Falmouth zoning board continues disputed front-yard studio at 30 Foster Road after neighbors object

The Zoning Board of Appeals on [meeting date] continued a special-permit hearing for a proposed two‑story accessory studio at 30 Foster Road after neighbors and the board raised questions about setbacks, lot‑coverage calculations and the building’s fit with the surrounding neighborhood.

The applicants, Jean M. Pagani and Abby M. Lammers, applied for a special permit to place a detached workshop/studio in the front yard under section 240‑11.4.A(1). A design professional described the proposed structure as a 22‑by‑36‑foot footprint with about 792 square feet per floor, a proposed setback of roughly 50.5 feet from Foster Road, a side setback of about 10.5 feet from Paznakoy, and a total proposed building height below the 22‑foot maximum. The team said the studio would be used for the homeowner’s personal painting and occasional furniture work and that the lower level would be storage and mechanical space. They said they would accommodate floodplain constraints and provide a separate 1‑inch water service and interior meter as requested by the water department.

Why it matters: Neighbors said the design and location would be out of character for a long‑established small‑lot district of the Town of Falmouth and could create sight‑line and safety issues near a heavily used foot route to the nearby beach. Attorney Michael Kennefic, speaking for several immediate abutters, argued the property historically used Pascanoi Lane, not Foster Road, as the “front” of the lot and urged the board to treat the application as potentially detrimental under the special‑permit standard.

During questioning, board members sought clarification on multiple measurement discrepancies in materials that arrived shortly before the meeting. Members asked whether lot‑coverage calculations should be based on ground footprint only (the engineering answer) or on gross floor area, whether the habitable second‑floor space could legally be considered a bedroom under the town’s application of Title 5 standards, and how much existing vegetation would need to be removed for foundations and access. The applicants said the lower level would not contain bathing facilities and that the owners intend to record a deed restriction ensuring the new space is not used as an additional bedroom.

Neighbors who spoke at the public hearing said they had received late notice of the full scope of the project, described the neighborhood’s historic character and dirt roads, and voiced concerns that the two‑story studio would be disproportionate in scale. Richard Ackerman said residents were surprised by the proposal and worried about how a “workshop” could change over time; Carol McKinnon, who has lived in the neighborhood for decades, said the structure would be “not a home” and that its scale would be out of character.

The board signaled it would require clearer, stamped calculations and encouraged the applicants to meet with abutters to resolve open issues. The hearing was continued to Oct. 24 to allow the parties to exchange information and for the board to review the late submissions.

What happens next: The board will reconvene on Oct. 24 and is expected to review corrected lot‑coverage calculations, any proposed deed restriction language barring use as a bedroom, and revised plans or mitigation measures addressing screening, sight lines and construction staging. Attorney Kennefic confirmed opposition will return for the continued hearing.

Sources: testimony and exhibits presented at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, including statements by the applicants’ design representative Brian Foley and by attorney Michael Kennefic representing nearby property owners.