Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-10-10ZBA Minutes for October 10, 2019, adopted Nov. 14 Lim ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS C, xi,404 2 Fairgrounds Road 5 Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 www. na ntucke t -ma. gov Commissioners: Susan McCarthy (Chair), Lisa Botticelli (Vice chair), Ed Toole (Clerk), Michael J. O'Mara, Kerim Koseatac Alternates: Mark Poor Geoff Thayer, Jim Mondani -- MINUTES -- Thursday, October 10, 2019 Public Safety Facility, 4 Fairgrounds Road, Community Room —1:00 p.m. Called to order at 1:05 p.m. and Announcements made. Staff in attendance: Eleanor Antonietti, Zoning Administrator Attending Members: McCarthy, O'Mara, Koseatac, Poor, Mondani Absent: Botticelli, Toole, Thayer Agenda ado ted by unanimous consent 1. APPROVAL OF 1. June 13, 2019: Motion to Approve. (made by: Koseatac) (seconded by O'Mara) Carried unanimously 2. August 8, 2019: Motion to Approve. (made by: Koseatac) (seconded by O'Mara) Carried unanimously 3. September 12, 2019: Motion to Approve. (made by: Koseatac) (seconded by O'Mara) Carried unanimously 11. OLD BUSINESS 1. 18-19 Peter L O'Brien and Natalia V. O'Brien 36 Low Beach Road Cohen Applicants request Variance relief pursuant to Zoning By-law Section 139-32.A for a waiver from the ground cover provisions of Sections 139-16.A and 139-33.E(1)(b). Specifically, applicants seek approval of a ground cover allowable upon acquisition of the 19,666 SF abutting paper road parcel, shown as Parcel 33 upon Plan No. 2016-113. Said acquisition with Locus is progressing through the Town "yard sale" program and will ultimately be merged with the property to allow for a ground cover of 2,147 SF, where the existing Locus would permit up to 2,000 SF pursuant to 139-33.E. The structures and Locus will otherwise be dimensionally compliant. The Locus is a pre-existing nonconforming undersized lot of record situated at 36 Low Beach Road, shown on Assessor's Map 74 as Parcel 55, and as Lots 1-10 in Block 33 upon Plan Book 7, Page 14. Evidence of owners' title is recorded in Book 1696, Page 82 on file at the Nantucket County Registry of Deeds. The Locus is zoned Limited Use General Three (LUG -3). Voting McCarthy, O'Mara, Koseatac, Poor, Mondani Alternates None Recused None Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Steven Cohen, Cohen & Cohen Law P.C. Public None Discussion (1:06) Cohen — Wants permission to use 147 square feet (SF) of ground cover that will be available for building by right once he acquires the property. Antonietti — There has been no response from Town Counsel on the Request for Proposal (RFP). Cohen — Recapitulates relief and situation. 2nd owner of this land waiting for this process, which started in 2011. He met with the neighbor who objected at last meeting and resolved part of the issue about which lot it was; this lot is not directly across the street from them with no impact on their sight lines. From the side of a 2nd -floor dormer in their guest cottage, you can see this house at a distance. McCarthy — Concerned this is still circumventing the process. We talked about the Certificate of Occupancy (CO) being issued upon completion until the yard sale process is complete; polls board about that issue. Mondani — He's also concerned. Asked where the teeth for enforcement would be if structure is built. Cohen — This has been going on for 8 years and the situation has been created by the Town; would appreciate being allowed to move forward. It's a relatively small area; not a massive overage. Antonietti — Explained the issues that have held up the transfer of the property. McCarthy — She's encouraged by the fact that Ms. Antonietti has been involved and in contact with other Town agencies; this isn't just the Town's fault. Even though the applicant is at the mercy of Town Counsel and the delay is unfortunate, she is not in favor of going forward and granting a Variance for this. Mondani — He's a little more comfortable now that the neighbor is okay with it. Asked about the status on the removal of the house. Antonietti — Updates on status with move -off estimate being in excess if Town budget. It's on hold for now to see better estimates for the move. Page 1 of 6 ZBA Minutes for October 10, 2019, adopted Nov. 14 Cohen — He understands concerns and thoughts that not granting creates pressure for the Town, but he feels that is not fair to his client and other people in this situation. The RFP process that is required to obtain the paper road parcel is not site specific; it is for many properties. Asked Board to allow for Variance as a temporary measure. O'Mara — Confirmed they are not asking for relief on construction of a guest house as far as setback. Cohen — No. Koseatac — Agrees with Ms. McCarthy. Concerned about setting a precedent especially based on hypotheticals. Unknown variables are not solid basis for a decision. Mondani — Wants to know why Town Counsel is holding this up. Antonietti — Explains what she has done to get the process going, including informing other Town officials of the non- responsiveness of Town Counsel. Cohen — Requests continuance for a month. Maybe they will have a positive answer on house move and perhaps that month will be enough time to get the wheels of Town Counsel moving. Motion Motion to Continue to November 141h. (made by: Mondani) (seconded by- Koseatac) Vote Carried unanimously 111. NEW BUSINESS 1. 23-19 Lee A. Papale Kalman 43 Appleton Road Reade Applicant seeks relief by Special Permit pursuant to Zoning By-law Section 139-16.C.2 to validate an unintentional setback intrusion. The relocated subject structure was sited based on measurements taken from a licensed survey, but due to an oversight by the surveyor who did not factor in a proposed front porch, said porch was built within the front yard setback In a district where minimum front yard setback is 30 feet, the porch is as close as 19.9 feet and the exterior wall of the structure is as close as 29.6 feet from the front yard lot line. To the extent necessary, Applicant further requests relief by Variance pursuant to Section 139-32 to validate the as -built location of the structure. Locus is situated at 43 Appleton Road, shown on Assessor's Map 66 as Parcel 66, as Lot 126 upon Land Court Plan 13554-J. Evidence of owner's title is registered on Certificate of Title No. 20338 at the Nantucket County District of the Land Court. The site is zoned Village Trade, Entrepreneurship and Craft (VTEC). Voting McCarthy, O'Mara, Koseatac, Poor, :Mondani Alternates None Recused None Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Arthur Reade, Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley, & Gifford LLP Rick Kalman, applicant Public Judith Perkins, 52 Appleton Road Campbell Sutton, 15 Appleton Road Discussion (1:19) Reade — Explains that this is a situation in which we are dealing with structure that was moved to Locus pursuant to a 2013 Building Permit. The locus is now in VTEC zoning district; it had formerly been in RC -2. Structure is situated at its closest point, which is a 2 -story porch, 19.8' from Appleton Road. Front yard setback requirement is 30'. Main part of structure is setback 29.6' at closest point to the road with the porch extending another 10 feet. He tried to reconstruct what happened but looking carefully at the Building Department file. His client did have Teddy King work with him on siting the structure in accordance with approved Building Permit application, which had been submitted by Val Oliver, architectural designer. Property has been accessed historically from the west, 'Mizzenmast Extension. Mrs. Kalman is daughter of Phyllis and Gibby Burchell, who owned whole area. Property was always accessed through their property, which was subsequently sold to Nantucket Islands Land Bank C NILB'�. The property always had the address of Mizzenmast Extension. The Building Permit application, filed in 2013, showed the address as 22 Mizzenmast Extension. It got written in later as a/k/a 43 Appleton Road. There was never anv easement reserved or roadway layout officially made even though the main access had always been and continues to be that way. Legal access has to be considered as Appleton Road — dedicated as such because that is where it takes legal frontage. When the building permit was first filed, it showed as RC -2 on zoning and was then crossed out to show VTEC. It showed distance from front as being 300' from Mizzenmast Extension. It showed the rear of 20' from Appleton Road, left 20' from NILB property, and right 100' from the southerly property boundary. Asking for relief if it's sited in accordance with survey that was being done. Asked for Special Permit for decks and in alternative Variance. Under zoning would be required to maintain 30' setback from Appleton Road, which is considered as the front; that was not treated that way by applicant or Building Department at time permit was issued. It was placed in exactly the location that they showed the Building Department except that it ended up 19.8' instead of 20'. We think it would be substantial hardship with little benefit from moving the structure farther away from Appleton Road. Would like to maintain this in existing location. Mr. Kalman is here to answer questions. Mondani — In terms of Historic District Commission (HDC) approval, asked if they would have a different view if it were listed as an Appleton address by allowing porch in front. Reade — Not sure; it looks same way regardless of where you consider the frontage as being. Numerous other structures on lot closer to Mizzenmast. It would have had same level of visibility. There is considerable vegetation between the travelled part of Appleton Road and boundary line. About 9' between edge of travelled portion of road and actual lot line. Kalman — You really cannot see decks well; trees and scrub have grown in. He also brought in Leyland Cypress. We thought we were doing it right to soften the look for his neighbors. He's not throwing Mr. King or Ms. Oliver under the Page 2of6 ZBA Minutes for October 10, 2019, adopted Nov. 14 bus; we all thought the setback was 20'. He set stakes to ensure that if he chose to put in decks, which happened 2 years after the structure was moved on, they would have a 10' buffer. The HDC did not have a problem with it. He did not even realize there was a problem until we were moving hoop houses around, so Mr. King did another plan. We had a lot of land originally, before the land was subdivided; when parts of the original lot were sold off, some of the structures ended up in setbacks. Feels that to take the deck down would be absurd; if he's required to take it down, he would have to remove windows and sliders on 2nd level, which is a lot of work. McCarthy — Asked if this is part of the process of cleaning up issues on this lot. Reade — Yes. The plan that you have might not be the most recent. The hoop tent, which was on property line, has been removed. He has a more recent plan showing that encroachment no longer exists. The zoning change proposed for 2019 Annual Town Meeting (ATM) was dropped due to concerns raised. The change to VTEC occurred in about 2012. McCarthy — There is a note about a search of the building file and no licensed surveyor plan available, just the HDC plans. Antonietti — The HDC plan showed this was in RC -2; that makes sense in terms of the misinterpretation of the zoning. Points the Board to Page 87 of the packet. Poor — Indicated Page 73, which is the front of the 2007 building permit, shows the front as Mizzenmast Extension. Perkins — She can see the decks, light, and front door. This lot is not overgrown; there is maybe one large cypress. She did her own file search and never found a survey. Contends that Appleton Road was not a mistake; Mr. Kalman wrote a letter to Planning Board mentioning his right to Appleton Road when the land was conveyed to NILB. They were well aware that Mizzenmast could not be their address; that goes back to 2005. She believes this was done on purpose. She doesn't think there is a house on the island that has two front porches that overlook the road. The building should be put back to what it was originally meant to be, and the decks should come off if house cannot be turned around. Sutton — She sent a letter to the Board. This issue seems to come down to which address the Kalman's want. Appleton Road on the dirt section is private. This is not supposed to be a home, it is supposed to be a workshop; however, it has a deck and sliding glass door and exterior lighting on the 2nd -floor, which is very visible. The lighting does not comply with dark sky bylaw; she thinks the lighting and deck need to come off so the structure looks like a workshop. It is in VTEC and not meant to be or look like a dwelling unit. Under the Building Permit, they were taking out all bathrooms and kitchen. She realizes expense involved. This was not applied for appropriately with correct address or zoning. She believes it was the owner who submitted for this and 45 & 47 to go into VTEC. She has no problem with the building per se if the deck comes off. Using 43 Appleton and declaring that as the front of the house, this is not supposed to be a house and there are no houses along Appleton Road with a front that looks like this. McCarthy —The building permit shown on Page 73 is for a modular dwelling unit and talks about bathrooms; it doesn't show as a workshop. Antonietti — That was submitted by an abutter. Pages 55 through 82 are all letters from abutters with included materials. Reade — We are operating under Building Permit 368-13 issued on March 29, 2013. Kalman — The structure, which was given to him by Larry Maury, was a regular cape design. He got HDC approval to put a 2nd level on it to make 2 shops, a carpentry shop on 11, floor to be rented for income and a glass/screen repair shop on the 2nd floor for him. Decks are to have access to get into 2nd level which can't be accessed from the 15t floor so that it could be independent. Anyone who has a shop likes to have a place to go out and put a few things outside. He was trying to make it look more like the neighborhood. McCarthy — She's confused about what the current use is. Kalman — He and some friends from a band practiced in there for a while. Mondani — There were people living in there. Kalman —Confirmed there were people living there a few years ago. McCarthy — Asked if it is set up as a shop. Kalman — It has all been disassembled. Art Crowley, of the Health Department, came out and went through it with him because he had illegally turned it into a 2 -bedroom apartment for his son and his family when he lost housing; he used it to house some homeless people. He admits it was the wrong thing to do. He met with Mr. Crowley and removed all of that except for one basement bathroom, which he's approved to have. McCarthy — This is unusual to have a shop on top of a shop; usually it would be approved with stairs and a landing, not a deck. There are a lot of conditions that go along with having a shop in terms of code to include noise mitigation for machinery. She's trying to reconcile what he's saying with what she sees in the photo and hearing from neighbors. This is very much out of the norm. Reade — Agrees this is very much out of the norm. The Town was assessing this as Mizzenmast Extension until the rezoning to VTEC; neither of the points were picked up by Ms. Oliver when she was filling out the forms. There was still confusion on the point when it was in Building Department. There is physical access but no legal access from Mizzenmast right now. His client is not an expert in zoning. McCarthy — With all these people involved, it's a little hard to swallow. Polls the board about 2°d -floor deck. Kalman — The house is 4" into the setback Reade — At one corner it is 4" into the setback, at the other comer it conforms; the deck extends entirely into the front yard setback. Mondani — He doesn't think HDC would have approved this had the facts been correct. He's familiar with this property. It's not a workshop, it is a house. He cannot see himself voting for a Variance. Page 3 of 6 ZBA Minutes for October 10, 2019, adopted Nov. 14 Reade — Requested Withdrawal of Application without prejudice. Kalman — asked for clarification if they are getting turned down because of deck or the building. Reade — asked about the possibility of relief for structure. Poor — asked how long it has been there. Reade — Since 2013 so it may be protected under 6 -year statute since placed there based upon issuance of Building Permit Poor — If it is permitted and used under description given and has a CO, it's protected. Reade — It doesn't need a CO; it's 6 years of being in that location. McCarthy — That's not including the deck. O'Mara — Confirmed Mr. Reade is asking for a variance for the structure without the deck. Reade — It would be cleaner if you granted relief specifically for the structure without the decks. The permit was issued more than 6 years ago. O'Mara — So relief would be for 6". There are no doors on 11, floor on that side. Kalman — He will sidewall that side up. It will be a shop. McCarthy — asked how to handle the deck. Reade — We will withdraw request for relief for deck and acknowledge that in order to comply with the permit, we would have to remove or relocate deck. O'Mara — If we granted relief, asked how long the permit would be good. Reade — The Variance must be exercised within 1 year of issuance. Sutton — She wants clarification that removal of deck will include removal of sliding glass door, exterior door, and lighting. McCarthy — They will have to comply with lighting bylaw. Kalman — There might be some exterior lights, which will comply with the lighting bylaw. The electrical inspector went through and approved it all. Reade — The door will be closed up. We will have to deal with HDC on that Poor — There might be an egress issue depending on how the building will be used. Reade — They will deal with compliance with building code. The structure is 30.8 feet on one side so it conforms; on other side it is about 5" into 30' setback. Mondani — He's okay with that McCarthy — asked if there are any conditions to be put on this. Reade — The decision will state that the applicant will remove the deck and bring the building into compliance with code. Conditions: The applicant will remove the decks and doors and bring the structure into compliance with building code and lighting bylaw by unanimous agreement. Motion Motion to Approve the partial withdrawal as to the decks. (made by: Koseatac) (seconded by: O'Mara) Vote Carried unanimously Motion Motion to Grant the Variance to validate the structure up to 6" into the front yard setback. (made by: O'Mara) (seconded by: Mondani) Vote Carried unanunously 2. 24-19 Edward F. Ahneman, III & Lucia T. Ahneman 26 Sesapana Road Brescher Applicants are requesting relief by Special Permit pursuant to Zoning By-law Section 139-33.A(2) to allow the alteration and expansion of a pre-existing nonconforming dwelling on an undersized lot. Specifically, applicant proposes to construct an addition, resulting in an increase of the pre-existing nonconforming ground cover from 1,726 SF to 2,226 SF, increasing the ground cover ratio from 5.66% to 7.4% where maximum allowed is 3%. The dwelling will remain conforming as to setbacks. In the alterative, applicants request Variance relief pursuant to Section 139-32 from the intensity regulations in Section 139-16. Locus is situated at 26 Sesapana Road, shown on Assessor's Map 68 as Parcel 98, as Lot 17 upon Land Court Plan 14664-C. Evidence of owner's title is registered on Certificate of Title No. 14619 at the Nantucket County District of the Land Court. The site is zoned Limited Use General 3 (LUG -3). Voting McCarthy, O'Mara, Koseatac, Poor, Mondani Alternates None Recused None Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing John Brescher, Glidden & Glidden, P.C. Public None Discussion (20)) Brescher — Explains relief per 139-33.A(4) to allow an increase in groundcover or in the altemative a Variance. Ther have HDC approval for the renovation and addition. Historically the ZBA has treated these lots as R-20. It is currently zoned LUG -3. The addition will be outside all setbacks and still under 12.5% groundcover. The proposed addition will not be a substantial detriment to the neighborhood. O'Mara — The property has been around ZBA before, and in court. McCarthy — She has no particular issues. She looked at other decisions. This seems reasonable. Polls the Board. O'Mara — asked if any neighbor have issues. Antonietti — There is one letter of support; no opposition. There are not usually restrictions placed in this area. :Motion Motion to Approve the relief as requested. (made by: McCarthy) (seconded by: Koseatac) Vote Carried unanimously Page 4of6 ZBA Minutes for October 10, 2019, adopted Nov. 14 3. 26-19 Sheila Giardini and Carmine Giardini 7 Clifford Street Cohen Applicant is requesting Special Permit relief pursuant to Zoning By-law Section 139-16.C(1) to reduce the 10' rear yard setback to 5' in order to construct a pool and pergola as close as 5' from the easterly lot line. The Locus is situated at 7 Clifford Street, shown on Assessor's Map 79 as Parcel 19, and as Lot 35 upon Land Court Plans 17745-F. Evidence of owner's title is registered on Certificate of Title No. 20981 at the Nantucket County District of the Land Court. The site is zoned Residential 20 (R-20). Voting McCarthy, O'Mara, Koseatac, Poor, Mondani Alternates None Recused None Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Steven Cohen, Cohen & Cohen Law P.C. Public Campbell Sutton, 15 Appleton Road Discussion (2:07) McCarthy — Confirmed they have the signed license from the Town. Cohen — Explains the relief; they will acquire a 20 -foot paper road adjacent to the property. The Town license is for landscaping purposes. This is an excellent case for relief per 139-16.C(1). The Board can grant the reduction of 10' setback to 5' and allow the construction of the proposed pool and pergola; they will be further from where they would be later if they waited to get the paper road. The existing generator will be removed. Sutton — There is a lot of building going on in this area. They have not yet purchased the paper road; there is no guarantee the sale will go through. The 5' intrusion of the pool along this long side of property will produce light and noise; they seem to have plenty of property to place the pool out of the setback. Cohen — We are dealing with a 5 -foot reduction of a 10 -foot setback. Even if we don't get the land, there is still a barrier in,place. Board — No concerns. Motion Motion to Grant the relief as requested with no more intrusion without further relief from the Board. (made by: Poor) (seconded by: Koseatac) Vote Carried unanimously 4. 27-19 Joseph A. Demby 7 Hull Lane Reade Applicant seeks to Modify Variance, granted in File No. 030-10 to allow applicant and former spouse to divide their property into two lots, by removing conditions which prohibit additional ground cover and a secondary dwelling. Locus is conforming as to ground cover ratio having 1,307 sq. ft. of ground cover where maximum allowable would be 25% of lot area (8,209 sq. ft) or 2,052 sq. ft. The Locus is situated at 7 Hull Lane, shown on Assessor's Map 67 as Parcel 894, and as Lot 2 upon Plan No. 2010-37. Evidence of owner's title is recorded in Book 1302, Page 145 on file at the Nantucket County Registry of Deeds. The site is zoned Residential 10 (R-10). Voting McCarthy, O'Mara, Koseatac, Poor,_ Mondani Alternates None Recused None Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Arthur Reade, Reade, Gullicksen, Hanley, & Gifford LLP Joseph Demby, owner Public None Discussion (2.09) Reade — He represented Joseph Demby several years back when he and his wife were divorcing to allow the property to be split. The property is in R-10 zoning. The total area of the original lot was in excess of 18,000 SF. He also got a Variance. Wife got larger lot containing 10,000 SF. The former rear yard setback complied but became noncompliant as a front -yard setback once the property was split. In that application, there were two conditions: one there would be no 2°d dwelling and no additional expansion of ground cover without additional relief from the Board. If we were dealing with this whole issue today, we would probably be dealing with it in the context of creation of a secondary residential lot. We now have provisions for tertiary dwellings. We are asking you to remove those conditions. Plenty of room on site to build a 2nd dwelling. There is an exempt shed of 107 SF, which would either go away or be moved to make room for 2°d dwelling. A vinyl shed will be removed — temporary structure — from within the setbacks. There is a stoop 8.3' from side lot line, which will be relocated. His client has 2 children in their twenties and wants some flexibility in connection with use of the lot. He would not go in excess of permitted 25% groundcover giving roughly 800 SF of potential additional ground cover. Mr. Demby is here to answer any questions. He has lived and worked here since 1983. Poor — Asked if any abutter had an opinion. Reade — There are no letters in opposition. Conditions: The landing will be moved out of the setback, the vinyl shed will be removed, there will be no further expansion within the setback, and remainder of relief will remain in full force and effect. Motion Motion to Approve the application as requested. (made by: Koseatac) (seconded by. O'Mara) Vote Carried unanimously 5. 28-19 1 O Mount Vernon Street, LLC 1OR Mount Vernon Street Alger Applicant is requesting Special Permit relief pursuant to Zoning By-law Sections 139-30 and 13933.A(2) or, in the alternative, relief by Variance pursuant to Section 139-32, in order to extend the preexisting, nonconforming ground cover by roughly 150 sq. ft., to allow construction of an addition over an existing open porch. The pre-existing nonconforming ground cover is approximately 1,023 sq. ft. for a ground cover ratio ("GCWof 43.6% where 40% is maximum allowed. The expanded structure would have a ground cover of roughly 1,173 sq. ft., for a GCR of 50%. The proposed addition would otherwise meet the dimensional requirements of the By-law. The Page 5 of 6 ZBA Minutes for October 10, 2019, adopted Nov. 14 Locus is situated at 1011 Mount Vernon Street, shown on Assessor's Map 55.4.4 as Parcel 10.1_ Evidence of owner's tide is recorded in Book 1256, Page 167 on file at the Nantucket County Registry of Deeds. The site is zoned Residential Old Historic ("ROH'. Voting McCarthy, O'Mara, Koseatac, Poor, Mondani Alternates None Recused None Documentation File with associated plans, photos and required documentation Representing Sarah Alger, Sarah F. Alger P.C. Public None Discussion (2:22) Alger — This was conforming until the April 2019 ATM when the groundcover ratio was changed to 40',o; she has 43.6%. The owner is summer resident and was unaware of zoning change. She has been working for the past year on a 72 -SF addition to her house. No permits. This is a proposed in -fill of existing porch. 1,195 SF is ultimate proposed groundcover ratio. We think we meet requirements of 139-33.A(2). The surrounding neighborhood was all 500,o until recently and believe this will not be substantially detrimental to the neighborhood. The extension will conform to existing requirements of bylaw. Poor — Asks what rationale behind change in bylaw is. Alger —Explains the rationale and points out SOH retrains at 50% groundcover ratio and ROH went to 400 o groundcover ratio. This is not the last one you will see. McCarthy — The discussion at Planning Board was about encouraging vertical expansion rather than expansion of the footprints. Alger — Her client was caught unawares. McCarthy — She thinks this squarely falls within the bylaw. Koseatac — He's fine with it as long as we can firmly define why — based upon minimal impact on neighborhood. McCarthy — This is closing in an existing porch. Points out other reasons to allow this: • There is no change to the footprint • No objections from neighbors. • Would be allowed within old zoning. • De minimis No conditions or restrictions to be added. Alger — This has been approved by HDC. Motion Motion to Approve as requested. (made by: Koseatac) (seconded by: Mondani) Vote Carried unanimously 1. 051-03 Rugged Scott a/k/a Beach Plum 40B Holland/Posner/Haverty CONTINUED DISCUSSION of implementing policy in fulfillment of obligation to allow abutting property owners non-resident family membership privileges and access to the common amenities (Clubhouse/Pool/Lawn/Tennis Court Facility) in Beach Plum Village, as per provisions in Section 3.2(o) regarding Management Issues in the original Comprehensive Permit and Section 9 of the "Settlement Agreement". Antonietti — No one is here for that; parties are in negotiations. 2. Discussion of policy and protocols with Zoning Administrator applications and decisions which are submitted to members individually and separately for review within a specific time -frame in order to further clarify process. No discussion at this time. 3. Potential warrant articles for 2020 Annual Town Meeting. Antonietti — This is just to make the Board aware. Motion to Adjourn at 2:37 p.m. made and seconded. Carried unanimously Sources used during the meeting not found in the files or on the Town website: 1. None Submitted by: Terry L. Norton Page 6 of 6