local zoning? Have you witnessed similar tensions between development and preservation in your community? Share your thoughts or join us at the next meeting to see democracy in action at the most local level.
https://www.raynhaminfo.com/
Copyright RAYCAM INC. 2024
Good evening. Proceedings are being transcribed and recorded to provide full and accurate minutes and allow for full participation of the clerk meeting on. It is April 30th 2025 at 7.02 pm. To my left I have Fran McGuirk, to my right Paul Ballou. Request that the clerk read the petition for other relevant matters Ready on the first one? Yes, I'm not sure, do I?
Speaker 2:have the petition. Yeah, it's got a little bit of time on it, I think we're doing it, thank you Okay.
Speaker 2:The Rainham Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, april 30, 2025, at 7 pm at Rainham Veterans Memorial Town Hall, 558 South Main Street, to consider petition number 1056,. Chris Gallagher, rainham Mass. Request for variances from Rainham Zoning Bylaws, section 350-5.1, minimum requirements to allow the creation of two lots with variances from the frontage area depth and building square requirements of Section 5.1. Locust property is King Street Assessors Map 12, lot 214-4A, rainham Mass. Anyone wishing to be heard on this matter should attend the hearing. A copy of the plan now. Patients. You could be viewed at the full rain in town clerk's office for the appeals office during scheduled business thank you.
Speaker 1:Is there anybody that will be speaking in favor or against this petition? If you want to all stand and we can swear you in, If you want to raise your right hand, All who intend to give a testimony, please rise. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give to this board shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? So help you God. Thank you Okay If the petitioner wants to come forward. Anybody speaking, please? No speaking from seats in that podium my name is Chris Gallagher.
Speaker 4:I'm a registered professional engineer, live in Braingham. I'm the landowner and representing myself on this petition. I'm THE LAND OWNER AND REPRESENTING MYSELF ON THIS PETITION. First THERE WAS A LEGAL NOTICE MAUREEN MCKETTY, administrative ASSISTANT, pointed OUT. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GOING TO BE AN ISSUE OR NOT, but THE LOCUS PROPERTY IS KING STREET. Assessor's MAP 12, law 214-4A. The ASor's map and lot are correct. It said King Street. It's actually off King Street on Gallagher Place, so I don't think it had any influence on.
Speaker 4:But as they all got notice you could know by the map 12, lot 214, and Maureen pointed it out to me and said there's like three options you can go forward with the hearing, call it a Scribner's error and move forward. Or can still take testimony, re-advertise but not make a decision. Or just not take testimony at all and re-advertise but not make a decision. Or just not take testimony at all and re-advertise. I'm not in any big hurry, so it's at the board's discretion. I mean I'm not, you know. I mean if this goes it's gonna be a house I slowly pick away at and not start immediately. So I just wanted to point that out to the board. Everyone in the room that Maureen told me, so it's at the board's discretion, I guess how to handle this okay, thank you even if you know whether or not we feel, legally we're obligated to push it for public.
Speaker 2:But I think, even if that were the case, I think it's worth letting them plead their case and present your argument as a matter of public record. But I don't think it's going to. I mean, in my opinion, I don't think it raises an to, I mean my opinion. I don't think it raises an undue misrepresentation.
Speaker 1:I think everybody's been notified. Everybody's been notified.
Speaker 2:The excessive math, everything technically is correct, just the wording off and where Gallagher place is a private way, it definitely falls into that gray area yeah, I'm comfortable letting it.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I'm okay as the way it is with the. You know, we'll note them, the miswording, and but at the end of the day, all you know, all the information is an incorrect. We still have correct information and it didn't affect any of the embodies and the readings.
Speaker 2:I think we're all in agreeance and I suppose actually by saying King Street, you actually alerted a larger crowd than just saying Gallagher. If you say Gallagher, people know that it's a very specific portion of King Street. If you say, hey, we're looking at this thing on King Street, anybody that could have been down by the police station might have said, hey, King Street, let me see whether that matters to me. So I do think it actually got a bigger splash by having a King Street.
Speaker 4:I mean, I've had correspondence and discussion with some of the neighbors that aren't here tonight but they were okay with the petition but they obviously couldn't notify and understood where it was. Yeah, okay, okay. That being said, I'll move forward. I just wanted to first I don't know if I submitted this in the petition the existing food plan has a proposed house on the food right now. The whole building permit to build this house had to do some upgrades. It's a gravel driveway but that's existing and approved as we speak. So it's not that a lot to build another house. It's the house that's already there, that I haven't started.
Speaker 4:And my proposal is to put a lock line in between the house and the barn for several reasons. Line in between the house and the bond, for several reasons. One I'd like to finance any mortgage on the house. I'd like to keep it separate and not come to the bond. My hope is to maybe build a lot for my daughter At some point, remodel the bond and and I live in that myself full time. But so this is like a two-step process. The plan went for discussion to the zone, I mean to the planning board, while back they said they weren't going to take any action on it. You're going to go to the zoning board. If in fact get through your approval, then you're going to have to come back and file it as a definitive subdivision, at which time you make you bring the road up to minimum standards, which would be fully paved the driveway from the right away now how would see?
Speaker 2:now that sounds like, I mean sounds to me that if we granted the waivers requested to waive the frontage, waive the those requirements, this would be done by an A&R. If those lots had the waivers necessary, then you would comply with zoning and you wouldn't need to do a definitive nor touch the road as a matter of the planning board, then couldn't apply those restrictions upon you as a matter of law. So I don't know that that advice is actually correct.
Speaker 4:I tend to agree with you as an engineer that's been doing this stuff for years. But in Rainham they don't do it that way. Well, I mean, it's's A QUICK WAY.
Speaker 2:TO GET SUED.
Speaker 4:IN MOST OTHER TOWNS I'VE WORKED IN. You CITE THE VARIANTS ON THE PLAN AND DO IT AS AN A&R IN RAINHAM. They MAKE YOU COME THROUGH A WAIVER OF FRONTAGE SO YOU HAVE TO FILE AGAIN NOTIF IF THAT'S THEIR CHOICE. But I DO AGREE WITH.
Speaker 2:YOU ON THAT. I THINK STATE LAW SUPRECEDES THE FACT THAT THEY CAN'T DO THAT. Yeah, I AGREE, if WE'RE DOING THAT, then WE SHOULD TALK TO THEM, but IN THIS, CASE.
Speaker 4:I DON'T KNOW, maybe IT'S THE PRIVATE ROAD, but I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH UPGRADING IT part of the deal as I upgraded at my expense as we share it. So you know, I tend to agree with you.
Speaker 2:I mean, I'm not talking about it.
Speaker 4:No, I understand, but this is the situation I'd be in and have to go a two-step process. The variances I have all shown on the plan and red, they're mostly shape factors. I mean it's a weird-shaped lot. You see, it's like an L and it's a little weird shape, so it requires frontage. One lot has the required area, the other one doesn't required area, the other one doesn't.
Speaker 4:But just to give you, you know, go back a little and give you a history of you know this land years ago, all this land. I mean there was nothing up here, it was a p georgia from the wilsons and this was carrie's farm, alice and john careary. They cut off the piece incrementally and that was how they lived basically. And so a lot of the lots they cut off were frontage initially and they were 30 000 square foot blocks some data but a lot of them were 30 000 at the time. So this was going to be a subdivision just before I bought it and the developer went was going belly up. So the Crongys had bought this piece Hank Crongy, and to get an offer before it was gone to the bank. Um, I approached you know hank's not around anymore melody, the daughter is in the house and I approached melody and she said you know my father kind of that was his wishes, you know. So I think I'm going to keep it. So I said okay, melanie, I respect your wishes, that would make life a lot easier. I wouldn't have to be in front of the zoning board. Your wishes, that would make life a lot easier. I wouldn't have to be in front of the zoning board if I couldn't dash that piece.
Speaker 4:I also tried thinking about a layout, and some of talk hill farm is the two nieces of the gary's. They're the descendants of the years of what's left in the farm. But the land's such a weird shape and it created a hardship to get it rowed up there. It just couldn't work geometrically. The only piece that would help me was the drawing piece and I think I got a no on that. So when I originally got this piece I came in and went in with a four lot design and we dug the whole thing up and the soil was horrible. So the condition of the soil was another hardship. We got one perk and so that's where the house went and at the time we put the fathom sewer coming up to hit this between this section of king and going left on locust there to be a dozen houses. So we didn't know there was going to be an additional 250, 300 houses between king estates, whip-a-will and carriage hills across the street. So eventually they put the sword. Well, so we'll blow it off through the whole power pot, but eventually they put the sewer in and that's what happened here.
Speaker 4:I wish I'd left it as a subdivision like that, because they have a by-lawed place that whenever you created your lot it stays that way until whatever the zoning was that day that you created it. So they still would have been grandfathered in. So three lots I I think is fair, density wise to this piece of land. It's no different than what it would have been before, and so the soil and the shape that you know caused issues. Soil and the shape that you know caused issues, um, but if you look in the neighborhood, um, this wouldn't be really out of place as far as density, lot size goes, this is a lot of 30 000 square foot lots. There's a ton of 20 000 square foot between wicklewell, um, I'm not sure the preserve I think it's called Cole Finch Road, it's like just on the other side of Whippleville and then Cather Chill down here. That's got a bunch of 20,000s in it, so it's not really out of place or out of character in the neighborhood.
Speaker 4:The improvement will be the paved driveway. It'll benefit me, it'll benefit mike and diane texera, who are in my old house now, and it will also kind of they designate it even though it's a private driveway. I guess the school kind of designated the driveway as their bus stop and so sometimes there's cars that you up there, I think, only knows, like Melanie, it was the house next door but they moved away but so that's designated as their bus stop. So you came and it would be a benefit, I think, to both the director butter. I think it would look a lot better to keep stones and going out into the road, which right now you have a stone driveway that goes out.
Speaker 4:But I think it's a reasonable request. Again, it's up to the board, but I think there are adequate hardships to between the shape, the soil, also the topography. This drops about 20 feet from here to the streets and so the septic house had to get pushed up there. This situation, the water towers right behind this, when I had built this house, this talk of this house, was actually the highest point on a quality terrain I think it may have changed now, with all the local street all blown out with the sewer, but you know, in closing, I think there's adequate reasons that this could be granted.
Speaker 4:Relief could be granted. I think, as it says, relief may be granted, that THIS COULD BE GRANTED, relief COULD BE GRANTED, I THINK, as IT SAYS, relief MAY BE GRANTED WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT TO THE PUBLIC GOOD, WITHOUT NULLIFYING OR SUBSTANTIALLY DERIGATING FROM THE INTENT OR PURPOSE OF SUCH ORDINANCE. And I DON'T THINK THIS WOULD BE YOU would not fit in the neighborhood. So I think the relief could be granted for certain reasons and, and that's of course not my call at yours. So thank you for your time and you know, appreciate you hearing me thank you.
Speaker 1:Anybody have any questions for him?
Speaker 2:No, it's pretty thorough.
Speaker 1:Is there anybody that would speak in favor?
Speaker 6:My name is John Texer. I live at 122 First Street. I know all you gentlemen. I'm usually sitting there. Obviously, if you haven't figured out by now, the reason I'm not is the abutter is my son.
Speaker 6:Okay, I'm not here to oppose Chris's project per se. Chris and I are also friends. We've served on the planning board together. I'm here to make a point, I guess, for you guys to consider what we're doing here and Fran, you probably remember this term is making two pork job Lots. Okay, this particular WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE AND FRAN, you PROBABLY REMEMBER THIS TERM IS MAKING TWO PARK JOB LOTS. Okay, this PARTICULAR LOT.
Speaker 6:He's TALKING ABOUT LACKS, the THREE BASIC THINGS YOU NEED FOR A LOT. It DOESN'T HAVE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. It DOESN'T HAVE THE FRONTAGE. It DOESN'T HAVE THE 125 BY 125. And I WOULDN'T 125 and I wouldn't be surprised at some point in this process he'll come back. You don't have the setbacks either. Those are my guesses on that. Now, should I? Am I telling you to vote no because of that? No, but as you all know and you're all going to be affected by it our school systems in a crisis.
Speaker 6:About 10 years ago, I served on the planning board and I tried to make a point. There was a group called long, long built homes. You know the name, you know sure you guys have all seen it. There WAS A GROUP CALLED LONG BUILT HOMES. You KNOW THE NAME, sure YOU GUYS HAVE ALL SEEN IT. They'd COME IN EVERY MONTH 28 PIECES HERE, 23 HERE, so FARTH, frank BACK. There WOULD COME IN AND HE'D HAVE 25 HOUSES AND SO FARTH. And I SAID, guys, we GOT TO PUT A LIMIT ON THIS. We're GROWING LIKE CRAZY. Well, as you know, we've got a crisis with the school system. They're going to be coming in for an override. That's on top of the override we have for the safety building and on top of what we are going to have to pay for BP. You're all going to be paying a lot more in taxes over the next few years.
Speaker 6:Now, this one lot or two lots, if you will, is not going to make the difference in whether my son has 31 or 36 kids in his classroom. It's not going to make the difference. But I'd like you to consider it's all part of it. If we keep doing all these little things that don't fit, I feel bad for him that he set it up like that, but you know it's always been the case with both the planning board and the Board of Appeals Hardships. It's not your responsibility. If they've created a hardship for themselves, it's their responsibility. They've created a hardship for themselves. It's their responsibility, they've created it. So I guess I ask you to think real closely, not only on this one but on any others that come before you.
Speaker 6:As I said, that particular lot he's creating to put his house on lacks all the basic needs of a house lot. It doesn't have the land. The only major thing that it has is dirt on the ground. It doesn't have the square footage. It doesn't have the square footage. It doesn't have the frontage. He's got 50 foot of frontage on there. He's not big enough to qualify for an estate lot. If the lot was bigger then he could go in for an estate lot with 50 feet, but then again it's not on a public way. At best, with the development he's going to make it a private way and that doesn't qualify. I happen, with the development he's going to make it a private way and that doesn't qualify. I happen to be on the planning board when we establish the estate line, so I know for sure that it doesn't qualify that. So that's all I'm asking. Is you think about it, guys. In for this, for this lot and in the future, because it's not going to be the only one. All you have to do is drive around town, driving to taunton, especially every postage stamp. They're building houses on 138 where if you step out the front door too quickly you'll be taken out by your car coming down. You know the ones, I mean the duplexes and the trip triplexes they've made on that big curve. It was a big, a big deal a number of years ago, probably before, boy, you, most of you were adults, but anyway, again, I'm not speaking against it. I just ask you guys to consider when you, when you make these variances for this lot and other Lots, what you're doing in fact to the town now, right now I've got it in my head, unless he and my wife talked me out of it to approach. We've got a new planning board established. Tomorrow they'll be setting up the hierarchy, who's in charge and so forth. Okay, the newly elected board member is going to be like.
Speaker 6:I was the only one that wasn't in that perfection profession, excuse me, we had. When I served, we had a real estate agent. On one end, we had a real estate lawyer, the next one, we had your uncle the contractor. The next one, we had the engineer. As the next one. Everybody who had a vested interest in more building in Rainham okay. It was very common. Every other month, one of them had to recuse themselves because they were involved in whatever the project was. We didn't do a very good job of planning. I hold the planning board and the board of selectmen responsible for it, for what's where we are now in this financial crisis in the town. So I've said enough. I've beat my gums long enough. I'll get off my soapbox. Just consider that now and in the future, gentlemen. Okay, and have a good night. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 1:Is there anybody else to speak in favor? Is there anybody to speak in opposition?
Speaker 6:Well, I don't know how you would certify.
Speaker 2:We do also have an email. Okay, would you like that WE DO ALSO HAVE AN E-MAIL? Just STAY FOR THE.
Speaker 1:RECORD THE ONE THAT YOU JUST E-MAILED.
Speaker 2:The one that you just emailed me, you handed me today. Yes, I have it right here.
Speaker 2:Okay, reading for the record an email from an abutter. The abutter is Joe Bean who? The ABUTTER IS JOE BEAN WHO. Hi, maureen, I'd LIKE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT PETITION 1056 BEING DISCUSSED AT WEDNESDAY'S MEETING FOR GALLAGHER STREET. Gallagher LOT OFF OF KING STREET. I LIVE ON PRINCESS LANE. Stop BY TOMORROW AND GET MORE EVERY WEDNESDAY NIGHT. Time OF THE PROJECT. What ARE THEY PLANNING TO BU? Get more everywhere tonight. Time of the project. What are they planning to build? How much of the land are they planning to clear? Has an environmental impact study been performed? Has water runoff been considered? Basically no statements, just a variety of questions. Okay, um, not that, but as a matter of record, now that's been read okay, thank you.
Speaker 1:Any other other comments?
Speaker 4:you know, I had a correspondence with Joe being and we mailed back and forth. So I just said one hi, joe, and Chris Gallagher. Maureen McKenna told me we mailed her regarding my variance petition. If you would like more information, we could meet prior to the meeting or by phone. If you want me to send you a copy of the plan prior to discussing, I can be reached at, by the way, seven to eight, five, eight, six, seven, and Joe wrote back. Thanks for reaching out. I have a copy of the plan.
Speaker 4:I'm mostly curious if you're planning to clear the woods back there for privacy concerns. As I back up to the area, the lot for the smaller house has a decent buffer to our neighborhood, so that's probably okay. I'm wondering if you're planning to clear the woods on the lot with the barn, as that's very visible to our neighborhood. I support your plan in general. I just have the one concern, so I wrote back hi, joe, the clearing will be for the house on the small lot.
Speaker 4:This still leaves Now where Joe is. This is like a piece here has a strip that comes down, the lot goes out, but then it has a strip that goes down and behind that strip is his lot. So he's got all of Crombie's woods, plus this woods to his lot, and so I just put the clearing will be for the house on the small lot. This still leaves about 250 feet of woods between the Miller and Crombie land. To your rear lot line I will be clearing for a new driveway to the barn as shown in the plan. You can see the driveway coming up here.
Speaker 4:And I plan on remodeling the inside of the barn and living in it. It is my hope to build a house for my daughter in the small lot. If you have Any other concerns, feel free to contact me. Then Joe wrote back, you know. Thank you, chris. Best of luck. So that helps that. Thank you.
Speaker 1:Does the board have any other questions? For anybody else, I will. We're going to declare the public hearing closed all. Does the board have any other questions? For anybody else, I will. All right, okay, we're going to declare the public hearing closed and the board will go into executive session. All may remain while the board deliberates, but no one may speak.
Speaker 2:Well, I, think I've got two problems. I mean, you know this. It just doesn't seem like there's a good hardship that makes that necessary, especially when you consider what is being proposed, which is a new house Maintaining. This can be done under the current law even with two different owners, or two different, because with the new state ADU regs, which you know, you could put a primary structure in there and keep that barn as an ADU. They don't, you don't have to be owner-occupied anymore, you don't, you can charge rent, I mean all these different things that can happen. You have a lot with it.
Speaker 2:So my concern with granting the variance is, I think the mission of the applicant could be achieved without it, therefore mitigating a lot of the need for it, and that's the hurdle. And then also, I do think the planning board would be legally stopped from requiring to do what they've said they would require them to do, but as soon as we pass that waiver, he doesn't have to comply. I mean, I mean, I know that if, if, if one of my clients was, they wouldn't have to comply, they might do it anyways, but they wouldn't be forced to comply because it's it we go for before to do it could we make a condition of this, of the ZVA we could, that they go to the planning board and fulfill, you know, like those requirements we could make our approval condition on a full subdivision, not an ANR, because it currently private way.
Speaker 1:How it stands gonna be three lots, so it's almost like a three lot public well, but it wouldn't be a three lot subdivision.
Speaker 2:One of the plus but it's.
Speaker 1:It's kind of like changing yeah, but it's only.
Speaker 2:I mean again, I'm as it matters. You're adding one lot and by A&R, by state law, you can add two without triggering that. So you can increase the lotting by two lots without triggering any of that as a matter of state law, and then we're not allowed to override that. Even you know it's not a case of where we can be stricter, like conservation we can, and things like that. So I mean, I just think it's one of those things. If we want that condition in there, I think we have to mandate that, as opposed to relying on that to be a planning board thing, you know, I mean that's a difference.
Speaker 7:You know, like mr Gallagher, if he agrees to do that I mean. It sounds like he already wants to sounds like it but put them on the record that he agrees to it and it's our condition then he asked me and then the only other thing is music paving the road in and then fight upon the requirement.
Speaker 2:Right, is that cold sec 54, 54 radius is what they can wave it down to. Usually they can wave it down to what? 53? Because then you use the depends on how much pavement, because 53 for the property and then you usually get an 8-foot offset to the pavement.
Speaker 1:And then the original house doesn't have, just has a right-of-way I guess opposite of the private way.
Speaker 2:Well, no, the original house has frontage on it On the private way, on the private way, on that private way I mean that's. I mean I'm just concerned with you know. Mr Tarek's ever brings up a valid point of you know, of the things that they're not, that they're substandard on, are not a thing here, thing there. I mean I think you could easily build a house with the setbacks here. That I don't think that's a challenge. You could design a pretty substantial house and meet the setbacks. But it's not like, oh, we get to 40,000 square foot lots that just I need the frontage to be smaller, or we've got it's, it's pretty, it's pretty strong ask. It's now, I will say, throwing in the fact that they would be willing to make the road viable. You know, legitimately, as a condition is at least them offering something up, as opposed to just all ask.
Speaker 2:But I just think that if if we're going to do that, then we have to put it as part of our condition they do that yeah.
Speaker 2:I mean, I see there's a sewer stub that comes down there. I assume that that means it goes on the sewers got a hydrant at the end. Yeah, I mean to be fair, I mean to be full disclosure. I live, uh, just on the other side. I live on king street at 722, uh, just at the bottom of the hill. I'm just outside, obviously, of the notification letters, apparently, um, but uh, and, and looked at this when it was for sale because it's a beautiful piece of property. But I'm just concerned about granting variances as opposed to special permits, and this high bar for variances isn't for a reason. That's my take.
Speaker 2:I mean are you okay with it?
Speaker 7:I'm okay with it.
Speaker 2:You're okay with it? Are you okay with it?
Speaker 1:my biggest thing doing would be okay with. It is meeting planning one requirements okay and treatment, but it's not.
Speaker 2:We could do it, provided that they go through planning board like a and have to upgrade the road as as their design criteria yeah, okay, something like that.
Speaker 1:I mean I think I'm unfortunately the way the state everybody's going with housing and oh no, there's a need, this and everything's getting shrunk down, no matter what town you're in.
Speaker 2:I think it's. I don't know if it's an age thing, but I'm at an age where I finally drive through neighborhoods I grew up in and go holy cow, I miss all the woods going, but for sure I mean there's.
Speaker 1:But for sure I mean there's. Yeah, my biggest thing is access coming in. None of the you know access coming in, meeting planning board requirements, bringing it up in an emergency turn around yeah.
Speaker 2:I mean because, if that they would have to pay that. Fix that, that cul-de-sac, such that it satisfies the fire department.
Speaker 7:Yeah whatever that means. I mean, I'm not probably have to take out the island, right, if they're going to have a cold start Well oftentimes they can keep an island, but it depends on the the 50-foot radius he has.
Speaker 2:But that takes up a big part, yeah, with the 50-foot radius, you probably can't have the island. Usually you can have the island with a 60-foot radius.
Speaker 1:So what I'm and I don't know who Once we come out of executive session. So what I'm? This Gallagher place basically tain it currently. Who owns that road? If it's a WELL ONE, is IT A? Is IT A SHARED RIGHT AWAY?
Speaker 2:WELL, the QUESTION IS IS IT, is IT MANAGED BY AN ASSOCIATION? Is IT, you KNOW, single YON? Obviously.
Speaker 1:NOBODY'S. Instant.
Speaker 7:BUT YOU KNOW, I THINK, open THE HILL, get, get A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION. Get, get a little more information. Yeah, we can. It's going to be brought up to a public way.
Speaker 2:I mean, is there currently like, is there already currently an association that manages that? These are questions that I didn't think to ask in open session we can go back to open session and come back to executive.
Speaker 1:WE CAN GO BACK AND OPEN SESSION AND COME BACK TO EXECUTIVE, I GUESS.
Speaker 2:MOVE TO CLOSE EXECUTIVE TO REOPEN SESSION TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS.
Speaker 7:I SECOND.
Speaker 2:ALL.
Speaker 1:IN FAVOR AYE, aye.
Speaker 4:THANK YOU. When I FIRST PUT IN THE HOUSE, the FIRE DEPARTMENT CAME OUT AND APPROVED THE ACCESS WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THE PLANNING BOARD PROCESS. If IT GOES THROUGH THE PLANNING BOARD PROCESS AGAIN, they're GOING TO HAVE TO REQUIRE THAT BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO GO TO EVERY SINGLE DEPARTMENT. When YOU GO THROUGH PLANNING BOARD, it GOES TO SEWELL WATER.
Speaker 5:FIRE.
Speaker 4:I THINK IT IS ABOUT A DOZEN PEOPLE THAT IT GOES THROUGH RIGHT BUT WHETHER IT'S REQUIRED OR NOT.
Speaker 2:I'D.
Speaker 4:AGREE TO DEFINITELY GO THROUGH THE PLANNING BOARD PROCESS, even THOUGH AS A FORM. A IT MAY NOT BE REQUIRED BUT THAT WAS MY INTENT, and MY INTENT IS TO PAVE THE DRIVEWAY. I THINK IT'S GOING TO LOOK BEAUTIFUL IF IT GETS PAVED. I THINK IT'S GOING TO BENEFIT THE BOTH OF US AND I'M DOING IT AT MY EXPENSE EVEN THOUGH IT'S A SHARED DRIVEWAY.
Speaker 2:NOW. How IS THE DRIVEWAY MANAGED NOW?
Speaker 4:IT'S GOT A DRIVEWAY AGREEMENT. It's ACTUALLY. What HAPPENED IS I CONVEYED THE HOUSE LOT AND I DIDN'T CONVEY THE RIGHT-O-WAY. That STAYED WITH ME, OKAY.
Speaker 1:BUT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE IT. They HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THINGS.
Speaker 4:Yeah, just LIKE ANYBODY WITH lot too, yeah yeah, yeah, it belongs to the, to the lot too, so the ownership was retained at closing no. I don't know if that's because I had Brennan did the closing and I think he thought that might be might be a pain because it's a land-caught property actually probably the easiest way to ever move to remove it from now.
Speaker 2:They've actually, as a February, they made removing you out of Lake or very easy yeah, I'm gonna try to do that.
Speaker 4:They actually removed the whole piece next door.
Speaker 2:That subdivision was land court as a February, they'd change the rules to to decertify, do you register? Yeah?
Speaker 4:yeah, cuz it's. You know, when I first got this it wasn't that bad because I knew one of the guys up there pretty good slow, but it's.
Speaker 4:Uh, it takes forever to get your plan back. So who you know? As far as the road paving clearing, it's you, it's shared, but it's you know, if it's paving the way, the agreements written. Any improvement, including top coating and whatnot, changing the the surface is shared 50-50. But in this particular case I'd be paying for the whole thing and I'd actually agree. I mean, I wouldn't mind if you even put that in a condition, just so Mike would be in the comfort zone, so it wouldn't come back, but I'd agree as a condition that'm responsible for the pavement would it be a public way then?
Speaker 4:no, no, no, they probably. Typically. There's a lot of roads around where they do the same exact thing with an 18-foot width, of different, various widths, like it gets named cornerstone, a few down the street that's a same type of thing dog like there's one on White Street with a Romani's farm is it's like three lot.
Speaker 4:Same thing. There's one over here I forget the name of it, but it's like got three lots in the back, three, four lots, and so then they keep them private. You know, in the condition of approval of I FORGET THE NAME OF IT, but IT'S LIKE GOT THREE LOTS IN THE BACK, three, four LOTS, so THEN THEY KEEP THEM PRIVATE. You KNOW, in THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, as IT REMAINS PRIVATE.
Speaker 2:TOM BECOMES RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PHOSPHOROUS.
Speaker 5:IN.
Speaker 2:OUR STORM WATER SYSTEM FOR EVERY BIT OF PUBLIC ROAD, that WE GET NEW NIPTY CIRCULATIONS. It's PRETTY HONORS.
Speaker 4:SO THEN, as FAR AS THE SETBACKS, there's PLENTY OF ROOM THERE TO BUILD ANYTHING YOU NEED WITHOUT HAVING TO COME BACK HERE FOR A VARIANCE FOR SETBACKS. It's GOOD. The BUILDING ENVELOPE SHOWN ON THE PLAN.
Speaker 1:AND THEN WHAT YOU NEED TO BRING ANOTHER WATER SERVICE IN, or DO YOU HAVE? And then would you need to bring another water service in, or do you have a mean that comes up there?
Speaker 4:I have a two inch main and I talked to the water department and they'd be okay tapping off that. And I have a six inch sewer main. I mean a six inch can handle hundreds of houses, you know. So that's okay. I'd have to stub that. You know there's no stub for that right now. But I'd have to tap off the two inch for a separate water service. Tap off the one inch, I mean off the sewer. I'd have to bring up underground electric. There's a pole about 100 feet up the road and right now there's two 200 amp services, you know, one for the house, one for the barn. So I'd have to bring a new electric service up.
Speaker 1:Oh, yes. So if you have anything else to say, in favor.
Speaker 6:You want to say that.
Speaker 6:But, just, I think there's a little bit of a misunderstanding here, as my son understands the purchase and sale agreement. Chris, tell me if I'm wrong, but this is all co-owned or shared, including the island and the individual property, the driveway up to his barn and the driveway to my son's house. Those are separately owned but this whole thing is shared ownership. So if you're going to come back and say, well, I got to take the island, you're going to be back here again. Now you're going to get him here again to say is it going to go away or do I want to do? I want to sell him the rights to the, to the yes, to the circle as a matter, I mean as a matter of private way.
Speaker 2:So when we'll get into that? Yeah, help you when you have a private way just one second.
Speaker 6:It's my nickel. You, when you have a private way just one second, finding over sorry.
Speaker 2:When you have a private way, we both front on it and we have shared rights. I have full rights to upgrade and improve it independent of so?
Speaker 6:yeah, we're talking about that. Yeah, talking about changing it. Now you want to remove the city.
Speaker 2:Yes, sir yeah, but that's.
Speaker 6:I mean, as I'm not proven yeah, that's.
Speaker 2:I mean. So, like say, for example, it just it was a 12-foot driveway right, say it was just. I mean say it was just a regular house driveway right, 12 feet, but it's up in a right away I could come and widen that to a full 24, 4 foot wide pavement with vertical grain curve sidewalks on both sides, the whole nine, like it was King Street or I mean nobody wants to do that because it's very, very, very expensive, but imagine what's going to cost it to do that whole thing away.
Speaker 6:Once that becomes a subdivision okay, and it's a private way, they're gonna have to form a homeless association sometimes if I was going to be maintained, it's going to be flyers, so forth. They're all gonna have to share that cost that obviously that wasn't something and actually surprised I wasn't already.
Speaker 6:That was something that wasn't in the cards when he bought the house, obviously, but I just want to understand that and you have to determine what difference that makes in the argument. But this is all shared up to determine what difference that makes in the argument. But this is all shared up to and including the circle, 100% Okay, and the only private portion is excuse me, I've always had trouble with it which part is where it cuts off to go out to Chris's barn and where it goes up to my son's house. Those are owned by each of the separate properties. Okay, and if you have time, anybody see clear.
Speaker 1:You want to swear, Right? Yeah, I'll swear if I need to. Do you want to raise your hand, Yep? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to give to this board should be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? And it's all be God, Yep? State your name and address like text 35, gallagher place.
Speaker 9:Uh, the only things that I wanted to add are I understand this, improvements being made, and I want to make sure I understand correctly here, because we're saying it's it's 50 50 that we own it there however, this is me. I'm getting nothing from this so you don't understand.
Speaker 9:So this is I'm here to observe, to watch as it's going on, just so you know, because it involves my land and I want to know. Uh, but to me it wouldn't make any sense that I would have to pay any of that portion of upgrading it, because I'm getting nothing out of this. I understand he's offering to pay that and that's.
Speaker 3:That's fine but I don't want to leave here saying, okay, yep, it's 50, 50 split, yeah, and that's.
Speaker 9:That's what I want. To make sure it happens here, because, right, that's gonna cost an awful lot of money and again for something that's not getting anything out of this. That would be a big expense here paintings nice that's a lot of money. As of right now, I maintain that that shared area, solely I'm the one that cares for it.
Speaker 3:It's been that way for the six years that I've owned the place.
Speaker 9:I want that to be known forever here, all right.
Speaker 1:Thank you. I have one question for you. Sure, are you tied into sewer or are you still on the second?
Speaker 9:No, tied into sewer.
Speaker 4:I think it was a misunderstanding. I retain title to the right of way. We have shared ownership, we had a driveway agreement, so Mike has full rights over it and so do I. But I said I'd be amenable and I thought it would be safer for Mike for a condition to be that the driveway upgrade is on me so it wouldn't come back on him. And you know, I just want to, you know, I want to assure you, mike, that I'm not going to come back. No, I understand.
Speaker 9:Yeah, I just again I get concerned, unless I'm not going to come back on it? No I understand I just again. I get concerned.
Speaker 6:Unless I was thinking that the planning board would force you to pay it once you make it a subdivision. Am I correct there? Yes, I don't have my book with me here. We're going to make it upgrade the driveway because it becomes a private way. Now it's no longer a driveway.
Speaker 4:Well, actually it's a private way now it already meant he's going to make a subdivision out of it, so he's gonna have to pay. But I mean I intend and I said from the start I was gonna, you know, pay for it. You want to put it in your business in writing again.
Speaker 9:I just said I don't have any money, I just don't, you know. I mean no, I understand, you know.
Speaker 4:You know your biggest investment you ever make in your life. Yeah exactly, but that's all. So I don't have any issue with any conditions being going to plan board or even putting the pavement issue in the zoning board decision just so it's, in there.
Speaker 1:So would you be creating a homeowners association?
Speaker 4:Right now it's a driveway driveway agreement, but we may take that step because with the third parcel I think it might.
Speaker 6:We discussed that earlier and it may be easier that way if memory serves me, right from the planning board, I think they're gonna dictate that. Yeah, so it's now a subdivision in a private way which says homeowners association.
Speaker 4:I mean it's because it would no longer be.
Speaker 2:It's almost, it's almost unthinkable that you'd leave it to chance beyond this up to now it's been different. If this goes forward as proposed, it would be foolish for the, the two of you and then ultimately your daughter. And let's say, none of us are immoral. There's going to be three different people.
Speaker 4:I think that's one of the and they may be not sure to do that homeowners association. And then in that case it would be, each law would have a third of the expense for maintaining them.
Speaker 6:Yeah, not building it, but maintaining it. Yeah, snow plow plowing and whatever, because we've been lucky the past few years, so wise, but might not always be that way meeting and go to the tech user.
Speaker 2:So we have the all in favor, aye Aye.
Speaker 1:Aye, obviously, you know, mike's not opposed to it, he's the one who's With the appropriate conditions. Correct, correct, clarifying on. You know the points the association, the expense of all the upgrades and anything pertaining to getting Just going by the application. Yes, and.
Speaker 2:That the road has to be done To the satisfaction of the plan board and the town safety departments, yes, fire, and then, obviously, when he purchased the driveway.
Speaker 1:So there was an expense. Sure, we are on day one, yeah, so you, you know there's an expense.
Speaker 2:Yeah, they recognize. I mean he's been burying it. He says he's been doing the maintenance cleaning whatever.
Speaker 1:obviously, if this radius is going to change for emergency, why can't I mean, I don't think they can change the payment change?
Speaker 2:The payment might take up that whole circle or a larger part of the boundaries.
Speaker 1:Boundaries you can't change Exactly, so we're making sure that radius because, ultimately, if Mr Tixera is not going, to be party to the application Correct. And the two is obviously some of these. I think all the other ones they don't have the handpads they have. I think it's any of the three ones have handpads, and this is up to the fire chief.
Speaker 2:I don't know what they say, but I've seen them allow for a portion of the turnaround to be on the private property with some kind of an impervious surface that they can do there. But I don't know that it's necessarily a 50-foot radius circle you can turn around. The problem is is you probably lose the island to do that? Yeah, unless the fire department just says you know what, we know how to use reverse to get out. You know, I mean, but I can't speak to that and they usually don't like to rely on that rely on.
Speaker 7:We ready to try and juggle this motion, make a motion that we approve the application with the conditions that they approach the planning board and they go through the whole process.
Speaker 1:Something in subdivision with that being said, take over the planning board.
Speaker 2:We lose, you know we are granting the waivers requested with regard on the face of the plan correct.
Speaker 1:Are we up if they go in front of planning board for waivers with anything to do with the road?
Speaker 2:well, I just don't think that the only waivers and I think we should leave the planning board to decide what constructive waivers they are willing to grant. I mean, they've already granted a certain number and they may maintain those. But that, I think, is on that one. I think they can do that. And then the only condition I think the other also have to include in our motion is that the financial burden of this improvement slash, reconstruction of the in the right away, is borne by the applicant, not the co-owner who knows when this would ever get established if they decided to sell regardless.
Speaker 2:Protecting the next person, yeah, and then ultimately, mr Gallagher changes his mind and decides to go live in Arizona tomorrow and to me.
Speaker 1:You know this is for him and his daughter. I don't know that. Can we make any stipulations? Who's to say? And I don't think we.
Speaker 2:I mean I think that gets to be something that's a little bit too confining, and if you do, that I just want to make sure it's not to be an object for you.
Speaker 1:Let me just get sold product and construction. Get the road in and sell the law. Primary CONSTRUCTION GET THE ROAD IN AND SELL THE ROAD OFF.
Speaker 2:THINGS CHANGE.
Speaker 7:SO, second SAME MOTION, I'll ACQUIT THOSE CONDITIONS.
Speaker 2:ALL IN FAVOR. Second, second, same motion, like with those conditions are you clear on the?
Speaker 5:condition AND.
Speaker 1:THE PRENATURE BURDEN OF.
Speaker 7:THE.
Speaker 1:EXHIBITION IS GOING TO BE.
Speaker 5:AT THE RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH IS THE OPPOSITE OF.
Speaker 7:THE CURRENT.
Speaker 2:RIGHT. Is THERE A THIRD? We DISCUSSED A COUPLE, OTHER LITTLE BUT NONE OF THEM WERE.
Speaker 7:THE REST OF THOSE WERE IMPLIED WITHIN THE.
Speaker 5:PLANNING BOARD'S PURVIEW.
Speaker 2:Okay, so WE I mean we can put in that the trip to the planning board includes the creation of some kind of a HOA or whatever the terminology, okay, you know, because there's a bunch of different languages you can use. You might not call it a homeowners association, it might be a road maintenance association or whatever. Okay, so we have to appreciate it.
Speaker 6:Yes ma'AM. Okay. Does ANYONE SECOND THAT I?
Speaker 1:DO ALL IN FAVOR. Aye, aye, okay, move DOWN, yeah, I THINK WE'RE AT LEAST 1,000 TO A LOT, but I DON'T.
Speaker 6:KNOW OKAY. Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.
Speaker 1:Thank you, thank you Okay.
Speaker 2:Next. Are we ready? Next up, let's go Okay. The Rainham Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, april 30, 2025, at 7 pm at Rainham Veterans Memorial Town Hall, 558 South Main Street, to consider petition number 1057 Chris Febrowski, bridgewater Mass. Request for a variance from Rainham zoning bylaw section 350-5.1, minimum requirements to allow the construction of a dwelling on a lot that has no roadway frontage, where 150 feet frontage is required. Said lot has deeded rights to pass over a budding properties by gravel driveway. Locust property is zero. Richmond Street assessors map 18, lot 58 dash 0 rain hand mass anybody gonna be speaking in favor of the motion.
Speaker 1:If you could please rise in regards to the matter now. If you want to raise your hand, do you swallow me? Swear that the testimony you're about to give to this board shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So hope you, god.
Speaker 8:Thank you, the first person speaking in my name is Frank Gallagher Gallagher, engineering in Foxborough, and I'm here on behalf of the owner and applicant, chris for Perowski. So let me just put you on the locust. So let me just put you on the locus for the first. This is just a blown-up picture of the assessor's map. The Richmond Street is here, church Street's here. River Street connects the two. So we're south of River Street, just north of the railroad track and really just above East, above Easton. If you continue on Richmond Street, you're in Easton here. So here is Richmond Street and here is the locus I've outlined in this pink color. It's 24 acres. It's Cranberry Box, currently working Cranberry Box. The access way is from Richmond Street over a car path, a gravel roadway that takes you up to the property. That's a deed of right that's been carried on through several deeds that preceded Chris Wabrowski and it's still current. With this deed, as I said, it's an existing and working Cranberry Bar that Chris is managing. So the request is to build a dwelling if and really the primary reason is just for an example like a night like this, there's a frost warning, so you have to be on the bog, you have to be ready to either flood it with water or, you know, do whatever maintenance is required to protect, to protect it. It's happening actually tonight, but it's more common really in the fall prior to when things are harvested. So so Chris would like to have a dwelling that he could manage this bug from and, you know, be able to spend overnights, you know, very comfortably, but when it's necessary.
Speaker 8:The parcel is 20, just just under 24 acres. Here's a blown-up picture of it and again, this is it outlined here and again. The neighboring parcel has 40 feet of frontage on Richmond Street and that originally it was. If you trace the deeds back, it was the same home and when they did split it up they gave that deeded access to pass so that property could still be breached. This square shows a little bit of a blown-up section of property because we have done a site plan for development. We did soil tests with the Board of Health, we had pass-in tests, we had passing tests. So we did a septic system design plan with a structure here and a proposed well here that is actually currently is approved by the Board of Health. That's that approvals been in place for four years now. And then the edge of the bog actually is considered as water and vegetated wetland. It's protected under the wetland act. So we went through a process with the conservation commission and we got their approval to do this work as well. So we do have those two approvals in place.
Speaker 8:We do have those two rules in place. It would, if this was granted, it would be one house located right down in this corner and if you swing an arc anywhere around that house, there's not another dwelling within 500 feet of what we're proposing as a dwelling. So I think, as far as the intent of the zoning regulations, I don't think we're in violation of what the intent is. I don't think we're in violation of what the intent is and you know again, it would allow for one dwelling. It would permit Chris to, you know, have the ability to more easily manage the property that he has here. It wouldn't be, I mean, if the board even wanted to attach a condition that says no other dwellings on this property, he would be accepting of that as well. The accessway is, as I said, a gravel roadway. It's easily passable, is, you know, as I said, a gravel?
Speaker 7:roadway. It's easily passable and I can take whatever questions what does a lot actually have for? Frontage. It doesn't have any frontage at all. No frontage at all. No, how far is it from the, from the public way?
Speaker 8:this is under scale. So if you look at the record it's as the probe. You know. If you put take a straight line, it's probably 100, I mean 1,200 feet from Richmond Street before you actually cross onto this property.
Speaker 1:Where does power come?
Speaker 10:in. It comes over the tracks of a telephone pole. All great weather dwelling is opposed.
Speaker 2:I mean I have a couple of concerns right off the bat. I mean it's not a bills of law, it's a matter of state law. I mean it was created after subdivision control law with no frontage, no access. The only access to it is by an easement that specifically limits its access for the purposes of maintaining ditches for a grand gridlock. By putting even one house you could make that easement go away by overburdening that easement like this, if the person who that easement is over decides they don't like the fact that.
Speaker 2:Now you know, as a matter of just a matter of right, this I mean I feel to me, if a client came to me as a surveyor and said, hey, I want to do this, I don't understand why you went to all these other boards before we came to the one board that could say whether or not you could even entertain this, because you don't have a lot. You know you don't have a bill of a lot. You have a lot that's specifically prohibited to build on in by state law, not forget rain. I mean we're just, I mean I'm at a loss personally. I looked at this. I I've you know before I called Bob to double check see if I was thinking wrong and missing something. I went and I researched the deeds back to see how this was created. I'm like, well, maybe it's grandfathered, maybe it's just old, because you know this old stuff, and that's where I was.
Speaker 1:Like in the 42nd of access, is that in Rainham rain or Tom?
Speaker 5:it's in rain the timelines right on the edge of the driveway.
Speaker 2:That was taught you can see it okay, I guess that's right yeah, that one, that one section right.
Speaker 8:I got a record plan of that property, yeah, and actually I guess I said that little triangle is actually in actually I have a few issues just with emergency ones up, but the whole spot got this totally up the road.
Speaker 2:I mean whether or not in the house on the Cranberry Blount didn't be able to put out their own fire. That happens, but you know, truthfully, I grew up in primary bond country, so but yeah, I'm scared.
Speaker 8:I just don't see hear any single argument that well, as far as the prior approvals, what we showed on our plan was really a barn with some, you know. I guess we were trying to say, well, this will at least give people some benefit, you know, if they have to stay out there overnight. So that's the current approval actually is for a bond with some nice staff and facilities. And then I guess Chris applied for a permit for that and the building inspector felt like a little bit iffy. So he said you know, you may want to go through this process that we're in now to try to make it more efficient. So that's really what's brought us to this point. He felt like that would, I mean, if a variance was granted, very well, and it would kind of clear up that issue that he sees as being a little bit big, doesn't the this property already have a pretty good-sized building on it, right in the middle of the?
Speaker 8:parks. That's where the it has. Yeah, it does have a structure around it. Yeah, there is a structure kind of right in the middle there.
Speaker 10:They have it shown right here. That's the pump house. Can you just speak to your public motion? Sorry, but the Senate, the Senate of Wyoming, can you please state your name and address, 10 Ellenwood Way in Birdwater.
Speaker 1:That's.
Speaker 10:Chris Kaporowski, the Senate building is the pump house. How big is it? It's roughly about 20 by 12 and one in a small garage down below. That's 10 by 12 by 20-ish. But the building, the pump that runs, the framework, is a full size automobile motor size that runs the whole pump. So whensize automobile motor size that runs a little pump, so when that's running, you know, like I said, tonight we have, you know, a frost alarm coming in over on one in the morning you have to go stop the pump, make sure it's running.
Speaker 10:It's not as easy. In the past years people who always had and my son was there, he had a camper, you know, stayed in the corner of the power. But you have to. My son has bought a farm in Lakeville so he's moved on. This is 15 acres of ocean spray, burning berries.
Speaker 10:It's very challenging to be a farmer. I'm a builder contractor. If I wasn't in another resource of money I couldn't be a farmer. It is very hard and to say that you can't be on the property, it's constant. If I don't stay on the property it will make, you know, pass us through the night. The deer would wipe me out in days.
Speaker 10:So there's a lot to it. You have to stay there, you have to be there. Like I said, I'll be there at 1 in the morning tonight. You know there is other things with my year in housing and all sorts of things, that I am a full farm. My thing is it does take a lot to me and it's just fun and it is a dying thing, to be honest. You know most people would look at this there and try to build a lot more than what I'm trying to do, but the buildings that are in the middle of the pump ring. So I'm looking for a place that isn't a camp to be able to, you know, manage into, take care of the farm when need be. Thank you.
Speaker 1:So you're applying for a house for a house, but you're not really showing house prints. I got a problem with it.
Speaker 7:Well, we're not really showing house prints. I assume you're just going to turn the office into a bedroom.
Speaker 2:Yeah Sure, you've got none in the attic.
Speaker 10:What we have in the right now is just two offices and a kitchen. It's teeny what.
Speaker 2:It's teeny. I assume you'd turn the attic level into a bedroom. It could teeny what it's teeny. I assume you'd turn the attic level into bedrooms. It could be. I mean, we have these ones. Is that the same? Do you have any bedrooms shown on those? Just curiosity, not semantics of two offices.
Speaker 3:So this is where you have offices. Yeah, you have the same as what we have I mean they're not plans.
Speaker 2:Oh well, you know. The thing is, see, this office, it's got the closet. It's the same as this. It's the same as this, Just smaller. It's the the claws. It's the same as this. It's the same as this, Just smaller. It's the same plant. I'll just show you.
Speaker 7:Perfect, thank YOU, you, you, no anything else.
Speaker 1:Anybody else wants to speak in favor opposition? Yeah, is there anybody speaking in opposition?
Speaker 5:If, you want to come up and just state your name and address. My name is Jacqueline Hughes. I live on the piece of property adjacent that he has, right away to travel over my driveway. It was one big piece of property Like I think it was 80-something, 87 acres. One big piece of property like I think there was 80 something 887 acres. But when I went, when I got my notification, I went down to the Board of Appeals to review the plan and I noticed that his plan shows my property line. They slid the property line back and it was going through the last house on Shirley Road, which isn't true.
Speaker 2:I mean, we had it all surveyed before we were able to buy it in 1977 and I did bring my original plans oh, so you're saying that he's got your right-hand line in the wrong place, this line, that this is the former line and that there's a subsequent subdivision. That happened later, that you submitted plans to us this plan.
Speaker 5:That was that plan there, and this is how the line goes. Right and that's, this is what he's saying. Well, keep in mind. This is how the mind goes Right, and that's this is what he's saying.
Speaker 2:Well, keep in mind this is from the GIS. I assume you didn't survey this part.
Speaker 5:No, but I'm just saying yeah, but that is what he gave me to show and that was still on the property and we've also, since he's purchased the property. He had told me what he was going to do and he put all the room down there and I SO, since HE'S PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, he HAD TOLD ME WHAT HE WAS GOING TO DO WITH ALL THE ROOM DOWN THERE AND I SAID WELL, you CAN DO THAT, that's MY PROPERTY. And I SAID I COULD SHOW YOU WHAT MY HUSBAND COULD AT THE TIME I HAD TO USE THE ROOM AND HE SAID HE COULD.
Speaker 1:SHOW YOU THE STORY, markets AND THE VALUES you may want to get to the mic.
Speaker 5:You may want to get to the mic because they can't hear that that's okay, maybe that's a good thing, and so every time when we've had any disagreements he just says I can do whatever I want down here. I have agricultural you know license to do that.
Speaker 2:Well, on his side of the lot that. I understand on his side of the lot.
Speaker 5:But he also said when he originally were there we disputed of an area.
Speaker 5:I don't know if you've ever seen the property not well, I mean, like I said, this cranberry blogs, but the roadways forks and he's taken. He had Scott Johnson, the land Clara guy, come in and cleared way back and cut trees down on my property. And then he keeps clearing back and has this dumpster there and says, well, I can do this here. And I said no, that's my property, you can't do that. And originally back in I think I gave you I went to my attorney because he had put in light poles on my property and ran underground power from his line that is over by the tracks, and then he said he wasn't going to do anything until he said he hadn't had the property surveyed.
Speaker 5:He said he just went by with the previous owners told him and I said, well, I have the deed, you can, you're welcome to look at it. And I said my son can show you the stone bounds and the pipes and everything that's out there, because it looks like a crazy person. You know, split it up. But he said, no, that wasn't necessary. And then the next thing, you know, the lights are on on the power for the poles which are on the far side of the pond which is still on my property. But he did remove two of them because I went to my lawyer and he sent him a letter requesting that he take them off of my property because they were on there. Because he said to me was on your, I WANTED TO TAKE THEM OFF OF MY PROPERTY BECAUSE THEY WERE ON THERE MY PROPERTY BECAUSE THEY WERE ON THERE MY PROPERTY BECAUSE THEY WERE ON THERE. He SAID TO ME DON'T YOU THINK WERE ON THERE?
Speaker 1:HE SAID TO ME DON'T YOU THINK WERE ON THERE? He SAID TO ME DON'T YOU THINK THEY'RE NICE LIGHTS? He SAID. To ME. Don't YOU THINK THEY'RE NICE LI?
Speaker 2:That deeded access to the back property was was seated as a to maintain the cranberry specifically to to go to the trenches. I mean it ditches and. I mean it literally went because that's right when.
Speaker 8:I saw this.
Speaker 2:My first thing was this isn't that old. I mean, is what I was thinking? This isn't old enough to not have frontage. You know, if I had to put this plan together, I would have to put not available water on it, right? You know, agriculture versus only, or something like that. So I thought that's weird. So let me check the prior deed. Prior deed, Because, again, there's no single plan of record of this, so you have to go and cobble the deeds and figure it out.
Speaker 5:I brought the deeds. It was from June 25, 1973, which was when this was split up.
Speaker 2:Yeah, 23 years after, 20 years after subdivision control. Yeah, I mean, was it you that emailed the copy? I got it, okay. Yeah, I'm going to read that email once you're done with your presentation.
Speaker 5:I'll read that I'm not going to read the whole deed, thank you.
Speaker 1:Is there anything else to be read?
Speaker 2:Yes, there is correspondence from CMS Mailer at civilpluscom on behalf of contact form at Rainham Mass. Contact form at Rainham Mass. Hello, I spoke with Maureen over the phone about a boundary lot line issue, for brusque is looking for a variance for dwelling on his property but the lines do not align with our records. Have attached a few files but original plan of land with measurements, first page to our original deed with a highlighted areas states where the sideline falls along the two ponds, not through the pond, which his plan septic plan in parentheses shows. We just want to make sure the property lines are accurate before slash if he is approved to build. My mother-in-law is planning to attend the meeting on the 30th with all of our documentation so that we can resolve this issue. Can also confirm the time and meaning, as one letter said 630 and the other said 7 on the 30th and then attached our certain record plans. One is the subdivision plan of the lot that you see there with the portion that was cut off and added to the Cranberry bog. One is the deed which can be found at book 1637, page 479, and at the Bristol County North registry. The one more plan, which was the Shirley Road extension definitive subdivision plan of land located off Richmond Street.
Speaker 2:I mean again, all the evidence, I think one of the things I think that is brought up in that email. It refers to this overall plan and the topography not being really representative, but I think that's just a function of the fact that this boundary is overlaid on. You know, the GIS arc views data not actual. I mean this plan. Correct me if I'm wrong is the elder this plan, the topo on here, not your specific site portion, the overall, this, all this stuff is just from the GIS, it's just so. The fact that those buildings are not accurately represented is a function of the fact that the GIS is well we, we like to say it refers to get a survey yeah, but I mean so I don't anticipate that you're indicating that the boundary goes through that house or do those things.
Speaker 2:So I'm that doesn't. That doesn't give me much pause on my boss.
Speaker 8:I might pause Anybody else have any comments or anything to say for or against. The only thing that's put out there, I think, is, you know, if you look at the building plans we submitted, I guess you could say, technically that's not a dwelling.
Speaker 8:So if the if the board felt as if they could grant an approval for that particular building, and you know, specify that you're not actually granting approval for a dwelling, but a farm with some bathroom facilities in it, if that's something that the Board thought was acceptable. In other words, you're not granting it as a billable property, you're not granting it as just allowing the applicant to fill that particular facility?
Speaker 1:I'm not sure. I'm just putting it out there as a thought. No, it's okay. Any other questions?
Speaker 7:I don't know if it's general knowledge and just accept it, but I know in most places if you have a bathroom in the kitchen, it's a livable space. Once you get those two things in, it's understood. I also want to say that you were talking about the bogs.
Speaker 10:You were talking about it being a bog or whatnot, but it's not on the page of this book. It was a main page for the book, but they it's nine bogs. It is nine pieces. So there's, you know, one piece alone. You know what? I don't think you understand the size of the complex. I tried to keep it very minimal and we have some dispute about it, but I thought it was what. I don't think you understand the size of the complex, but I try to keep it very minimal, but I thought it was nice as I could see. But it's a major complex. Just one piece that we're talking about. Let's create it alone. You know it is multiple levels. It's a big complex.
Speaker 10:I've done it with minimal people. There is migrant housing laws that I could bring in many people, so like I'm trying to do it simply as easy I can. But there is not even a bathroom here, so I'm trying to get the minimum to be able to operate. But this is not a small, I mean piece. This is not you know what we're talking about the ball. If you walked across one piece of it could be shocked how big this property is.
Speaker 2:I mean we're not as I want to be clear, as harsh as I know that I have come across. I'm not without empathy to the situation that you find yourself in on this property. I mean it's, I'm certain it's beautiful. I mean, again, I grew up in middle world. All my friends work on bogs. I grew up, my first job was working on a framework off.
Speaker 10:So yeah, I get it. It's not just starting to be, quite frankly, I think it's gonna be a generation that goes by. This is very little money to be. It's a very difficult, challenging process. So to me, is that me and to continue to have your culturally, you'll run that property. You know it's just challenging Just to have a bathroom and facilities there or a break room. It makes a big difference and, quite frankly, there is. I didn't want to go this route but there is federal housing laws that go with the agricultural law abroad. You have to be able to work your farm, you have to be able to bring people in to do the harvest of that property with a place to stay and I am sure that that's right.
Speaker 7:but you have an easement to come over for a very small usage of that easement so, and we have pictures of the logs and that looks like a very big operation and which could not be, could not be handled with that easement.
Speaker 10:So the more that you talk about how big an operation this is, the more I look back at that easement and say that just doesn't work well, that that easement and that entrance has been what managed this place since you know the 60s right and quite frankly, I you know what the farm. I have not made it any bigger or going. You know what. I've been trying to manage it but it's a lot of work and quick, you know. Like I said, you know what, you know there's been a motor home there. That's how you stayed in it. You have to have somebody there with presence. So you know this is something that I don't know about them.
Speaker 2:If you separated. The bathroom is broken and the bedroom is broken and the kitchen is broken. Is that still? Or you know, I think it still matters. There I was saying no, no, I'm just wondering if I mean I don't see how we would suggest to what we see. I'm just trying to see what we can do, do we?
Speaker 1:have any other questions? I declare the public hearing closed and the board will go into executive session. All may remain while the board deliberates, but no one may speak.
Speaker 2:I mean, based on what we see. I'm not sure who's trying to come up with ideas to say hey, instead of getting a no, maybe you could think about these other things.
Speaker 1:Because I have a problem with the house. I don't know if you can do that. I use the name of the house. At the end of the day, we need to break it. It's a house Now. It's for the workers. It's a wreck. Use the list of the farm, put the house on it. That potential use could change. It's gonna be from just farm use to and then what happens? There's a family living there and now you have school buses and that's gonna be it changes the whole use of that.
Speaker 7:How do you get a fire truck down there? We just went over this on a road that was 200, 300 feet long and saying it needs to get down and turn around. Impossible, right, yeah.
Speaker 2:I mean not to just, but we're also protected Because, say, we say yes, say they build this house and the owner, who has the easement across their property, decides you know what? I'm going to appeal this. And now, not only do you lose the access to the house, now the easement goes away and you don't even have access to the wall Because you're overburdening that easement and the land court will do that. That's the scary thing. So it's not just protecting the neighbor, it's also protecting the walk-over the use of the walk-in home too.
Speaker 2:It doesn't feel good, no matter what we talk about.
Speaker 7:I believe that the procedure is that all motions should be made in the affirmative and if you don't like it, you can cancel it. But if you don't make a motion, you make a motion to approve that. I don't know if you want to make that motion. I have a question.
Speaker 2:Before we do make that motion, do we close this or do we have to come out with a new draw? Do we see what other changes they can leave the remote with? I mean just to give them the opportunity, because if we go and it's, and then the doors closed for a certain amount of time, do that too. I mean just to give them a little bit of breathe, the room to rethink things. I think it's the most charitable.
Speaker 5:Only olive branch we have to offer. If anything, I don't know, what they could come up with.
Speaker 2:My brain is at its limit here. I haven't come up with any good ideas.
Speaker 7:You want to put the kitchen in the stove? Yeah, the bathroom in the stove. But's about the unfinished. It's a lot of empty space up there. I've never built anything. Let's face the videos. I don't know if I need motion or whether you can just declare or, but I'll make a motion to end executive session.
Speaker 1:Yeah, so we're out of executive session. I'm not sure if you would like to look at the project, see if there's other ways that may.
Speaker 2:We don't want to give you the hard slam of the door of a no.
Speaker 8:No.
Speaker 2:And if there's an opportunity for you to withdraw without prejudice right now and regroup to come up with maybe even better legal arguments that can help us see where you have a pathway forward. Yeah, I think we don't want to be yes to this give.
Speaker 8:Given all of that and the kind of tentative aspect of the easement, I think we would prefer to withdraw and the with the. Isn't it the butters you OF THE?
Speaker 1:EASEMENT. I THINK WE WOULD PREFER TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT PREGNANCE, with THE EASEMENT, the BUTTERS YOU KNOW. Obviously, if THEY'RE IN SUPPORT, then IT WOULD HELP WITH US MAKING A DECISION.
Speaker 2:MM-HMM, because YOU MAY NEED TO, because THE OTHER THING THAT I KNOW, that THE BU because that's the other thing that I know that the building commissioner had indicated that he would feel better about. Now again, I still don't have think this, legal questions, but if the butter, who the easement comes across, was willing to alter the language such that and again this is going to come down to the interpersonal relationship and how you guys work that out that's between you guys.
Speaker 2:But I think if that language included the servicing of a you know management facility, that on-site, then I think I know the building commission would feel inspector or whatever term. I know he would feel better still still feel like there's some questions that you guys need to bring answers for legally for us, but yeah, and understanding all that, I think we would prefer to just withdraw the application without prejudice yeah, we don't want to okay and listen.
Speaker 8:we very THE APPLICATION WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Yeah, we DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO OKAY AND LISTEN. We VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE ATTENTION YOU'VE GIVEN TO THIS AND THE CONTEMPLATION THAT YOU'VE GIVEN TO US, and WE APPRECIATE THAT.
Speaker 7:I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ALLOW THE PETITIONER TO WITHDRAW ATHLETICAL.
Speaker 1:SECOND, all IN FAVOR.
Speaker 7:AYE. Thank YOU.
Speaker 1:DO WE HAVE VIEW? We HAVE MEETING MINUTES FROM THE MARCH 12, 2025. Petition number 1057, John and Angela III, to approve the meeting minutes.
Speaker 7:I so move Second.
Speaker 1:All in favor.
Speaker 7:Aye.
Speaker 1:Aye.
Speaker 10:I move to adjourn the meeting. Second All in favor, aye.