Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Happy. Welcome everyone. Just so everybody know we are just about to begin. Today is November 20th, 2025 and this is the zoning board of appeals meeting in
Chattam, Massachusetts. Please note this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly hereafter for scheduled and on demand viewing on any smartphone or tablet device. If anyone else is recording the meeting, including all those um who are using AI note
takingaking apps apps, please notify the chair. Is there anyone recording or using any kind of app? No. Okay. Pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28th, 2025 signing of chapter 2 of the acts of 2025 extending certain COVID measures adopted during the state of
emergency certain provisions of the open meeting law until June 30, 2027. This meeting of the Chadam Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted in person and via remote participation. Every effort will be made to ensure the public can adequately access the proceedings as
provided for in the order. A reminder, those who'd like to listen to the meeting while in progress may do so by calling 1508-945410 conference ID 855907 643 pound or join the meeting via the
link on the team's the team's link uh in the posted agenda. This is a live broadcast and simal cast on Chattam uh channel Chattam TV channel 1072, but despite our best efforts, we may not be able to post real time access. We will
though post a record of the meeting on the town's website as soon as possible. In accordance with town policy, anyone can speak to any issue, hearing, or business item on the agenda during the meeting when recognized by the chair.
I'd like to remind everyone that we have a hats off policy and a gadgets off policy. So, no uh unnecessary noise, please. And if you have any conversations that are going to be more than one or two words, please take them
out into the hall. Um today, uh we uh as usual, we take a roll call uh vote of all board members and then we ask if anyone is participating on the phone, just make sure we know who you are. Hearing notice is read by our staff.
Sarah o'clock on my right. You or your representative will present your application or appeal. Um anyone in favor will have up to five minutes to speak that and then I'll read or summarize um all letters received by the board. And I just want to remind
everyone we are uh we have a policy on that too which is 11 font 11 uh that's the setting and one page and anything fur more than that will not be read. I'll try to summarize but just try to
stick to the rule going forward. Um, anyone against uh the application will uh have up to five minutes to speak and uh you could also ask questions during that time. Um the applicant can then
rebut testimony. We'll ask questions, hear further information, close the public hearing, deliberate, and vote on the application or appeal. All votes taken by roll call and at the end of the meeting we close via a verbal confirmation and note the time of
adjournment. Um voting today will be um David Nixon, Paul Simple, Lee Hvey, Steve uh Dbor on the last application and uh Virginia Fenwick on all but the last application and myself Randy
Podash. So now we are going to do a roll call vote of all board members starting with Mr. V. Uh David H. Vich and I approve this format. >> David S. Nixon, I approve. Alc Temple, I approve of this format. >> Lee Hvey, I approve. >> Steven D. Deborne, I approve.
>> Virginia Femark, I approve. >> And Randy Podash, I approve as well. Um, okay. So, we have minutes and we're going to do one set at a time. Do we? Let's see. >> Uh, we have the minutes of the meeting of October 16, 2025. Are there any
corrections or additions? Yeah, I have just one minor correction, but in order to help save paper um in the um uh bottom near the bottom of of um uh page one par bullet point one uh Joe
Henderson engineer is listed twice as representing um Penrose. So we can take one of those out. >> Okay. >> All right. >> So and then with that I Okay. Did you move >> I'll move to approve the minutes then as amended. Uh David seconds his votes yes. >> Ran sorry Randy I have a
>> Yes. >> small please. >> It's very minor but on page five down uh almost to the bottom the fifth bullet point from it says Virginia Felic asked about building number six and
stated that according to the plan it seems to be in the rear and it is referring to a storage unit. So I think that should be added because it's not clear what I was talking about. >> Okay. So, um, so just change it to storage unit. >> All right, Paul, as amended.
>> All right, I'll move to approve as amended. And I think it's been voted by two already. I'll vote to approve. >> Uh, David seconds and votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> Lee, >> I vote yes. Jamie votes yes. >> As do I. Okay. And then we have one more
set of minutes. Paul, >> we have the minutes of October 23, 2025. Are there any additions or corrections? >> Yes. Um on uh in these on on page uh four uh we have um the uh um in the middle of
the page uh attorney what what it tells us attorney Zender presented um this application uh and down under questions and comments um there are two places where Mr. Riley appears and we want to substitute Mr.
Zender in those um in those uh for Mr. Riley. That's for sure. >> All right. Are there any other corrections? None. I'll move to approve as amended. >> Uh Dave seconds it. I forgot I voted the first time. Who should I vote here? Because I'm
>> You can vote on those. >> I'll vote. All right. And I vote yes. Okay. >> Yes. >> All votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> And as do I. And um Okay. So good enough. Now, um I just want to announce that as to application
25-34, um Main Street, the the 40B that we've been doing since, uh the spring, but that's going to be continued uh till Monday the 24th. I believe it's Monday
at 2 o'clock right here. So, um go ahead, sir. Application number 25-097 Michelle and Timothy Magcguire care of William G. Lichfield Esquire 330 Orleans Road North Chattam Mass 02650 owners of property located at 122 Mil
Creek Road also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 4C block 22 lot 21. The applicant proposes to change alter or expand a non-conforming dwelling in a non non-conforming lot via the reconstruction of the second floor and construction of a covered entry. the
existing dwelling is non-conforming and that it is located 8.7 feet from the southerntherly of butter. The reconstructed second floor will be non-conforming and that it will be located 10.3 ft from the southerntherly of butter where a 15t setback is required. The proposed covered entry will meet road and abutter setback
requirements. The existing building coverage is 1,395 ft 14.4% and the proposed building coverage is 1,435 ft 14.8% 8% or 15% is the maximum allowed. The law is non-conforming and
that it contains 9,700 75 ft where 20,000 ft is required in the R20 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw. Welcome, Attorney Lichfield. >> Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Bill Lichfield here in behalf of Michelle and Timothy Maguire. Michelle is with us online. Unfortunately, both Michelle and Tim had work commitments today and could not be here. Uh we appreciate you having gone out to the site. Uh we know that you did that and
when you got out there, you saw a uh fairly typical uh relatively small house on a nonconforming lot in South Chattam. The Maguiars would like to change this from a one and one half story house to
essentially a one and three/4ers story house and make a small uh additional uh change on the front a proposed entryway. Thank you Sarah. That is the proposed house uh as shown there. In the uh
middle of those three photographs is what you will see sort of because the angle of the house you'll see sort of heading north on on Mil Creek Road. Uh the rear on the left is exactly that. And then the angled view is what you would see heading down toward the town
Landing. The proposed entryway is about 30 square feet. Currently, we have uh a couple of doghouse dormers dormers on the front side and while not shown there, some skylights on the back. And we'd like to basically remove the
existing second floor uh increase the size of it a bit by virtue of the uh shed dormers as opposed to the doghouse dormers. Recognizing that you have I think seven cases today, I presume you don't want me to use the full hour and a
half that I had planned to do. Uh so I will instead go directly into the criteria as to adequacy of site including building coverage and setbacks. Almost all uh nearby lots are nonconforming. Our current footprint of
1395 square ft and 14.4% of coverage is in the mid-range of the neighborhood. Our gross floor area and living area at the are at the lower end of neighboring properties. Nonetheless, the site is adequate for residential use and I figure you can find it to be adequate
for reconstruction of the second floor providing some additional muchneeded living space on the existing footprint. The minimal change in coverage is solely from the entryway. And I was fascinated by the uh site plan. If you look at it,
it's got an engineer stamp on it. And in the uh box on the lower right hand side, it says existing coverage 1,395 square ft. Proposed increase of 30 square ft for a total of 1,435.
Uh hadn't known a mathematician whose math was worse than mine. Uh but that number is slightly wrong but irrelevant here. As the compatibility of size the neighborhood, we have a small lot, a small house, living area of just 1500 square feet. If you approve the special
permit, as I hope you will do, you can do so based on a finding of the coverage is below the maximum. It will remain consistent with the neighborhood. On the third page of the handout is a chart of the neighboring numbers. the gross floor area and living area increase but they
are still significantly lower than some and they remain compatible uh to the size of the neighborhood as to the extent of increase in nonconformity. We currently have a Sarah red lot size and street and sideline nonconformities. Uh the reconstructed second floor is
within the sideline setback. uh but it's on the existing footprint and because of the angle of the house on the lot it's only 10.3 from the lot line less close than part of the house as it now exists at present. So technically there's no no
increase in nonconformity and practically there's no real change in nonconformity as a suitability of site. The site has been suitable for the existing house for some 60 years. I think there are no environmental issues and it would certainly be suitable for
the reconstructed second floor without any impact the natural environment as to scale sighting mass views and vistas. We have at present a one and a half story cape without impact on views and vistas and this proposed change will of course
not change the sighting. Uh the shed dormers as I mentioned will be replacing the doghouse dormers and the skylights. Uh the scale and mass are in keeping with the surrounding properties. There's no impact on views and vistas. Their use remains compatible as residential as to
adequacy of water and sewer. We have town water and a title five or four bedrooms. There is no change. The first floor bedroom is being converted to an office uh which will no longer meet the definition of a bedroom as shown on the
floor plans which you have and which of course have been reviewed by Judy Giorgio of the board of health. So, as you know, the issue for you to determine is whether the proposed reconstructed second floor built on the existing footprint, but providing some much
needed additional living space for the Maguire family is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current structure on a non-conforming lot. And I think that you can find it is not detrimental. The project uh provides space for three bedrooms on the second
floor and a functional home office on the first floor, but except for the entryway uh it will be accomplished on the existing footprint. I think you can find it to be an appropriate and attractive design. So in light of the criteria and the plans and this location, I think you can find that the
proposed changes are not substantially more detrimental. Be happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams or we speak in favor of this application? If so, please raise your hand.
Seeing none, I will read the one brief correspondence that we got from Judith Giorgio, our health agent on November 18th, 2025. She says okay to the relocated first floor bedroom to second floor and remodel of the existing
fourbedroom dwelling as proposed. That concludes the uh correspondence. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak against the application or has a question? No questions from the board. I'm just
going to do the are you are there any because I'm seeing a lot of No. I don't know. All right. Very good. Paul, >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> Dave each seconds. >> Second. Oh, I'll second. I will second that. >> Paul. Yes. Dave will second it. And uh
Paul. >> So Dave Nixon has seconded and moved to approve. >> I certainly do. I'll also vote yes. >> I vote yes. Jenny votes yes. >> As do I. Okay. So now we're going to do deliberations. And um are you going to
deliberate, Dave? Yes. All right. Deliberate. >> I'll be happy to deliberate. Yeah. I wish um all of the applications came before us were as modest as the proposal here. I mean, I don't know how many over the many years of development on Cape
Cod. There have been lots of things of this type that took place and it's certainly not substantially detrimental to the neighborhood. It's an improvement. It looks great. >> And Mr. Dixon, >> I can't add anything to that. >> All right. Can you leave? >> Thank you. >> No, I can't. And Steve,
>> no, I cannot. >> Jenny, >> well, I had the same comment as Dave. Modest U and I added mean but meaningful changes. >> Okay. >> Um the footprint, the coverage, the living area gives more space. Um and it it's a great project and it's not
substantially more detrimental. >> And before Paul asks you, I'm just going to ask what about summer limitations? G >> given given the nature of South Chad and the proximity to the town Landing, we would not be in the least bit surprised to have the standard conditions. So yeah. >> Okay. Paul, deliberate first.
>> Uh I agree with my colleagues. This is certainly not substantially more detrimental. >> Okay. As do I. So >> I'll move to approve the application as submitted with the condition that all construction activity and vehicles shall be canained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the
property owner that between June 30th and Labor Day, no exterior construction will be allowed. No work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p. p.m. only. I second that and vote yes. >> All votes yes. >> I vote yes. Jenny votes yes. >> As do I. It's unanimous.
Congratulations. >> Thank you very much. >> All right. We're going to move on to 33 Croll Road, it looks like. And uh whenever Sarah is ready, we'll do that. We're a little bit out of the order
today of what was posted. Application number 25-1033 Eastward MBT LLC care of William F. Riley Esquire PO Box 707 Chattam Mass 02633 owner of property located at 33 Kroll
Road also shown on the town of Cadam's assessor's map 13F block 1 lot 2. The applicant proposes to construct a single family dwelling in an accessory use swimming pool in a GB3 zone which requires the grant of a special permit.
The proposed lot coverage is 7,519 square ft 39% where 60% is the maximum allowed. The lot is conforming with 19,266 ft or 10,00 that we're hearing and we didn't we didn't uh approve that kind of
noise. So, um you could just try to quiet it down. Thank you, >> Randy. Uh even though I'm not voting um I'm listed as an abuter for this property and uh thus am presumed to have a financial interest uh thus I will be
recusing on this. >> Okay Sarah, go ahead. Sorry. >> Where 10,000 square feet is required in the GB3 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law Chapter 4A section 9 and sections 3C 4C 26 and 8D2B of the protective bylaw.
>> Okay. Attorney Riley. Uh good afternoon, Bill Riley on behalf of Eastwood Companies. Um this is a proposal to build a residential structure in a GB3 zone on Croll Road.
the uh I think the first thing to point out is the uh the portion of the building that faces the street is u what we would describe as a full cape
uh but there's no dormer on the front side reducing the apparent mass of the building as you look at it from the street. Also, the building is set 50 ft back from the street, which is the street setback required in a GB3 zone.
And so, I think that the uh uh you know, I think it's a handsome design that uh is not substantially more detrimental. So, Karen is here. She did the design. I'm going to ask her to go through it for you and then we'll go
through the criteria. Good afternoon. Karen Kempton, designer for Eastward Companies. So, when we decided on a house plan for this property, we knew we wanted a modest house viewed from the street. Although this lot is in a GB3 zone, we designed
the house to meet the R20 zoning requirements uh in the coverage and as in the uh the surrounding area is um R20 outside of the GV3. So, we thought this made the most sense. Um this is a traditional style full cape with an L
and a garage hidden behind. We feel that the simple style cape with a center chimney is an appropriate u size for this location. Although this located in the GB3 zone, all adjacent structures along Pearl Road resemble single family
homes and present wider to the street than this proposed 42 foot wide cape. The surrounding area outside the GB3 zone is R20. So we designed the house to meet the more restrictive coverage requirements.
The house is 50T 4 in back from the street. So we adhere to the 50oot GB3 setback and the side setbacks of 33.7 and 19.6 are are more than the required um
setback of 15. The building coverage is 14.9% so under the 15% allowed in an R20 and the site coverage of 39% is significantly lower than the 60% allowed in a GB3.
Uh the abuters to the north and the west are separated by parking lots. So the pool location um is shielded from Croll Road uh by the house and the placement will not affect the abutter's privacy. The modest Cape will have no front
dormers which reduces the scale of the house. Additionally, one of the largest trees on the property between the house and the street will be saved. You can see the uh walkway kind of curving around it. Uh this helps diminish the
scale of the house as well. The ridge height is 25 ft 10 in above the top of foundation which is 2 feet 9 in below the maximum allowed ridge height. We received unanimous approval from HBDC
with comments about the presentation to the street as being very very good and they also commented on the small scale with no front dormer as a well done uh concept. So we believe that the impact of the scale sighting mass of this structure
will be an attractive addition to Crow Road and is not substantially more detrimental and happy to answer any questions. >> Oh, thank you. Um did you want to >> I just run through the criteria for you. So adequacy the size of the site in
terms of the size of the proposed use. This property is just short of 20,000 square feet. Uh, and the building coverage is, as Karen pointed out, 14.9% where if this was in an R20 zone, 15%
would be allowed. The the um because we're in a GB3 area, again, as Karen pointed out, the street setback is 50 ft. Uh, which um
also we we also meet all the sideline setbacks. The proposed pool which is in in the rear of the building also meets setback requirements. uh the compatibility the size of the proposed structure the you know including the gross floor
area we're over 6600 square feet but I think in terms of comparing the compatibility you know our building to the other buildings uh you know our our basement we have a
full basement that's 2200 square feet and so really uh you know what we really have is about 4,400 square feet above ground. >> It's this one right >> and we think that in terms of >> uh compatibility with the other
structures around us u that we are very much compatible. So question three, extend a proposed increase in non-conforming nature because it's a vacant lot. So there is no existing nonconformity. Um residential buildings are allowed by
a special permit. Suitability of the site including but not limited to impact on neighboring properties on the natural environment including slopes, vegetation, wetlands, groundwater, water bodies and storm water runoff.
Here we have a very flat lot uh with no slopes, no no adjacent wetlands or or wetland vegetation. We do have uh an easement, a drainage easement uh that was given to the town
many years ago and is not being used. Uh but we uh have we made the appropriate setback from that and in accordance with a request from
uh Rob Freley our head of DBW we we changed the location of the pool and that's why we passed out revised plans to show uh that the pool now has been moved away from the drainage easement.
uh but still meets the sideline uh setbacks. So impact of scale sighting a mass on neighborhood visual character including views, vistas and streetscapes. It's cruel road so there aren't a whole
lot of views and vistas but we think the streetscape is actually uh improved as a result of having the full cape design >> facing the street uh with no dormer on the front side. So the the uh I think
that it propos it protects itself as a very modest structure. Karen designed sufficient living space by doing an L on the back. The first portion of the L, as you will note, is only one story tall. Then they have a
garage at the back. So the um most of that is generally not visible uh from the street uh at least not directly. And so we think that um it actually
improves the street and we believe it's not substantially more detrimental uh than the well than the now vacant lot. But we think it's certainly more attractive than most of the buildings on the street.
We would point out that in terms of the size of the structure, uh there's a there was a similar three lot development. um which some of you remember where the old clinic used to be which was
>> divided into three lots. Uh then the houses that were built there all of which had to be approved by you are very similar in size to our proposed structure. So compatibility of the proposed use with neighboring uses. So the
neighborhood is a is a mixture of commercial uses and residential uses. The uh most of the commercial buildings uh do have traditional Cape design. When you think about uh
the building is Zebra and McCarthy design. Uh the bike store across the street. Even the funeral home presents itself to the street as a traditional New England
design. The uh and so we think that uh we are compatible with the neighborhood. I mean, there are apartment buildings and the commercial condominiums,
but we think that this really attractive design fits into the neighborhood well. So, we think you could find us compatible. Certainly not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. the uh the properties on municipal
sewer. So source of water and drains and sewers disposal are all adequate. We think there'd be no impact on traffic flow and safety and the noise and litter. We don't think it's applicable
and 11 and 12 unlicable. That' be our presentation. >> Thank you very much. Okay. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application? Only in favor now. I don't
see any hands anywhere at all. Okay, I will read the correspondences. There are three and they're all from internal agencies, I think. Um, first one, November 18th, 2025 from a health agent Juth Giorgio. This property is adjacent
to town sewer and a three-bedroom dwelling as proposed is acceptable in accordance with board of health and water and sewer regulations. Thus, she has no concerns. Robert Faley tells us on November 4th, 2025
um that uh he is providing comments about 33 CL Road. The driveway seems to be suitable in its location located near the north side of the property which locates it further from Crow Road intersection with Route 28. It would be
helpful to see the driveway on the adjacent property to the north so separation uh distances can be verified. The DPW has drainage easements that extend from Crawl Road to around the midpoint of the
property along the southern property line. and the proposed pool directly abuts the drainage easement. Should the town have a need to utilize this easement, it would be difficult to impossible to excavate within the easement area without potentially causing damage to the pool. The pool
should be relocated so that any excavation within the easement will not adversely affect the pool structure. Also, there is a patio proposed over the drainage easement. Should this easement be utilized, it should expressly be
written that the property owner will be responsible for the removal and replacement of any patio structure to allow the town to install and maintain drainage within the easement area. The town should be held harmless of any damages made uh by the property owner
developer including structures, landscaping, irrigation, fencing within the easement area. And so he bought Rob Faley as the director of public works. Next we have a note from uh HBDC
November 12th, 2025. They rendered the following decision. 5000 approval of the construction of the new dwelling pool landscaping and hardcaping located at 33 Coral Road. That concludes the uh correspondences.
Is there anybody here or on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak against or has a question? Ma'am, I saw this lady first. So, go ahead, please. Yep. No, you have you have to go up to them where they are and they'll move away.
>> Well, they'll give you plenty of space. Yes. Just state your name and tell us what you'd like to say. I'm Maria Williams and I'm a property owner in the Mson area. So, great. Welcome. >> And was had a business there for 25 years >> and I also have a degree in city
planning which is so I've looked at the the plan for the town and the general business zoning is part of the plan for the town. So, I feel like this change would be sort of a spot zoning thing. I know there are other houses further down
Crawl Road. They're very modest. Uh but it's primarily a business thing with boaty yards and bike shops and restaurants and and here's suddenly there's a house that's completely surrounded by businesses.
So that was one comment and and basically what I'm thinking about is is the need for workforce and affordable housing in town and if this is to be used for residential purposes. It seems
to me that doing a multiple thing, some town houses there that could be sold um at a more reasonable price as part of workforce housing. And I've looked into the the Chattam Chattam has been designated or will be it hasn't passed
yet, but as a as a seasonal community, which allows us, and I think you can do this now, to restrict the purchase of a house like that to yearround residents instead of summer residents or people that are going to rent out on short-term
rentals for Airbnbs and VBOs, which is what we need so bad. And I just see this lot as a wonderful opportunity to do that instead of to do this with the pool. And that's basically why I'm
here. And I and I I know that that our all of our builders and developers are aware of all the problems and the people that who drive more than 50 miles to work every day. And our own city planner apparently is doing that and therefore
is working remotely. So, you know, it's just such an opportunity that I hate to see it missed. And I have written down some of this if you'd like copies of it. I just didn't get it sent out in time for you to get it in in advance.
>> You can uh just leave one with our clerk at the end there of the uh table. And uh there you go. No. Yeah, just you can just leave them with her. >> Yeah. Thank you very much. Thank you for
Okay. Who else? Yes, sir. >> Welcome. >> For the record, Brian Phillips, 374 Orleans Road. It's very strange. It's like she was reading my mind. Um, do think it's a lot a little out of place. It's not up here. Um,
I know Eastman Companies, they employ a lot, you guys employ a lot of people. You put the food on the table for a lot of families. Um, so I guess I'm along the lines with this speaker and I would really wish you would reconsider this plan and maybe use some of the the new seasonal rules we have for the tiny homes and maybe subdividing the lots for
year round affordable housing. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. Who's next? Anybody else wishes to speak against or has a specific question either in the audience or online? Seeing none, um,
would you like to rebut any of that? Well, just just comment on it. I mean, the you can't rebut Marie Williams. She's a wonderful person. So, but the the um part of the problem we have is our zoning bylaw.
I mean, the the property down the street that was formerly Roy Missouri's office uh has been purchased by somebody who wanted to turn it into workforce housing. Unfortunately, the requirements in our
in our town bylaw for a dormatory are so strict. You know, you need 3,000 square feet of area for every every bedroom.
And it doesn't take long to do the math that, you know, you end up having maybe, you know, 10 bedrooms. and and that's not the way the workforce housing rental system works. You know, you can't make
money that way. And so the Royal Missouri offices property has been subdivided into three single family lots which presumably will come before you at some point in the future. So,
as much as you know, workforce housing is a great idea, until the town modifies its zoning bylaw uh to reduce the area requirement uh for workforce housing
significantly. Uh you know, it's it's simply not going to not going to happen. Now we did a development over in Harwitch where there is no restriction on area and they uh
they did 90 rooms, two people in each room, 180 people, you know, that's all workforce housing and that's how workforce housing works and is actually profitable for the property owner.
Uh that property has since been bought by Ocean Edge and you know they have 500 seasonal workers so they can put 180 of them in that location. So you know it's a great idea
uh but we need significant zoning bylaw modification before it makes any kind of economic sense. You know, I mean, vacant lots in Chadam sell for $500,000,
you know, and on a lot this size, 19,000 square feet, you know, you could have, you know, six people living there and and that doesn't make any money when you, you know, when you when you have to add in the
>> So, it's uneconomical, right? At the end of the day, >> not economical. >> Thank you. Message sent. Now, um, where are we? Questions from the board, Steve.
>> Um, I guess, uh, the the site plan, well, the pictures that we were provided, um, the colored pictures that we provided. >> Yeah. That >> seem to depict a circular driveway in the front, but the site plan, it doesn't
match the site plan. Well, the uh so we we provided those pictures because that's this house built on another lot. >> Okay. >> And we just wanted to show you how it would look facing the street. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you.
>> Uh Lee, questions. >> Uh yeah, I have a question and um maybe um you you know, but maybe Jay Briggs can help too. What is a drainage easement? What does it do? >> So that's that's a property right that
was granted to the town by a previous owner of this property at some time in the past. Um maybe in the time of Kibby Bothwick I don't know it was a long time ago. Uh when they were looking at future development along Crawl Road they felt
at some point they might need to put a drain there. And so uh the property owner then property owner granted the town kneesment. So that was I think I think it was over 50 years ago and it
hasn't been used to date. It's a right that belongs to the town and so Rob Freley just wants to make sure that the town's rights are preserved without doing harm to the what a development takes the place there. So
his comment was well taken and that's why we moved the pool. The patio I guess is just tiles and stuff so they can those they can be moved if they if someday my grandchildren are here and they want to actually have a drainage there. I don't know. So
>> okay. So no one's going to be digging there. There's no >> Well, there's certainly no plan to do it >> yearly. I mean this, as I say, it's been there for many, many years and hasn't been used. >> Okay. So, there's no drain there now. >> There's no drain there.
>> Okay. Thank you, >> Mr. Nixon. Do you have any questions? >> Well, I do. Um, next to this lot, uh, on 28, um, there's a building that used to be a gas station. >> That's correct. >> And as we know, any building that used to be a gas station ended up with dirty
dirt. And it seems to me around that lot, no, not this one, but the one next to it where the gas station was, there was some what looked to me like periodic testing going on and so forth. Do you know what the status of that is and
relation then in relation to your lot? Because with dirty dirt, we always have the plume. And what I'm afraid of looking at this lot is that it is dirty dirt. And I don't know, but I'm just afraid of that.
>> I'll be happy to put your mind at ease. >> So, >> thank you. >> The previous owner of this property uh who was owned the uh he was in a real estate broker. So, he owned the building next door which uh
houses a real estate office. And he had this lot tested and that it was clean. And an engineer would point out to you, which I'm not an engineer, but I'll point out to you anyway, that the direction of groundwater flow
in this area is uh from north to south. So, it's towards Nantucket Sound, towards the Oyster Pond, and not in our direction. So, as I say, we had it tested actually quite a few years ago
now, and it's clean. And because the groundwater flow is away from this property, we don't believe there's a potential for a future problem. >> Yeah. And lead me through this that um let's suppose a house is built and it's sold to ABC. When they go to get a
mortgage, was the the bank requires something to assure the bank that the dirt is clean? Correct. >> No. Because if not, then they don't want to get no
>> on the hook. >> I understand that. And if this if if the gas station had been on this lot, you're absolutely correct. But the gas station wasn't on this lot. It was never on this lot. And you know,
the uh we you know, as I say, the previous owner uh had it tested and it was clean. So, you know, as they say, since groundwater
goes only in one direction and it's away from this lot and the gas station hasn't been there, I don't know, 30 years or so. Okay. Uh, so
is there a if you were going to a bank and there had been a gas station on this lot, is there a particular form that you have to submit to a bank these days that assures the bank that it's clean or do they have to do their own testing?
>> No, no, no. The there's a what we call a 21E requirement. >> Okay. when you're when you're getting a mortgage on a lot that's could be dirty where you have to prove I'm going to sneeze where you have to prove that the lot is clean
uh and the way the system works is if if there was a dirty use on the property uh and you do an inspection which this property was inspected and it comes up
dirty um they have a thing called an AUL, activity use limitation that's imposed by the Department of Environmental Protection. And you know, I I know of several properties
that are like that. So, for instance, if you think of uh Frostfish Hill in North Chatam, that was formerly the site of the uh Acme Laundry. I was going to say the Eldrich Laundry, but was owned by
the Eldrich family. And I don't know if you remember, but there was a uh they had had an oil tank that used what they called uh bunker oil, which is the heaviest, dirtiest oil
there was. And apparently what had happened was they would measure the amount of oil in the tank by dropping a stick into it. And over the many, many, many years, dropping that stick in created a leak.
And so some of the oil, again, over many years had leaked down. And so it was in the groundwater. And so when you drive by there, you've got Frost, you got the street, and then to the right of the street, there's a
mostly vacant area with like a garage structure, which is uh generally used as a a woodworking shop and that is subject to an AUL. So you cannot put a residential
structure on that property. You could do a commercial structure, but you can't do a residential structure. And so that's the way the system works. And so this property has been inspected. No AU well was imposed. So I think we're able to rely on that.
>> Thank you for the education. >> Okay. Um Paul, questions. So you're assuming that there would be no pollution created by the real estate office there. >> Is that only morally?
>> I got it. Okay. Thank you. Um the one thing that sort of bothers me a little bit is uh we're dealing with the camel's nose here. We we started with residential over on the hydrangeanger uh lots and that kept getting knocked
back down in terms of the number of lots that were going to be proposed there and dealt with. And I think we actually talked about 40B as a potential at that location given that it had the uh uh centralized location near to town and
transportation. But um now what we're looking at is a residential use which would be I think by your square footage numbers uh bigger than any of the ones on Hydrangeanger
Lane uh using as a bootstrap the fact that we have residential residential use on Hydrangeanger Lane. So, uh, I'm a little concerned about the fact that this is an isolated lot in a
commercial zone surrounded by businesses. Um, and does it make sense to turn it into residential? Uh, given that you're dealing with a business zone to begin with, >> what's your thought about that? Well, the um
one of the one of the problems that a real estate developer would have in terms of thinking about it commercially is that uh the commercial market for
construction and purchase for sale is virtually non-existent. And we have commercial people who want to rent properties, but then you know, how do you how do you build? You don't know who your tenants
are going to be. So, I mean, it's really uh just guesswork. You know, in other words, if somebody who wanted to have a business at that location stepped up and bought
it for whatever it was, $400 or $500,000 and they wanted to put a, you know, a business there, fine. But you know, the only new business that's along this street is the bike shop across the street
uh that had formerly been a pharmacy and was purchased specifically for the purpose of having a bike shop. the I'm not aware of other any other new construction for commercial properties
in I don't know I would say many many years here in town and so the the uh you know that's why we don't think it's practical and we know that as a residential
property we know that it has uh a desiraability because it's close to town, you know, close to Route 28. I mean, there's close to public transportation if you if you wanted it,
you know, but because of the zoning bylaw we have, you know, the uh you have to remember it's a small lot. The setback is still 50 feet, you know, so you and you need parking.
So if you if you if a commercial prop if a property is bought for commercial use and you have a site plan approval requirements, what happens is all the parking ends up in the front of the front of the
property like the box shop across the street. So all you're doing is paving over the front of the lot, you know, and you know the guesswork trying to determine if I if I build a
building here, what kind of building should I build? How big should it be? You know, who who would come and either buy it or or rent it in a manner that would actually be economically feasible? Oh, I know. We could put apartments
upstairs. So now you have a full two-story building with paving in the front. I mean, it just is it's not a particularly attractive aspect uh along this road. So
that's why Eastwood decided to build what I think is a very attractive design. And we did know from Hydranger that these properties can be desirable for residential purposes.
>> Maybe Mr. Maybe Mr. Marsh has a view on this given say he has some expertise in this area. All um I'd like to remind the board and those of us who've been around for a while that this lot has been available for commercial use pretty much since the
time that Mson meeting was completed. Um the lot uh was more aggressively marketed in this last five or six years. uh and there were no takers uh in the way of a desire to do anything with a
commercial aspect. Um when the lot became when we be became interested in the lot, we did look at a commercial building, a two-story building uh with apartments on the second floor and we checked around and tried to see if there would be any
demand for roughly 2,000 square ft of first floor commercial space. It would have had all parking in the front which you didn't we weren't enthusiastic about that. We didn't want to see parking in the front of a commercial building but it's a relatively small lot less than half acre and that's what would have
happened. So we thought a residential building here would be a better use of the site. I'd also like to mention that we built the three houses that are on Hydranger Walk and they're all very similar in square footage size to this building. Also to to uh address David's
concern a little bit is the previous owner had this property tested by an environmental engineer. They they had monitoring wells on this site for four or five years. They continued to do the test and they determined that it was a
clean site and and they have a clean 21E on the site. >> Thank you. That's the only questions I had. >> Yep. and Jenny questions. >> Well, thank you for calling on Paul first because I had a similar question, but you asked it much more eloquently. I
I wasn't sure how to to frame the gist of the of the residential home. >> Well, he's a lawyer who's very eloquent >> in the general business district. Um, but I have a couple of other questions. So, and I don't know if this is something that you can answer or want to
answer or if I'm even allowed to ask it, but has the property actually been purchased because the and the field cards are not always up to date, but this one looks like the last sale was 2021. >> Virginia, I own the property. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. Um,
could I ask you, Mr. Riley to comment on the uh letter that was written in about the drainage easement and it does look like you you handed out at the beginning of the meeting a revised site plan and it does look like u you moved the pool but he also asked about removing the
patio portion that's over the easement. It looks like that's still there. >> Well, it is. So, I'd have to ask Mr. Marsh what his plans are regarding the patio. U we u the first thing that I'd like to mention about the drainage easement is
um when I first became aware of the availability of the property I sat with Dave Clark and I asked him about the drainage easement and he's now David's of course born and brought up here been here a long time and he told me that that drainage easement was procured
quite a few years ago um and and granted to the town and then when the town redid all the drainage along that intersection all the way down to the oyster pond uh that it was ignored for any drainage capability.
Now, David's opinion was that it would never be used. Now, between David and Bill, they tell me that because the drainage easement exists that it's not something the town is going to easily give up. Now, as far as the patio goes,
we would build the patio what are called with PA blocks, which are relatively small 6 by9 kind of sizes of of PA blocks for the patio, which are easily taken up. You could you could put the
drainage system in and then just put the blocks back and they're they're a sufficient distance away. We relocated the pool per um DPW's concerns. >> Okay. Thank you. It Yeah, it does look
like you um did that and that's good. Um compare just looking at the two um the site coverage. I'm looking at the site coverage. So, building coverage didn't change, but the site coverage number changed, Mr. Riley, from the original site plan to what you handed
out at the beginning of the meeting. And it looks like it's all patio. Is that right? I mean, so >> I I I didn't notice the change. >> Yeah, it went from what was advertised as 39% um
lot coverage is gone to 42. And the n the three numbers that make up that that percentage and one of them two of them have not changed. The building coverage hasn't changed and the driveway hasn't changed. um just the pool and patio. I mean the pool patio. So it just makes
made me wonder if all that change was just the patio and it led to my other question about um removing the part that's over the drainage easement. It was just a question. >> Well, to tell you the truth, without David, I don't know that I can answer
that uh adequately. The I don't have the original site plan with me, but it could be that the patio was extended. >> Sorry. What? >> If you'd like, Sarah can add shed some light on that. >> She can always help me.
>> All right. She's a signing beacon. The original patio and pool size on that site plan um pool, patio, walkway, and mechanical was 2351 square ft.
Uh, and the new plan is 3,041 square ft. >> Yeah. So, what they did was they moved the patio to to be around the the relocated swimming pool. >> Yeah. >> So, yeah. So, in moving the pool, you
extended the patio and that's the coverage. Um, >> we're still Would you like to ask him >> 60%. >> That's him online, I believe. Uh, no. I think I think Sarah just >> You're all set then. Okay. Well, I mean
it's okay that it increased right from what was advertised. That's not an issue. >> It still conforms with the zoning. >> Okay. Yeah, it does. It still does u meet that percentage. One last question. Um, you mentioned, Mr. Riley, at the beginning that this is both a commercial
and a residential area. And, um, what other residential uh, items are there other than what Mrs. Williams mentioned as the um I think it was yeah Mrs. Well, all all the properties on Collins Drive are single family residential,
Kendrick Harvest Drive is all residential. If you you know, so you've got you got this property. Uh then you've got the uh Zebrat
McCarthy building which was started out as a residence now has a business on the first floor and apartments below. Then you've got the Pan Deavin building which is the bakery. Then you have Collins Drive which is a loop
>> and so every house on that loop is a single family. >> Okay. Then you've got uh Kendrick Harvest Way, which is a subdivision of six or eight lots. Those are all single family residences
as well. Then we have apartments at 66 across the street next to the bike shop. And I mean those are residential. I mean they're not commercial in a sense of running a business. So then you've got
Hydranger, which has got three single family residences. And then uh as you go up, there's another single family house on the other side of Kendrick Harvest before you get to the branch's subdivision or Pranc's
Restaurant. >> And the cemetery is very residential >> across the three next to the funeral home is res residential as well. So, I'm not as familiar with some of the street names that you mentioned, but generally,
um, would you say the majority of those that you mentioned as being residential are single family home or are they apartments? >> Okay. So, all right. So, this is Collins Drive here. So, each one of these is a single family home.
>> Okay. >> Except for that. That's the pandem. >> Okay. >> Uh those are apartments. Okay, >> that's the bike shop which has an apartment upstairs. That's McCarthy Zebraat where they have
an apartment in the building, but it's the first floor uh is their office. Uh this is Kendrick Harvest. So these are all single family residences as well. Um
uh that's the drama guild. That's formerly the Missouri office which has just been subdivided into three lots. Um I don't know what you know they're showing them a single family for the
purpose of discussion with the planning board but I I don't know what their real plan is. So, uh, that's that's the dentist office. Then you've got >> three residential properties here.
>> Is that Hydranger Walk right in there? Is that right? >> Yeah, that's Hydranger Walk. So when I say a mixture of residential and commercial, I'm not necessarily talking about single family residential, although we have plenty of those, but we also have, you
know, as they say, these apartments. >> Um, you know, that's a mixeduse building. A well-known lawyer lives there. No. Anyway, >> all right, that's all I had. Thank you. All right. So, um, my, uh, question is
quite simple. And Sarah, can you put this elevation up? I have everything on my iPad because I can see it a lot better. >> I can't hear you. >> I could Sarah's going to put up um an elevation that I'm going to comment on. >> Okay. >> Right. So, that's what you see when you
come down Crawl Road. I'll go up Crow Road. Correct. >> If you're looking in that direction. Yes. That's exactly what I I understand that the very front of the house, you know, is there as well, but that is the mass that you see when you go up
and down. And that isn't that over 90 feet long. >> I don't know what the dimension is. >> It's right on your paperwork. Maybe maybe one of your >> two I think >> 92 feet long. And that's the streetscape, is it not? I disagree because
>> how could you possibly disagree when that's what you see? >> It's easy to disagree because we're lawyers and we can disagree on anything. >> Okay. >> But what happens is there are other buildings along the road that are going to tend to block that view until maybe the very
last minute as you're approaching it. >> It's it's the view you see when you go up or down. Well, absolutely not because on the other side of this building, remember, set back 50 feet. Why don't I put up the the map again?
>> Map for a second, please. >> Okay. So, the reason why you can't see it as you're driving this way is you got the real estate office, which is right up back against the property line, and there's a heavy vegetated line along there. So unless you're turning to look
backwards as you're driving north, you wouldn't see that. >> No, you see it when you're coming the other way as well, though. >> Well, >> are you right on your right? >> If you're coming towards CVS, it would be on your right. >> So, yes, you can see. >> All right. So, I don't know like what
there is to argue about it. That's the streetscape on Crawl Road. Well, in terms of comparing it with the other streetscape, you know, you've got the Mson meeting commercial offices
that are significantly longer and higher >> that are immediately adjacent to this property. >> I'm just pointing out Crawl Road. That's the streetscape. >> Well, I mean, we're talking about Croll Road. >> Yeah. So because on the other side of
this you have uh commercial offices >> for >> I don't need >> No, I know what's on the other side of it. >> Okay. So that's really what you see >> long tall buildings, >> but you see that. So did did you want to
say anything, Mr. Marsh, or do you have >> I would I would like to. Randy, could you go back to the the um There it is. Um we are fully intending and will uh the first of all there's a very
significant substantial tree buffer along what you're talking about in the way of that view and then we're going to plan to add to that buffer along the lot line that is common between us and Mson meeting a series of emerald green
arborites. Do you know what those are? >> I do. >> Okay. We're planning to to intersperse those along the natural vegetation that we're not going to disturb along that common lot line because we're looking to obtain privacy between this single family house and Mson meeting.
>> Okay. But I'm not I'm talking about Crow Road. I'm not talking about Mson Meeting. >> Well, as you drive down Crow Road, the the last building on the right before you get to this property is M is the Mson meeting. >> No, I know that. I know that.
>> Well, what we're going to do is along that lot line, that common line, it's already heavily vegetated, but we're going to intersperse emerald green, emerald green arborites in the spaces to give the future residents of this house
privacy from what is really kind of a commercial effort and enterprise because the first floor months meeting is all commercial. >> Right. Okay. I >> you'll never see it. I think I think the the uh >> another thing to keep in mind, Randy,
>> is that the building set back 50 feet. So, if they do plantings that begin earlier than 50 feet along along the the property line, you know, you will be able ultimately to see that
side, but it's only when you're right up, excuse me, right up against it. So it's not like it's the whole way down. >> It's 90 feet over 92 feet. Okay. So Dave Clark has his hand up. Did you want to go to him?
>> Sure. >> Mr. Clark, you are recognized if you're there. Maybe hands been up and this is from before perhaps. Could it be? Here we go. >> Oh, okay. Welcome. Yes. Welcome. Thank you.
>> Yes. Okay. So, um I was just looking at Google Earth from the street view. And and Mr. Riley is is is correct in that as you come down Croll Road and you pass Mson Meeting, the last portion of Mson Meeting before you get to this property
is Mson Meeting's parking lot. there is a substantial vegetated buffer between those parking spaces and Croll Road. So, as as uh as Bill said, you won't see this building till you're right on top of it as you're
passing it. And uh the second point I want to make is to to I think Jinny's question about residential properties in the neighborhood. There was a single family house on this lot in approximately the same location when the
and it was torn down as part of the Munen meeting project. So there was and I remember in my youth there was a house there um and uh and actually the the driveway apron for that house is still there in the sidewalk. Uh it's on the
opposite side of where the driveway is proposed now, but um there is still a curb cut for that former house. So yeah, you see it on the screen now. All that vegetation on the right, right where the arrows are are
is MSON meetings vegetated buffer strip from their parking to the street. and where the uh post and rail fence is um is about the start of the property that's under discussion now.
>> And I think I think that's I think what I'm pointing out to now is the curb cut. Is that correct, Dave? >> Um >> I think so down. So anyway,
>> okay. Well, I don't have any more questions right now. So, uh, Paul, unless anybody else No. Okay. >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> I would second that. Vote yes. >> All votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> Jenny votes yes.
>> As do I. Okay. Deliberations. Uh, Lee, you go ahead. Okay. Um, well, to be honest, I u really love the idea of uh smaller homes in that area that could be workforce affordable, more reasonably
priced, but um I understand that that is not possible or difficult or uneconomical. Um it's a perfect world scenario that if we could if we could do that there, it would be wonderful. Um but >> it would require a variance. Okay,
>> we closed the public hearing, just so you know. >> It would be it would be tricky. Um, but at the same time, I mean, I believe this is a beautiful home. I mean, Karen almost does a amazing job designing these homes. It's a beautiful home
in what I feel is a very tricky location. Um, I appreciate the um the landscaping plans that you have in mind. Um, I I think it will be lovely. I still
think it's a very tricky location, but um I'm willing to approve it. >> Okay. Uh, Jenny, what do you think? >> Well, um, I agree with many of Lee's comments. I think it's very attractive.
I like the short 42 foot frontage to to crawl road. Um the image that we saw on the screen of all that vegetation, I think that it's that was before it's been clearcut a little bit because the site was pretty open, but I didn't
really pay that much attention to. Um so as I'm looking at this rendering that's right here in front of me, it looks like that. Randy, I don't know if you can see that or not, but there's a a square box to the very far right hand side of that from my right, which is probably the
Mson parking lot. And so, it's not showing that vegetative, but I mean, this is just a model, but I think what I'm hearing is that that would that is vegetated right now, that whole green strip between the driveway and the parking lot, and it would remain that
way. So, I like I like that screening because I do agree with you, Randy. 90 feet is just enormous um view, but the 42 across the front that you're really going to see is is actually very
attractive and modest. Um and then, um I would like to hear what others have to say about the GB the GB3 district because it it doesn't appear to me as though um you know, Mr. Riley laid out very well as did Karen.
The setbacks are met, the building coverage is met, the height is good. Um it it's not in my view um where there's taking advantage, if you will, of the GB district in order to get
a home in there. I'm not seeing that that really playing out with the numbers. It looks like it meets the the criteria um for what they're proposing. So, I I I do I also do agree with Lee's comments and what Mrs. Williams said, though. It
would be nice and it's unfortunate that there's all this red tape. That would have been a great spot for a few homes uh smaller as as Mr. Phil Phillips said, tiny homes or smaller homes on that spot, but that's not what's before us and um it doesn't sound like that's
really a a realistic opportunity um unfortunately at this time. So, those are my thoughts. >> Okay, Paul. Uh well, I uh uh had somewhat the same reaction um initially to this proposal
as I did at uh Hydrangeanger Lane. I it seemed to me it was an ideal location for 40B and I understand that 40B is not necessarily economics. Um and I I don't think it would be economical here either. Um,
but uh I'm a little discouraged that the commercial use in in Chadam really doesn't uh exist as much as it did before or as it may in the future. Um, we seem to be having more and more residences and less and less commercial.
But I can recall having a conversation um with connection in connection with uh the change that we made to the housing availability on Cross Street um directly
behind the commercial buildings that uh at that point was uh David Openenheimimer was in and I was questioning him as to why that wouldn't remain commercial and he basically said the commercial downtown is is in the first row and once you're past the first
row, the commercial just doesn't really exist economically. And I think what Mr. uh Marsh's sake uh is probably correct that this has been on the market for a long period of time on a commercial basis and it's gone nowhere. Uh and uh
it probably won't go anywhere without uh Eastwood going forward with this proposal. Um I think Eastward does do a good job of landscaping its properties such that they're attractive and they maintain them correct attractively. So I
think that there will be a buffer uh as represented by Mr. Marsh between the property and the uh uh commercial businesses uh directly to the north on Mson meeting. So, I think uh overall uh
although I hate to see it happening um that it makes sense to approve this this proposal and it meets our standards. >> Mr. Nixon, >> yeah, retail is dead in a lot of places. Think of what you bought last week or
next week and you pick up the phone, Walmart help you out. What I like about what you've done with this, three things. Kept the height down. You kept the front of it reasonable. You kept the dormer off of the second floor
on the front of the house. Uh I think those are important things. Plus, he made an effort to treat it the lot as if it was for a single family home by keeping the footprint below 15%,
which I really appreciate, too. So overall, while it's not ideal to everybody about what you'd like to see, it makes sense two ways economically and also building
a home that's attractive and dumbed down. So I will be supporting it. Yeah. >> And Steve, if you were voting, >> uh, well, I think as usual, this is a very fine design. It's a great looking
house. Um, it would look good anywhere, I think, in Chadam. Um, however, I think this is probably an inappropriate lot for it. Um, it's it seems to me like it's going to be very isolated. It's
going to be surrounded by commercial property. Uh there's the the the commercial condos um that's basically on two sides of this building and then there's the real estate office on the uh south side of it. So and and then uh you know there
there is loss of commercial space. We're trying to attract people to come and live in Chadam and uh we need to uh provide places for them to work maybe someday. So, I think the loss of commercial property is is um
is not a good thing um regardless of where it is. So, I don't think I would support putting a res a single residential house with a pool on that lot. >> So, you got very lucky because Steve's
not voting today. Lee is. You really hit the jackpot with that because I don't support it. I don't support it for everything that Steve says. And I truly don't think it's a suitable site for that large of a house. I don't. And I
would not feel good about my I always think how am I going to feel after? And um I follow that. I think it's I love the front. And when I first opened up the package and everything, I was like, "Oh, that's like my favorite house. Honestly, I just love it from the
front." But then I look at what I called basically a cruise ship for the side and and I don't like it for there and so I would not support it. I don't think it meets uh number two suitability of the site for the proposed use because it's
too big. Um I also think the impact on the neighborhood visual character uh including views and vistas um would be um impacted negatively and um let's see what else. And I don't think it's compatible with the proposed use of the
surrounding of the surrounding land uses because all those large beautiful houses that you refer to, they're on side streets. They are they're on the side streets. So I don't think this belongs there at all. And um I would vote no. Um
and I also want to remind you that we had something similar to this. um somebody wanted to build four houses, maybe something like this in the GB and we weren't having it because we didn't think that very large houses in the GB
district was appropriate. And so I would not feel comfortable with this one either because this is actually worse than the ones the other guy wanted to build in the GB. Um, worse meaning not that it's not a an unbelievably gorgeous house, but it's very very big and it
takes up a lot of room in a district that it's really not uh necessarily supposed to be in at that size. Um, so I guess it doesn't really matter, but that's my thought. And uh, Paul. >> All right. I'll move to approve the
application uh as submitted with the conditions that all construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner that between June 30th and Labor Day, no exterior construction will be allowed. No work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. only. >> I'll second that and vote yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> I vote yes. Jenny votes yes. >> And I vote no. So, >> thank you very much. >> Congratulations. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Yes. Thank you very much. >> All right. Time is it? We're going to do this next application and then we're going to take a short break. >> Which one are we going? >> Okay. So, what is next?
>> 222 BL. >> 222 Bcliff is next. Application number 25-098 Benjamin Morgan Care of William G. Lichfield, Esquire, 330 Orleans Road, North Chattam, Mass 02650. Agreed vendee of property located at 222
Barlip Avenue. Also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 14G, block 72, Law 11. The applicant proposes to change, alter, or expand a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a new dwelling in
accessory structure garage/poolhouse. The existing dwelling is non-conforming and that it is located 35.1 ft from the road where a 40ft setback is required and 21.4 ft from the Westerly Butter. The proposed dwelling will be non-conforming and it'll be located 24.4
4 feet from the Westerly butter where a 25 ft setback is required. The proposed accessory structure will meet road and abutter setback requirements. The existing building coverage is 29 square ft and the proposed building coverage is 2,839
square ft where 2850 ft is the maximum allowed. The law is non-conforming and that it contains 20,500 square feet where 40,000 ft is required in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section six and
section 5B of protected bylaw. Welcome back, Attorney Lichfield. >> Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, members of the board. Bill Lichfield here behalf of Ben Morgan who is in the last row on the aisle. Also with us today is Bernardet Mloud of Design It,
who uh did the house plans for what Ben proposes to build on the north side of uh Barl Cliff Avenue in a residentially zoned location, not a GB3 zone. Uh what
we are proposing today is to demolish a house that has been in that site for nearly hundred years but which has had some significant problems. Uh the son of the homeowner is online with us today
and Sarah is graciously putting up some illustrations. They are not my artwork. They are the result of a flood which occurred in the house. It has had some very significant damage as a result of
that. Uh the owner of the property who is not a teenager uh is in the process of uh selling it to Ben. Uh Mr. Cen Plawn senior will you know likely you can see the floor is warped and
everything else. So the house has got some significant problems. It's not a matter of what some folks call demolition by neglect. This was a winter pipe burst which caused significant problems. Moreover, the house itself uh
while old uh it was formerly deemed by the historical commission to be historically significant. But in an highly unusual event, they actually changed their determination and decided that it was not historically significant. It has, as you know from
having seen it, uh, been changed a number of times over the years. So, I'll go into the criteria and maybe Sarah would be gracious. Thank you, sir, for putting those up. Maybe Sarah can put up the elevations and you'll have a sense of what Ben proposes to build there, which is a uh traditional uh Greek
revival with a wing. Uh, Greek Revival may not be entirely correct and Bernardet couldn't could correct me, but I I tend to see a gable end of the street and call it Greek Revival. Uh, it's a traditional look. Uh, and the front elevation top left is what you
will see because it is a long but relatively narrow lot. So, we are designing we designed the house to fit the lot. We are eliminating as Sarah indicated one of the the several two of the several nonconformities and and
reducing uh one of them further. So we'll again go into the criteria as to adequacy of sight including building coverage and setbacks with only one exception. Every nearby lot is non-conforming. But notwithstanding those nonconformities as to lot size and
setbacks, the site is adequate for structures which have existed there for 105 years. If you approve the special permit, you can do so based on the finding that the site remains adequate for construction uh of the replace or of
a replacement home and garage. We will be eliminating the street setback nonconformity, moving the house further back. You recently approved a structure to the left and that's much closer to the street than we will be. We are moving it back. Uh we are reducing one
of the two uh one of the sideline non-conformities as well and while coverage is increasing it remains compliant as the compatibility of the size with the neighborhood. If you look at the third page of the handout, you will note that we have a relatively
large lot with low under 10% coverage. We are currently compatible as to size and consistent as to gross floor area and living area. As rebuilt, the house will remain compatible. Again, we're moving it further back from the street.
The full basement, of course, inflates the gross floor area. The living area of the proposed house is 3,700 square feet. Again, coverage complies and it's in keeping with its surroundings as well. As to the extent of increase, there are
nonconformities as noted by Sarah in the legal ad. There is no increase in nonconformity. Again, the street setback nonconformity is eliminated. The sideline setback is improved and the garage of course which complies as far at if far at the rear of the lot. and we
remain consistent with the neighborhood. The site is suitable, excuse me, there are no wetlands or environmental issues there, pardon me, as the scale citing mass views and vistas. The existing house again is close to the street. It's been modified and expanded over the
years, but with no disrespect to the coutinl family of the current owners, it is not an architectural gem. Moreover, it has had significant recent difficulties. that water damage has made it close to uninhabitable. It is however without impact on views and vistas. If
you approve the special permit, it will allow for what we think is an appropriate and traditional design. Cited to minimize mass. Uh the scale remains appropriate. It will have, I think you can find, a positive impact on the streetscape. It'll be a 1 and 3/4
one and 3/4 story house consistent with the street, but it will be a foot lower than the existing house. We're not going up, we're actually going down about a foot. Uh the garage again is way at the back of the of the uh the lot. As to
compatibility of residential of use, that will remain unchanged. It will be residential. And uh we currently have town water and four bedrooms. A new septic system will be installed. Uh the the chair will uh read a comment from
health agent who has no concerns having reviewed the project and the pool house cabana attached to the garage will not be used as a bedroom. There are no traffic flow and safety noise or similar issues. Uh the question as you know is
whether the proposed house uh architecturally appropriate uh and providing for additional but still reasonable living area with a garage and cabana at the rear of the lot. Whether that is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current
non-conforming structure on a non-conforming lot. As I mentioned, the historical commission reviewed the situation in light of the circumstances as well as the modifications to the house over the year. They reversed a prior finding of historic importance uh
and found that it was not historically the existing house was not historically important and thus did not impose any demolition delay. The proposed change I think you can find is consistent with other upgrades on Barliff Avenue. Uh but it's of an appropriate scale and by
virtue of relocation on the lot narrowing of the house, it is more rather than less compliant with zone current zoning requirements. It's an appropriate design and I think you can find the house to be reasonable and consistent with its surroundings. the
foot footprint increases, but it's below limits and it's in a neighborhood that has coverage of up to 18%. So, in uh this location, given the criteria and the plans, I think that you can find that the proposed change is likely an
improvement over what now exists and certainly not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. I had more, but you've already gone through a lengthy hearing, so I'll leave it at that. We'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams and wish
to speak in favor of this application? Please raise your hand. Seeing none, I will read the correspondences. First one is from Jim Sullivan uh on
November 19th, 2025. They live at uh let's see, 16 Surrey Lane. My wife and I are writing in support of Ben Morgan's application for a special permit to demolish the existing dwelling at 222
Barl Cliff and the construction of a new house. We recently completed a renovation of our own which a special permit was granted. We reviewed the plans for the property and strongly support um the approval of the requested special permit. We uh are sure Ben's
representative, Attorney Litfield, will address each of the 12 factors. Um and however from our perspective, Ben's project will enhance the neighborhood since the proposed project will be fully compatible with the character of the neighborhood, including other recently
constructed uh dwellings at 184 and 209 BLift um in the immediate adjacent property at 230 Bcliff. Next, we have a note from Christina Bassid from the CHC. They found the house to be historically
significant, but they did not impose a demolition. Not historically significant. No demolition delay. November 18th, 2025. Judith Giorgio, the health agent. November 18th, 2025. The proposal for a
four-bedroom dwelling plus the pool house is acceptable. The pool house may not be used as a bedroom as it opens directly to the garage. A new septic system is proposed and must be approved by the health department prior to construction.
Last, we have a note from 8 Card Lane, Andrew and Allison Pelosi. They have a home on Card Lane. Um, and are writing in support of the application for 222 Barliff. They've seen the plans and they
believe the uh project is appropriate. Anybody here on Microsoft Teams wishes to speak against the application or has a specific question. No questions from the board. Um, Mr. V,
uh, you know, it's a a good looking the only question I had and this is not certainly not is not uh really enter although I'm not voting on this one anyway. So, um, but it's a nice um traditional forms and and design. What
I'm I'm I'm wondering is what I can't quite tell what the proposed uh siding materials are going to be. Are they shingles and clabards or >> Mr. Mor I can't hear you, but if either Ms. Mloud or Mr. Morgan can just either
tell me or come up here that would be appreciated. >> Thank you. as is not unusual for uh Chadam or at least Cape Cod. Probably shingles on the side and rear, possibly clabards on the front. >> I'm guessing it would be sort of a
traditional white with sidewall shingles in the rear. >> Yeah, sure. No, that's good. I I just said frequently um you know these I I I see projects as we've approved and and they they look great but they're they don't
look quite traditional by the time you get finished with the materials and things. That's all I have right now. >> That was a great question. We're thinking a lot about aspects that we've never thought of before in our recent uh travels through 40B. So um Mr. Nixon,
questions. I have no questions. Thank you. >> Paul, do you have any questions? >> No questions. >> Lee, do you? >> Um, just a quick one. It's a onecar garage. Correct. And is there storage above or >> storage above the garage? It looks like
>> there's a full basement in the house and I think that will address storage issues, but there there is not storage above the garage. Correct. There is not storage above the garage. >> Steve, you have any questions? just the the the one thing that's keeping you from full compliance is the Westerly um
setback >> and and I recognize it's only 6 in, but it's only 6 in. >> So, it could be argued either way. We we tried but to get the living area given that we we started with three nonconformities and we got rid of two of
them. >> So, that's the the the remaining one. >> And and I I understand the question, >> but it's very good. It's very nice project. It looks good. Thank you. >> Do you have any questions? >> Just a couple. Um, Mr. Lynchfield, I think you said the gross floor area
looked exaggerated because it has a full foundation underneath that basement. Okay. Um, also I thought you said that the house the the proposed house is a foot lower than the current house. >> I believe that's on Mr. for Eldridge's
site plan in which he notes that the uh proposed building height is 28.1 existing is 29.0. I misspoke. It's 0.9 of a foot, not a foot.
>> All right. Now, I I was surprised. I don't really remember it being that tall. It's a old four square which with the hip roof which um I didn't I was surprised thinking like I don't remember it being almost the maximum. Um okay so
uh so it's a foot lower what's proposed. Um you know there were no um numbers that were listed on the plans from Ryder and Wilcox as far as length of the house. So, I just kind of manually
estimated it based on some of the site plan numbers, and it looks like it's about 68 feet long in the back. Is that about what you >> It's a lot less than 92. Uh, but that's that sounds like an that
sounds approximately correct. I I could run and get my scale that's in my briefcase and confirm, but that sounds reasonable. >> Yeah. And uh and that's just the house and then of course it's the pool area and then it's got the the pool house, too. So, so it it is um understanding
the lot line is or the lot is narrow and and skinny. Um I can see why the sort of that Greek revival with the long back is what's being proposed, but I do hate to see the four square. >> I think the lot is approximately 210 ft
deep. So, it is a fairly >> long lot. Yeah. >> Small lot, but long lot. Okay. Um, and you said it's moving further back from the street and it looks like it was going to 40.5. So, it meets now the street the setback of 40 ft.
>> Yeah, we are meeting the 40. I think currently we're 30 something 30 >> 35. >> Yeah, we're Yeah. And we're at 40 and a half. So, we are moving it further back to to be compliant. We didn't want to have Mr. Dbor ask us a second question.
Okay. Uh, thank you. >> What are you going to do about the pool? You going to have one of those automatic covers and a fence or >> uh automatic cover or fence? >> Not yet determined. If if a fence obviously is required, Mr. Briggs will
see to it and it would be, but if not, an automatic cover. >> Yeah. Okay. All right. Um, Paul, >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. I second that. Vote yes. >> All votes yes. >> Vote yes. Jenny votes yes
>> as do I. Okay. Deliberations. Uh Mr. Nixon, we'll start with you today. >> Well, all in all, I I think it's a great improvement. I really do. Um it certainly is compatible with a neighborhood. I like the fact that it
did come down almost a foot. Not quite, but almost a foot. I think that's good. That's smart. Um, great design. I see no reason to believe it's substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood in any way, shape, or form.
>> And Mr. Vch, if you were voting, >> yes, if I were voting, I would support it. It It's um nice looking design. That neighborhood has been in a lot of transition over the years. I mean, recently I kind of feel badly for the
neighborhood, but um I think when this is done, it's going to be a nice improvement. Um and um it's a great project. Thanks. >> And uh Paul, >> yes, I agree with my colleagues. We've been out to Barliff a lot in the last uh
year, year and a half, two years. U but I I there's no way that this is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Lee. >> Yeah, I agree with my colleagues. Um, this is my neighborhood kind of somewhat close. Um, and I love the design. I
think, uh, Miss McCloud always does a great job with her designs. They're very traditional. They're very reasonable. Um, and I think the, um, positioning on the lot is is is great. Um, I would,
however, like to make a plug. Sometimes I do this for the traditional white cedar shingles on the sides. >> Yep. >> Thank you. >> That turn gray automatically >> that turn gray naturally. >> We're into that now. I just heads up.
>> Yeah, I would just I would love to see that. >> Yeah. And uh Steve >> uh well I think it's very nice project. Uh it's kind of a shame to see what happened to the original house, but uh I know that's out of a lot of people's control, but I think this is this is a
good project. It fit into the neighborhood. Seems like there's sort of a perpetual building going on. There's house next door and house across the street and there's a lot going on over there, but um I think it's a good project and it'll fit right in. I don't think it's detrimental at all. and Jenny.
>> Well, I'm going to quote quote Randy when she said, "I hate to be the skunk at the picnic, but I don't like the design." First of all, I'm sorry to see the four square go. I watched the historic hearing. I know the issues with it. And um and I do see how that lot
would uh lend itself more to this Greek Revival style with the long back. But what I what I don't like is that this is a 1920s home and you don't have to replace it with a foursquare and the Greek revival is very um historic.
But while I would say there are attributes of the Greek revival here um as Mr. Lichfield said um the gable and the wing that's that's correct. Uh the gable front is the only thing that is Greek revival about this. Yes, Greek
revivals have that wing, but usually the wing is set farther back. So, I want to ask you, Sarah, to go to page 204. This is a top view of the floor plan. A look, you know, a look down of the floor plan.
>> It's only set back a couple of feet, >> right? that little that that wing is uh very shallow and that is what is throwing to me it off from looking like it's a Greek revival. The only thing that is Greek revival is that front
gable end. Um so that's what I'm No, not that one. Um >> floor plan. >> Yeah, the floor plan. Sarah, sorry. I was just looking at first floor. Okay. So, that far left, we see where
the covered porch is. That far left. I was just trying to get a quick view of what right there. Yeah, that is I believe, unless I'm misreading it. That is the setback of the wing. And so, it doesn't look like a wing when you're
looking at it. It looks like a, you know, a full uh house, which to me does not look regraal. The second thing that I don't like about it, even though the height is lower, I do like that. Um Sarah, if you'll go to one of four, which is the the front, the front, the
side, the back views. Um, the the other thing too is that often the roof and I know we're talking design here. Uh, but the reason I'm making these points is because this is a historic home and I know Barliff isn't
um registered to be historic, but there are historic homes there. and losing the four square. There are only a handful of four squares in in Chadam. But getting getting back to the roof, it's a long uh side view and the fact that the entire
uh roof line that's going all the way across, there's no uh indent of like the the gable end should be going into perhaps a lower roof line in some portions and then the shed dormer on the side. I just feel like it's not it could be
improved to achieve the true a true or Greek revival look which which in my opinion would be more in keeping with the historic replacement of the 1924 square. >> Yep. So, um I don't like the design
either. Um but the way I'd like to put it is that this really reminds me of what we struggled with with 184 barliff. I don't know if you know what I even mean when I say that, but there is a a house that was purchased very close by and we didn't think that it really fit
in on Barl Cliff and we went back and forth and uh it wasn't pleasant. It wasn't. And and yeah, truth be told, it was about the the style of it in a way, but this is a historic street. And this
is kind of like a one of those anywhere USA type of houses. When when you look at it, it doesn't really improve the street, you know, in any way. In my opinion, um it's hard to vote no on it because, you know, you you decrease the
the height and you know, it's better than in a way from what's there now in terms of the fact that it's rotted and that's unfortunate. Um but it would be nice if you could come back with something a little more keep cautish uh
in my opinion. Um I don't know if that persuades you in any way. if if I might respond because I think deliberations. Couple of thoughts. >> Uh first, the existing house uh lost
whatever historic character it had, not because of the water damage, but because of additions put on on the front. Secondly, uh I I understand Miss Fenwick's point about a preference to have the wing set back, but because of
the front entryway when you are driving west on Barliff, uh you will note that it is s it will appear to be significantly further back because of the entryway. So, if it's only a foot or two now with the
entryway, which is three or four feet, it's going to be five or six feet back, which I think will will help. If you're heading east on Barkle Cliff, you're not going to see it anyway because of the front entryway. I think it is, you know, any every decision that you make is to a
degree inherently subjective. If this were if we were coming to you with a Vermont ski chalet in A-frame, I would understand comments about design here.
However, I think what has been designed is appropriate. But most importantly, two two points that are important. Um, I addressed this board a couple of times, three times I think about another house just a little bit further down on
Barliff Avenue where there was a hue and cry of neighbors who were decidedly unimpressed with what was proposed. There's no one here. They're here because they appreciate what Ben has done. They've seen what Ben has done.
And the neighbors do not oppose this. Well, it's your decision, of course. uh the impact on the neighbors can often be gained by neighborhood comments. Finally, and most importantly,
is it substantially more detrimental? I think the answer to that has to be no. Some of us might like cedar shingles weathering. Some of us might like white collaborates. But is
what is proposed here now substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than what now exists? I can cannot help but say no, it is not substantially more detrimental. >> No, I I understand what you said and uh
you know it's our job to regulate growth and development and so I think we have a say in what really fits in a neighborhood. Absolutely. you know, um, and it would be hard to say that it's substantially detrimental, but I I don't think it's hard to say that you could do
a lot better, you know, and if and like I I I guess I'll leave it at that. Um, >> if I could, Madam Chairman, if the board would do because I uh I'm getting old and the data is getting long. Uh, if I could be reminded of which members are voting, that would be
>> Yes, you may be reminded of that. Jenny would be voting. um Lee, Paul, myself, and Mr. Nixon. >> Under those circumstances, I would ask for a straw poll or a straw vote.
>> Okay. Uh I guess that's okay. Sure. Mr. Nixon, how would you vote? >> I think uh Mr. Litzfield hit the nail on the head. It would be very difficult using our criteria to say that this is substantially more detrimental to the
neighborhood. might be a little bit or you know Jenny's point is very good yours point very good but I can't put those points into the substantial category so I would be voting in favor of this application
>> sure okay Paul >> I agree with Mr. Nixon >> and Lee, you do too. >> I do too. >> Yeah. And Jenny, what about you? >> Well, the substantial part is I think um the the crux of it. Um I, as I
mentioned, would like to see it be a more traditional Greek revival. Um but I'm also reminded by Mr. Lichfield that the historic commission while it was historic and it is 1920 it's not his it's not been rendered historically um
significant um by them and we listen to them uh today based on the changes that were made in 2013. So um I I would love to see the uh a deeper uh setback to the front but I would not say that it's
substantially more detrimental. So, if I stick to my opinion, I won't blow up your >> As long as you vote last, Madam Chairman, that's fine by me. >> Yeah. All right. I'm in the mood to do it. >> Do we non voters get to to appine or >> We already know your opinion. >> We already know.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Well, I just say with my experience, I I I would have fallen in with what Mr. Nixon had to say. I I just don't think it meets the substantial part enough for me. That's all. >> And I didn't vote yet. I just threatened it. So, it doesn't matter anyway. You
know, it didn't matter in the last application. It doesn't matter in this one. So, that's all right. Um, so Paul, >> um, I'll move to approve the application as submitted with the conditions that all construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at a
neighboring property with the permission of the property owner that between June 30th and Labor Day, no exterior construction will be allowed. No work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8 a.m. and 5:00 p. p.m. only. Mr. Nixon, >> I second that motion to vote yes. All
>> votes yes. >> I vote yes. Judy votes yes. >> And I'm just going to vote no for the record. >> Thank you very much. We time. >> Very good. >> All right, we're going to take a short break and we will see you back on the other side. Uh 4:00, maybe 4:05.
H Hearnden Care of James North Cross Esquire PO Box 707 Chattam Mass 02633 owners of property located at 18 Old Warf Road also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 16I block 12 lot 9 the applicant proposes to change alter
or expand a non-conforming dwelling in a non-conforming lot via the construction of a partial second floor addition and construction of a detached garage. The existing dwelling is non-conforming and that it is located 26.4 ft from the road where a 40ft setback is required and
15.7 ft from the Westerly butter. The propo proposed addition will be non-conforming and that it will be located 15.7 ft from the Westerly butter where a 25 foot setback is required. The proposed detached garage will comply with road and butter setback requirements. The existing building
coverage is 1,792 ft and the proposed building coverage is 2,378 square ft where 2,900 ft is the maximum allowed. The lot is non-conforming in that it contains 22,596 ft where 40,000 feet is required in the
R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of protected bylaw. >> Welcome gentlemen. >> Thank you. Uh good afternoon. Jamie Norcross representing Russ and Jennifer Hearnen. Uh Russ is in the audience today in the gray sweater on the left.
Uh Jennifer looks like she is logged in uh remotely. Uh with me is Chris Cannon who's the architect for the project. Um before jumping into the presentation, I just want to address one of the procedural items since I know the zoning board likes to go last in terms of the regulatory review. Um the the part of
the project the garage is located within the conservancy or the setback for the conservation commission. Uh we have not yet been to the conservation commission. Uh when we filed the zoning application, we thought the notice of intent would be filed around the same time. Uh there was a delay in getting the mitigation
planting plan completed which is required for their filing. So we have not yet been to the conservation commission. Um I believe our hearing date is going to be December 17th. Um, with the board's approval, we would like to present today at the very least and and go through the project if that's agreeable.
>> It's agreeable. >> Excellent. Thank you. Uh, so Russ and Jennifer uh, purchased this property back in 2021. Uh, their goal is to relocate to Chadam on a full-time basis in the not tooistant future. Um, this addition, which Chris is going to explain in more detail, is to create
additional living area at the home along with a full-size garage uh, with their upcoming relocation in mind. Um the site may not look that challenging but there are some challenging aspects to development on it. Uh just going to find
here uh there is a view easement that you see here in the dash lines that runs across pretty much the middle of the property and that's for the benefit of the abuter at 714 Old Harbor Road. And so um you really can't expand the structure uh in that area due to the
view easement. And so horizontal expansion is pretty much impossible that direction in terms of attaching to the existing structure. And so uh the plan became to work within the existing footprint of the dwelling which they're doing here with the second story
addition and then moving uh the proposed garage south of the easement area that you see here further toward the back of the lot. Uh just wanted to run through a few numbers with you in terms of nonconformities. Uh the the lot is non-conforming. It has
22,000 square ft. Uh 40,000 ft is required. Existing structures non-conforming is located 26.4 ft from Old Warf Road where a 40ft setback is required and is located 15.7 ft from the west lot line where a 25 ft setback is required. As I just mentioned, the
proposed addition will maintain the existing footprint of the dwelling. So, it's going to remain non-conforming to the west lot line, but it's not going any closer to that lot line. The proposed garage will meet all dimensional setbacks. The total building coverage is increasing from 7.9% to
10.5% and that's as a result of the proposed uh garage space. In terms of gross floor area, it's a 1,500 square ft increase. I did want to note that 600 ft² is for the addition to the house and the 900 ft is for the garage because uh
Chris is counting the garage itself as well as a storage area above. And so that results in a larger number than you might expect for the garage space. So, and that also results in that number, I think, being a bit larger than than um may look uh when you when you view the
plans. Uh so, with that, I'd ask Chris to please go through the design. Thank you. Um so, you know, my charge was to uh to take a master bedroom and fit it above the rear portion of the of
the house. Uh the front portion of the house is uh is considered historic. It's a 1947 cottage. Uh the house has been built on I think uh I think it was added to at least two times and then it's been remodeled probably two or three times as
well. So uh you know we we wanted to keep it towards the back, not affect the the front portion of the house. Little bit of a challenge, but um I think it was able to to somewhat pull it off by having it recessed u you know in in elevation. it's going to look uh like
it's overtaking things, but in reality, I think it it's uh actually uh being set back from the street will will fit in quite quite well. Um, I, you know, dealt with it as with a sort of salt box, uh, look on the side so that I could also,
uh, give the impact to the neighbors, uh, a little bit less with a big heavy wall, but, you know, give it a little roof line that that looked like it was coming down more to the, uh, the first floor level. So, um, you know, the whole purpose of this is to get a master
bedroom upstairs with a b bathroom that's absolutely dedicated to that instead of, uh, the room that they currently have on the first floor that's dedicated to, uh, any guests or anybody roaming around the first floor and one of the other bedrooms. Um, and, uh, you
know, upstairs they're able to get more storage space uh, for for clothing and whatnot. And and then you I think one of the nicer features is that they will be able to to gain their view to the water uh from the second floor that is a little bit compromised from the first.
>> Okay, >> great. Thank you Chris. Uh so moving along to the criteria. Uh number one, adequacy of the size of the site. Uh we believe the site is adequate for this proposal. Uh the proposed addition to the house is confined within the existing footprint. Uh the building
coverage is increasing, but we're still over 500 square feet below the maximum allowed for this property. Uh we are not creating any additional non-conformities with respect to the se to the setbacks for the house and the garage uh will meet all butter setbacks. Compatibility of the size of the proposed structure
with neighboring properties. Uh I'd suggest the proposed home is compatible in terms of size with the neighboring properties. Uh I did prepare a gross floor area analysis that's attached to the end of my handout and you can see uh reviewing that those numbers that I think we are quite compatible with
neighboring property some of which are quite quite large some of which are smaller and I think we fall somewhere in the in the middle uh using that metric extent of the proposed increase in non-conforming nature of the structure of use. I I'd say the only increase is that we are adding a second story within
the setback to the west lot line. But again, we're not creating any further encroachments into that setback or any other setback. Suitability of the site. Uh we believe the site is suitable for the project. The only portion that um is going to be reviewed by the conservation commission is the proposed garage which
is located within the 100 foot setback uh to the wetland. Um that is currently uh lawn area. So we don't think it's going to be a significant hurdle with the conservation commission for approval for that structure. Number five, impact of scale sighting and mass. Uh I'd suggest there's no negative impact on
neighborhood visual character. The proposed addition uh while increasing the height of that section is is just over 26 feet in height. So it's well below the 30-foot maximum. Uh as Chris indicated, he did the the design with the dormers on the rear to mitigate uh
the additional massing as seen from the neighboring property. Uh if you've been to the site, which I'm sure you've had, you've seen there's significant vegetation surrounding the property, which helps to screen the structure from neighboring properties. Also, by using a detached garage, it lessens the massing that might be encountered if you were to
have a garage attached to the existing building. Uh I would note u as uh the chair will read into the record, the three immediate abuters, including the folks at 714 Old Harbor Road that are closest to the addition all have written in support of the project today. Number
six, uh this is a residential use and is remaining a residential use, so it's compatible. Number seven, uh it has a title 5 system is connected to town water and there are no issues with drainage and I would suggest 8 9 10 11 and 12 are not applicable. Um so again,
it's a change I think working with what really is a bit of a difficult site. Um Chris has come up with a design that allows for that additional room on the second floor for a true uh master bedroom and we certainly think it is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you very much. Especially
for the 8 9 10 11 and 12 pot. Um >> help where I can. Yeah. >> Yeah. Well done. So um is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams who wish to speak in favor? If so, make it known. No. No. Okay. So, we have uh six letters
to read and uh first one is from Judith Giorgio, November 18th, 2025. She has no concerns for this existing three-bedroom dwelling. No living space or plumbing proposed in detached garage. Christina Bassid from the um
historic um tells us that uh on October 31, 2025, the commission found this home not historically significant and therefore did not impose impose a demolition delay. Then we have a note
from the uh conservation. The applicant will need to submit a notice of intent. We already know about that and that was received uh on uh Halloween as well, 2025. Kate Walsh and Eric Gopstead
um wrote in on November 16, 2025 and they say that they live next door to Russ and Jennifer Hearnen. They are writing to offer this strong support and this is in uh bold type for this part
for their renovation project on 18 Old Warf Road North Chattam. From the outset, we've been impressed by the care and attention they have demonstrated as they carefully restore the home. They propose is what they propose is in step
with uh 18 old warf road making it their permanent home. We live on 714 Old Harbor Road. So naturally we are concerned about construction in our backyard. Um and it was explained to them uh what was going to be done and
the renderings uh were were deemed by them to be completely consistent with uh the home's character and more important the dimensions and characteristics of their home on Old Warf. Um we know you have many uh factors to consider um and
we appreciate your efforts and believe that the H. uh renovation is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Next, Jeffrey Campbell from November 14th, 2025 says, "Hello, we are abutddters to 18
Old Warf Road at 700 Old Harbor Road. Having seen the proposed plans, we have no objection and we support the changes." Marilyn and Bob Zoka right on no let's see November 10th 2025 that
they support the renovations uh they currently own both 30 Old Warf and 90 and they had the opportunity to discuss the plans and see the drawings uh walk through the premises they were shown around and they believe that the
renovations will be in keeping and they strongly support the project. Now, is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that has a question or wants to speak against the application? Now's your time.
Okay. Questions from the board. I'm going to do the Are there any? Oh, yes. What? Of course. >> Um Chris, what are the ceiling heights in the that upstairs master bedroom of the
>> Oh gosh. Um, >> it looked like on one of the renderings it was seven and 3/4 or >> I'm guessing I put in 78 cuz that's sort of a typical for me. Um, >> but it looked like it was also maybe a cathedral sort of. >> Oh, no. It's a it's 7 foot three and 3/4
uh to the to the ceiling. Then it it's lofted with the beams. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um, is there any room to reduce that uh uh and stay in code compliance for building. Ye
>> yes and no. Uh in order for me to structure to to have a door that goes out to this deck, I needed it uh to be a certain height. And while I can stick a header up inside the roof, uh it looks like I'm already pretty close. So to
drop that down uh would be a challenge. >> You're not wrong. And it's basically um on the back elevation. It's basically sort of centered so that it works with the back elevation. So >> So that's the west elevation. So is that
door there for a balcony for a view? Is that why that's doors needs to be there? Okay. >> Yes. >> So part of the door is driving the height a little bit. >> A little bit, but I mean it's still a pretty low wall. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Anybody else? Anybody else have a question? If not, we're gonna move along. >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> I'll second that and vote yes. >> All votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> As do I. Okay. Now, we're going to do
deliberations. Um let's start with Mr. Beach. Uh well, what I like about this is the um uh it it's it's these sort of smaller elements of the pieces of the building and and um
this this part is popping up and uh I think and it's not in the same sort of size relationship as the rest of the I think it looks great. I think it's a you know you can see an evolution of the building, I guess you'd say. and and I I
think it's it's a nice design. Accomplishes what they'd like. Certainly not substantially more detrimental in any way. Um I think it's has the support of the neighbors. Uh and if I were voting, I would support it.
>> Mr. Nixon, >> well, I take a little different tact than Mr. V. The evolution is obvious. All right. But when I look at our criteria and I'll start backwards and work forward.
The impact of scale sighting and mass on neighborhood visual character. This design where it's one level and then all of a sudden you get another level here. To me it it is totally out of the visual
character of that neighborhood when you look around and see what else is there. Number two, the suitability of the site. Well, as I think Mr. Norcross pointed out, it's very limited the site as to what
you can do. And that forces you into what I just described in number five as being I think unacceptable. And number two, compatibility of the size of the proposed structure with their neighboring properties. That's the
same thing as I said with number five. I don't see it. I don't see it at all. It It doesn't fit. It is not compatible. And uh I do believe this is a excellent example of something that is substantially detrimental to the
neighborhood. >> Okay. Uh let's see, Steve. >> Well, I guess I I kind of feel the same way. Uh to me the addition is overwhelming um the original u cottage of the house.
I I think it I don't think it it matches its architecture. Um and I I don't like very much about the way this is being done at all. So I think it's also detrimental. >> And Lee,
you're voting. >> Yeah. Um, well, can I say I love the garage? >> Yeah, >> it's a very traditional Cape style. I think it's great and hopefully conservation will approve that um
easily. The um it's it's it's not it's not even that tall of a building. the new edition. It's It's But I think it's in relation to the old cottage that makes it a little bit more look like it's overtaking things.
And I would like to see it, and I totally appreciate wanting a master bedroom and having a view, but I would love to see it integrated with the older cottage a little bit better. I think that would help with the mass
um and fitting into the neighborhood. >> Uh let's see, Paul. >> Well, I guess I agree with my colleagues a little bit when I look at this southeast view. Uh it just seems to me as if it's too big a structure going too
high for that location and the neighborhood. Um, so I'm uh somewhat of the same view that it needs to be uh reduced or downsized a bit in order to fit into the neighborhood. >> Jenny,
>> yeah, I I agree with my colleagues, too. I I want to love it because I love the cottage. Um, but I think that the addition um, Chris, I understand the challenges that you had with the view easement and all of that, but um, I do
feel it's a little bit like the tail is wagging the dog. I mean, the the additions are often times subordinate and and the fact that this is in the back, but I just think it's it's too it's it's not helping the cottage. I think it's taking away from the cottage,
which is absolutely wonderful. So I think my my first thought when I looked at it was criteria five. It's a little too much mass albeit in the back um on the n on the visual character of the neighborhood.
>> So um I have to go along with my colleagues. I'm not going to expound on any of it because I don't think uh it was >> just if I could just touch on one point in terms of I I understand your comments on the design. I guess I'm confused on the size relative to the the scale with the neighborhood. But when you look around the neighborhood, there's a lot
of big properties, >> a lot of big homes. Look across the street. >> Uh we're significantly smaller than that. So, I'm not sure how the size is out of character with the neighborhood. >> Maybe it's just the way it's, you know, presented on the lot, >> you know, with the back being, you know,
so big and then the cars being smaller. It's I'm going to call it awkward, >> okay? >> You know, and it matters. So, um yeah, it's a great street. And when I first looked at it too, I said, "Oh my god, the houses are so big. How could you ever, you know, whatever they want to do
there?" It seems at first glance it's okay, but then if you really take a look at it, um, do you want to withdraw or do you want to vote? >> Uh, we don't want to vote. Um, I guess there'll probably be more significant changes than a continuence
would allow. So, um, we would ask to, uh, withdraw without prejudice. >> Yeah, sure. Paul, >> I'll move to grant the requested withdrawal without prejudice. >> I second that and vote yes. >> All votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> Jenny votes yes
>> as do I. Thank you very much and we'll see you next time. All right. Now we're going to go over to 83 Pine Grove Road for addition and deck.
Application number 25-095 James Dempsey and Heidi Pitcher care of George Riley 63 Brook Trail Road Brewster Mass 02631. Owners of property located at 83 Pine Grove Road also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map
9A block 2 lot age 60. The applicant seeks to enlarge, extend, or change a conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the construction of an addition and deck. The proposed addition and deck will comply with all bulk and dimensional requirements of the bylaw, but is considered a substantial alteration and under the second accept
clause of section 6 of Mass General Law Chapter 4A requires the grant of a special permit. The existing building building coverage is 15553 ft 12.94% and the proposed building coverage is 1,800
square ft 15% where 15% is the maximum allowed. The law is non-conforming and it contains 12,000 square ft where 20,000 ft is required in the R20 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw.
>> Welcome sir. >> Thank you. This is uh I'm George Riley representing the uh Dempsey's. Um the proposal here is to uh expand the uh uh kitchen and dining area in the first floor in the rear of the house. It's a
247 foot uh expansion and with a 10-ft deck. Um the um the uh setback and building coverage are within the uh bylaw there. There's no
nonconformities proposed. Uh and there's no non-conformities in that area existing. So u and if we look up here, can we go back to the site plan? Ah, there you go. So the the proposal is in
the rear of the house. It's invisible from the road. It's also invisible from uh the parcel to the uh to the north uh west there uh because of the extension of the garage and there's no no one in
partial the parcel in the rear that's a conservation trust land and the parcel to the other side is well vegetated with trees. So the uh the proposed uh uh project is virtually invisible to almost
all the butters. Um so the uh so that is pretty much >> Yeah. You and you gave written findings too which is great. Um you know it's a simple project. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> So can we wave the should I go through the criteria? I I don't I don't think
it's necessary because you did give us the written findings and um >> so I think we'll stop it at that if that's okay with you. >> Okay. >> Yeah. All right. Is there anybody here in Microsoft Teams that wish to speak in favor of the application? If so, please
uh raise your hand. >> Seeing none, I will read the correspondences. And there is one from our health agent who has no concerns. November 18th, 2025. Judith Giorgio, of course. All right. Is
there anybody here on Microsoft Teams wish to speak against the application or has a question? >> No. All right. Are there any questions from the board? >> Just one comment. >> Yeah, of course.
>> Uh George, just our standard Well, I see that you're right up against a 15% um maximum lot coverage. So you want to be very careful not to exceed that. >> Right. So we've been quite careful with that because uh we took the plans and
ran them by the surveyor and the state to make sure that we were within the 15%. >> Great. >> Well, I guess we'll have to be equally careful in the construction, too. So >> yeah. Yeah, good point. Um okay, so um
Paul, >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. I'll second that and vote yes. >> All votes yes. >> I vote yes. Jenny votes yes. >> As do I. All right. Who wants to say it for us? >> Anybody want to say it? >> Oh, go ahead.
>> I'll look at it as certainly not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. So, I I think it satisfies our criteria. >> All right, Dave, what do you think? >> I agree. It's it's it's good. Very good. >> Yeah. Mr. Nixon, >> 100% agree.
>> And Lee I agree. It's a great uh way to get a little bit of a larger kitchen. It's great. >> Yeah, Steve. >> Yeah. >> Agree. >> And Jenny, >> I agree with my colleagues. >> As do I. Okay.
>> I'll move to approve the application as submitted with their standard conditions that all construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at an property with the permission of the property owner. That between June 30th and Labor Day, no exterior construction will be allowed. No work shall be permitted on the weekends and
construction activity between 8 a.m. and 5:00 pm only. >> I second that and vote yes. >> All votes yes. >> I vote yes. Jenny votes yes. >> As do I. Congratulations. It's unanimous. >> Thank you. >> All right. Now we are going to go to 127
Stage Harbor Road. >> Application number 25-090. Susan Propes and Anthony Grim, care of William F. Fry Esquire PO Box 707 Chadam Mass 02633 owners of property located at 127 stage Harbor Road also shown on the town of
Chadam's assessor's map 14D block 21 lot 14B the applicant proposes to change alter or expand a non-conforming dwelling in a non-conforming lot the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a new dwelling. The existing dwelling is non-conforming and that it is located 20 ft from the
coastal conservancy district. the proposed dwelling will be non-conforming and that it will be located 35.6 ft from the coastal conservancy district where a 50-ft setback is required. The existing building coverage is 2,479 ft 16.6%
and the proposed building coverage is 2576 ft 17.2% where 15% but not more than 2800 ft is the maximum allowed. The law is non-conforming and that it contains 14,956
square ft of buildable upland where 20,000 ft is required in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5 via the protected bylaw. Welcome folks. >> Uh good afternoon, Bill Riley on behalf
of Susie Pro and her husband Tony. They're back here driven all the way up from Pennsylvania just to see how the magic works here. >> And who do you have with you? This is Bernardet Mloud. Okay. >> He has designed the house. >> Welcome.
>> That's in front of you. So, some of you may recall that this property was before you several years ago. The uh and your comments at that time were that the
building was simply too large. Uh, and so Susie and Tony, you know, took that stuff to heart and worked with u Bernardet uh to come up with a design that they
think really fits with the neighborhood. And so we want to point out a couple of things before Bernardet starts. And that is that one of our neighbors, uh, Mr. Williams or Ed Warren, excuse me, uh was very
concerned about the proximity of the uh of the house to their property. Uh and they were concerned that the previous iteration had a twotory section at that end.
Uh so that would be it, you know, the upper end of the design as you see it there. Do you have the uh front elevation? >> Yeah, there you go. That's the one we want. The U. All right. So
the section on the right hand side, as you look at the this is only 20 feet tall. uh the from the top of foundation and that's going to be important because
we have a sloping lot. So that from the grade plane is taller but the actual structure from top of foundation to the ridge at that end is only 20 feet. The ridge for the main section
is 25t 2 in. 2510 >> 2510, excuse me. And then the ridge on the left hand side is 25 ft from the top of foundation.
And the the um uh so I'm going to ask Bernardet to run through the design and then we'll go through the criteria. >> Hi. Um so the the grim pro uh probes came to me with their concerns from the
neighbors and what was previously um not not felt to be appropriate for the site and that um the neighbor was complaining. So we took the section that faces the neighbor and reduced it from 28 feet tall to 20 feet tall for for a
length of 26 feet. And that's the the left elevation. So the second one down on the left, that's what faces the neighbor for 26 feet where previously it was a full twostory
gambrell looking down at his cottage. So we tried to accommodate exactly what he asked for. Uh the previous design that was undesirable had five bedrooms, two bunk rooms, a den and an office and
seven bedroom, seven bathrooms. We have reduced it by 1,000 square ft and we are five bedrooms and five bathrooms and there's five bedrooms there now. I don't know how many bathrooms. So we've cut four rooms out of the house.
Um you know we we the upstairs um that again felt they felt that it was too big was 2350 for the second floor. Our second floor is 1440.
So we've cut cut the second floor by 910 square ft and we are only 87 square feet larger in site coverage than what's there now. So, um, you know, it's a traditional design. We went from a
gambrell, which was not desirable by some members, to more of a cape with a dormer. While we still had to add some dormers, we in the back, I added some gable dormers to the back, which faces
the road. And um when I drove down, there's another house that has two gables facing um the the the stage harbor side that faces the water and that's where the view is. So we've gone
out of our way and really tried to listen to what the neighbor said and listen to what the board said, even though I wasn't a part of of that um at the last meeting. I I don't know if any of you were, but um while still giving
them the the room that they need. They have a large family and they want to relocate here full-time and they're 87 square feet larger than what's there now on the first floor. So, uh thank you Bernardet. So
adequacy of the size of the site uh in terms of the size of their proposed use the uh so in this section because of the wetlands on the property uh we're limited to 2,800 square ft
uh of coverage and we're proposing uh 2540 square ft which is an increase 61 square ft over the existing building and 336 square ft less than the earlier
proposal. The total area of our lot is over 19,000 square ft. The building meets all setbacks and height requirements and we are doubling the distance from the flood plane from 20t to 40 ft.
The previous design had 4,775 square feet on the first and second floor. This proposal has 3,724 square feet, a 1,000 square foot redemp
redemp reduction. And a major part of that is in the second floor where our the square footage is only 1,400 square feet. the extent of the proposed increase in non-conforming news use
because we are increasing the living area over the existing structure. That's an increase in the nonconformity. Otherwise, you know, we meet the um meet or exceed the previous setbacks. suitability of the site including but
not limited to impact on neighboring properties or on the natural environment including slopes, vegetation, wetlands, groundwater, water bodies. So we the previous design had gone to the uh conservation commission and they had
entered an order that was uh was designed to protect make sure there's no runoff or sedimentation. But of course the actual wetlands are are divided from the property by stage haba road. Um
the apparently we're a little past the date on that one. Although I thought we had u enough waiverss because of the changes. You know, there was a a delay because of the co I thought gave us
enough time, but apparently we'll have to go back to them with a new plan to show them uh our reduced footprint. But we think that the site is suitable as we did last time. Impact of scale sighting and mass on
neighborhood visual character including views, vistas, and streetscapes. the uh this is a more traditional design uh and we've removed the gable pardon me the gamrell portions uh and we've
significantly reduced the second floor the uh the building in addition to being screened by mature ve vegetation from the street is also 59 ft back from the street line. The applicant believes that the scale sighting a mass of the
proposed building will not have a negative impact on the visual character of the neighborhood, including views of vistas. That's principally because there's a lot of vegetation on this property. If you if you recall from your visit there,
there's vegetation that uh shields this property from the house above it, which is 125. uh and there's a lot of vegetation very mature vegetation that shields the house uh from the street as well. So
uh we think that you know this design with this reduction particularly reduction in the size of the second floor uh is is you know is suitable and certainly is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the
existing structure. So, six, seven, eight, nine, and 10. >> Very good. >> All right. Uh, is anybody here on Microsoft Teams
willing to speak in favor today? No. Seeing none, I will read the correspondences. There are a bunch. Let's see. Christina Basset. On November 18th, 2025, the CHC
found the home historically significant and imposed a 12 month demolition delay. The commission hopes that the owner will reconsider fully demolishing the structure and save most of the historic structure. Um, maybe incorporating new
additions. Judith Giorgio, a health agent, has no concerns about the proposal. The project is on town sewer and is approve approved for five bedrooms. That was on November 18th, 2025.
The conservation commission writes on October 31, 2025. Looks like you have to go back basically with your new plan like you said. Uh so you'll need to submit a request to amend the order of conditions for the changes. Um, then we
have a memorandum from Edward Warren and David Preston. The carriage house condominiums received on November 18th, 2025. This is the one that I do have to read. This one right here. Right. >> Yeah. It's a little bit too long. So,
I'm going to summarize some of it because as we've said before, we have a a one page 11 font uh limit, but I I can easily summarize it because of the way they laid it out. Their perspective um
is that um 127's design is a classic Cape Cod style and an improvement over the earlier format from 2022. What was achieved through the redesign is a building with familiar Cape Cod features on the land side that adds a
few key key style updates on the water side provide more contemporary flourish appropriate for this waterfront location. Um we gave a roof design instead of the gambrell helps make the home more compatible with nearby homes
on stage harbor road. That was not however the point of view and opinion of the historical commission on October 7th. Their desire was to see the existing 1905 small cape rebuilt and restored uh genuine that was they say
that that uh opinion was genuine and unanimous. But it'll be a challenge for the architect to design something that surrounds the old cape, works for a modern family, and doesn't look like hodge podge. um small close-knit
location. The closeness of four homes 117, 115, 125, and 127 in this mini neighborhood on Stage Harbor Road will always mean traffic flow, pedestrian safety, and proximity of buildings to each other. That'll always be a concern.
The September 2025 version appears to have made some improvements. Um, a more detailed review and examination to be certain uh is required. Users of 127 enter from the southside entrance by the
mailbox on stage road and leave over 115 117 on the north. That heavily heavy used passageway is employed by residents and guests of four homes um and it's uh many vehicles uh especially midseason.
So, the final design plans for cars parking need to take this into account so cars don't park or bunch up uh right where 127's vehicle joined the right of way at the juncture. Uh and the apron edge of the long driveway for 127
entering the south should be widened just a bit. Um the landscape of large trees, shrubs are important features. Three large trees, especially the giant Lynden tree by the northeast corner, need to be trimmed and handled. Roof
height, the one area where the September 2025 redesign has its weakest feature is the overall height. The proposed main gable roof is 29 ft high, while the southside wing over the sun room appears
to be 28, and the north side gable over the master bedroom suite appears to be 26. These roof heights measurements are substantially higher than the existing dwelling. They could be lowered without doing harm to overall design. We recommend roof heights for each section
be reduced 10 to 15%. In summary, on balance, we offer a qualified endorsement to the plans to demolish and build a new home pending discussion and clarifications on the November 2025 ZBA meeting. The proposed design plans in
September are impro are an improvement, but there are many loose ends that have to be discussed and clarified. Next, Gerald and Ned Williams from 125 Stage Harbor Road. Right. We are as
director Butters to 127 um uh to we write to share our thoughts on the proposed raise and rebuild before the board. Our neighborhood is known for its distinctive chhattam character. While we understand a homeowner's desire to update and replace an aging structure,
we are concerned the height, style, and location of the proposed new home would adversely impact our property and the neighborhood as a whole. Its proposed location and height would directly affect our privacy, natural light, and views. We purchased our home because of the neighborhood's character, its views
to oyster pond, and the privacy that has long existed between our property and neighboring homes. The proposed raise and rebuild would significantly alter that experience. Preserving the neighborhood's character does not mean preventing change. It simply means
ensuring that new construction respects the neighbors and reflects the scale and style that make the area unique. We respectfully ask the board to consider whether adjustments to the project's height or massing could help it better complement the traditional Chattam
context that surrounds it. And again, that was from Ned and Gerald Williams. Okay. Senny and Associates. Now, this is rather long. I'm just going to look out into the audience. Is there any Yes, you
have a choice. I read your letter or you talk. >> I can talk. Very good. Um I think that might conclude that was it? Yeah. Very good. >> All right.
Yep. Good. All right. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that have a question or wants to speak against? Yes, please. Uh, good afternoon members of the board. For the record, my name is Jack Hurnen. I'm an attorney with Sen Associates in
Brewster, and I'm here this afternoon on behalf of Gerald and Ned Williams of 125 Stage Harbor Road, who are directs to the um proposed project. Um, there are really three concerns that the Williams family has at this time. um the
neighborhood character impact on views and vistas from their property and the loss of privacy um that would result um from from approving this project. Um to begin with the character, Williams family bought their house just a few years ago uh just in in during the
pandemic. Um and you know in part because of the the character and the of the neighborhood and the uniqueness of the um 125 stage harbor lot that they that they purchased. Um, and while the Williams family appreciates the applicant's need to renovate, um, a
change of this magnitude to such a historic home should be done so with care and they they believe that as as of now that burden has not been met by the applicant. Um, speaking to the views, the Williams family has a view of the
water just across Stage Harbor Road. Um, it's important to them. it's it's a part of, you know, their everyday lives, especially when they have family there in the summertime. Um, and it's valuable to the property as well. It's it's one of the main reasons that they bought it. Uh, and you know, while the applicant
has stated that the height is is only going up seven feet or so, I I really want you to look at the the south side of the uh the dwelling where the sun room is because I mean this is the part
of the dwelling that uh is most in view uh for the Williams family right now when they look across Stage Harbor. Um, and it doesn't really have much of an impact on them because, you know, it's so low and and there's pretty good amount of vegetation there. Um, if we
are able to pull up uh the site plan, I think that would be helpful. Um, I also did in uh include a picture um I don't know if if members of the board have it at this time um from uh the backyard of
the the Williams household. Um >> don't forget you have a time limit. >> Yes. Yeah. Um, so you know, I think shifting There you go. So, where the sun room is now would go up substantially and then the entire project would shift
over 11 ft closer uh in the southern direction. Um, so it's going further into where the view is uh that the Williams family has. Um, and uh, you know, privacy. I think there are concerns about going up in height and then looking directly into the the yard
of the the Williams. Um it kind of it's it's an awkward kind of uh fit with where the Williams house is and where this uh would be going up in height. So I just want the board to consider that as well. Um and also going on with privacy, it's it's unclear whether
vegetation would have to be removed uh for the for the renovation. And I was hoping that um you can speak to that um today because uh you know going up in height and then potentially removing some vegetation would would have an impact as well. Um and to date I haven't
really seen any uh mitigation plan from the applicant um as far as you know new vegetation. Um, I think it would also be helpful for the Williams family to see a little bit more work um, in terms of maybe a height study um, potentially
getting a a balloon that goes up uh, 29 ft um, where the sun room currently is and then um, for the entire length of the area that is would really be impacting them. Um, so those are those are the things that Williams family would like to see at this time. Um and
uh as I said before, we feel that uh this would be detrimental to the neighborhood and specifically the views and vistas and uh vegetation sections of the criteria. Um so thank you >> and thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak against or has
a question? Yes, sir. >> Good afternoon, Madam Chairman. Bill Lichfield here on behalf of Ed Warren at 115 and David Preston. uh you did read their letter or summarized it and we appreciate that. Uh as they indicated, this is an improvement or what was proposed two years ago, but there are
still some concerns uh their comments and I know you the board members read the full documents, made some some suggestions which I think indicated their willingness to work with the applicants, but that hasn't
happened. Um, I sent council on October 29th a list of requests and matters to discuss. I had absolutely no response. Uh, my friend Bernardet uh said that they took the neighbors comments into
consideration except there was no discussion with the neighbors. She also said that there was a reduction that things were cut. If I come to you right now and I've got a 1,000 square foot house and I was here two years ago with an 8,000 square foot house that you
thought was too much and I come back to you with a 2,000 square foot house, I could blightly tell you I'm reducing it by 75%. I'm not. I'm doubling it from 1,000 because that's what's there now to
2,000. So to talk about what's been cut is sort of irrelevant. So we we reiterate the adequ or concern about the adequacy of the size of the house. Yes, it's going it's below the maximum, but it's going up 7 and 1/2 ft with a very
significant increase in gross gross floor area from 2300 square ft to 6,100 square ft. The number that's on the first page of the application is simply erroneous. I trust that Sarah corrected it, but that's not the gross floor area. The gross floor area is 6,94 square ft
by my math. The impact on streetscape should be reviewed more thoroughly and part of that relates to another mandatory consideration the effect on the natural environment of which the three large trees particularly the lynen tree are critical part. U there are as Mr. Warren and Mr. Preston have said
many unanswered questions and details to be resolved. We have concerns about adequacy. We have concerns about compatibility of size. couple of doors down, uh, we got a 50,000 square foot lot with living area of 2,800 square ft.
Here we have a lot a third of that size. Um, which is going up to 3729 square ft of living area. Uh, the concern about the the large trees particularly the massive Lynden should be addressed. The increase in height
will have an impact on streetscape. The bylaw says that one of its purposes is preservation of architectural and historical assets of the community for current and future inhabitants. The effect on the streetscape, even if the the trees and the arbor are retained,
will be significant. As the board may recall, uh, a couple of years ago when this property was before you, uh, some of you pointed out that we as a board don't make too many mistakes, but just around the corner at the corner of Pond Street and Stage Traber Road, there's a
mistake. I don't think you want to make I know you don't want another mistake in this neighborhood. The detrimental effect of the neighborhood is not determined by the opinions of the neighbors. Yet you have a group of neighbors who have concerns about this property, none of which have been
addressed with the neighbors. You ultimately make the decision, but detrimental effect the neighborhood can be found. Given that the historical commission has imposed a delay of one year, nothing can happen for a year. And I would respectfully suggest to you that
you urge the applicant to continue this matter for two or three months and actually sit down and discuss with the neighbors the legitimate concerns that the neighbors have. My clients appreciate that this is a better design
than that which was proposed two years ago. But that doesn't mean that there has been the adequate communication, the adequate discussion, the adequate concern for the several criteria in the bylaw which are mandatory. So while we
appreciate the fact that this is not the plan that was before you two years ago, nothing has been cut, everything is being increased. It may well ultimately be satisfactory, but there are a lot of concerns in this very tight neighborhood which ought to
be addressed before the special permit is granted. And I thank you. >> And thank you. Um, let's just make sure. Yes. Does anybody else want to speak against? I have a question. Yes, sir. >> Okay. >> For the record, Brian Phillips, 374 Road. I guess my first issue doesn't
meet the flood zone setbacks. You guys know where I stand there. Uh it's historic and because it's historic, it already um is over the building coverage uh requirements. And I just don't think you should be able to tear down an historic building and then build uh a
new house that is over the uh lot coverage. Does that make sense? >> Sure. >> All right. Thanks. Anybody else want to speak against or has a specific question either here or on Microsoft Teams? No, Mr. Riley,
please. >> Well, the uh you know, of course, the uh it would be the rare applicant before you. it wasn't proposing an increase
in these older buildings. You know, Mr. Glitchfield's clients, you know, may feel that there shouldn't be any increase, but we know that virtually every single applicant that's
been here, particularly those that are here today, every single one of them wanted an increase in the living area. And so the real question for you, I think, is not whether these folks are offended because
we didn't return their call. We know where they stand and our design is protects their concerns. So with regard to um
the Williams, can you put up the picture again without even dealing with the McKenna decision? You know, when you look at the the substantial mature growth, none of which
is being removed, uh the only view that the Williams have is to the left, and we're not impinging on that in any way at all. Another thing is, you know, they everybody keeps talking about it's 29
ft. Well, it's not 29 ft. Yeah, it was 29 ft from the average grade plane, but the height from the top of foundation is 25 ft 10 in. And on the side of Mr. Lichfield's
clients is 20 ft. And there are no windows on that side facing Mr. Lichfield's clients. So when Bernardet said we took into consideration what the neighbors said
that design on the that side of the house was solely to redee relieve the concerns that Mr. Warren had uh regarding that side of the
house. So, uh, we we were paying attention to that and the, you know, the concern about removing vegetation. We're not going to remove any vegetation.
You know, it's all there. It's all mature. You know, if we ran into a problem on the construction side, you know, but we love the giant Lynden tree in the northeast corner. and we're going to do everything we can to make sure that nothing happens to it as we are with all
the other mature uh vegetation on the property. So, I think the the fact that there's been a substantial reduction since the previous iteration here,
you know, and for Mr. Litfield to bring up the house in the corner of Pawn Street and Stage Java Road. I think is classic irony.
You know, we removed the Gamberell design, reduced the second floor of the building by over,000 square feet, so it's only 1,400 square feet on the second floor. This is really a very modest house.
25 feet 10 in from the top of foundation. So it's not 29 feet tall, it's 25 ft tall or 25 ft 10 in. So and on the side facing Mr. Warren, it's 20 feet tall. So
uh you know because we're not removing any of the vegetation, we're not changing anybody's view or vista. They're all going to remain the same. And so I think the the uh
you know in in the red herring of the historic aspect of this building, this building currently is like an abortion. They they added here, they added there. There's very little of the original structure still visible.
The south end is pretty much what the original building was, but everything north of that has been modified. The roof line is different. There's a, you know, sort of a hodge podge design, adding a
second floor with additional bedrooms, but there's no coherent flow on that on the on the uh design of that because just because of the way it was added on. So what Bernardet has done is she's brought in a
modest traditional New England design that takes care of the concerns or deals with the concerns of Mr. Lichfield's client and we don't do anything that interferes with the views and vistas
of uh Mr. Hearnen's clients. So I think that we whether you compare it to the original design original proposal or not this is a reasonable design that's traditional
faces a street that has many traditional homes on it and this there's nothing out of the ordinary or nothing distracting about this design. uh we believe that it's not substantially more detrimental and we hope you'll support it.
>> Okay. So, uh we already did comments. I already read letters. So, questions from the board. Mr. Nixon, do you have any questions? >> Yeah. Um so, I think you said, Mr. The purpose of expanding the house from what
it is now is to make a home that might be used permanently or more of a permanent basis. And they had a very large family. What do you mean by a very large family? >> Children and grandchildren or many grandchildren?
>> Two at the moment. >> So they have a lot of grandchildren. So they like to come up surprisingly and visit Chadam and use the use the waterways, use the beaches. Someday they'll be going to the squire.
So, but that is why we met because you know it's just I mean Susie and Tony empty nesters but not surprisingly their children and grandchildren love to come visit in Chadam and that's why they need and they did reduce this I don't know if
you remember they had bunk rooms before for the grandchildren the earlier design and we got rid of all those so it's just five bedrooms >> five bedrooms >> five bedrooms which it is now. >> Yeah. Which it's got theoretically has now. So
>> So um so they've got six children and 12 grandchildren. Is that correct? >> I don't know how many children. >> Somebody must know the answer. >> They have two children. >> There you go. >> Okay. You have to go to the microphone if you want to do that. He's asking you.
So please do that. >> Wait till you get there. We can wait. It's not a hot long machine. >> The microphone. >> Yeah. No. Okay. I'm Susie, uh, part of the prop grim, uh, owners of this property. U, we have two children. We're
all from Pennsylvania. They have both moved to Connecticut. They both live a couple hours from here. They're both married. We have two grandchildren, another one coming. Because they're living in Connecticut, they married people from Connecticut. Those people from Connecticut have family. So when we
get together, Fourth of July, Thanksgiving, Memorial Day, Labor Day, it's just a huge crowd. Okay? So that's what they mean when they say huge family. We are empty nesters, of course, but we've got this growing family of uh
grandchildren and then their in-laws, their grandparents. So we're we end up we could easily end up with 10 or 12 people. So, uh, if I said you'd expect 12 to 15 people, you know, one weekend here and another weekend here, is that realistic?
>> Holidays probably and weekends. Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Yeah. >> Um, thank you. >> So, you seem reluctant, Mr. rally to arrange
a meeting with your clients and the various neighbors because you know what they're thinking and you've heard them before and all that. I I don't get the impression that
you really want to kind of make a deal or sit down and that you want your way and you are answering their concerns the way you want to. Not necessarily the way they want to, but the way you want to.
So it to me this doesn't lead to a great outcome. It it really doesn't. But that's what you're saying to us and I accept that. That's fine. I mean, >> well, the >> you know, the uh
this is our property and as long as we design it in a manner that's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood, I believe that we can expect a positive
vote. And the reductions that we've made uh we think are very substantial and candidly we're not prepared to reduce them further.
The concerns of Mr. Hearnen's clients I mean they can't even see the water or stage harbor road because of the mature vegetation that's there. So, I mean, and they, you know, and again, the
building's only 25 feet 10 inches tall. So, they're above us. They look over us. They they have a clear view. So, and with all due respect to Mr. Lichfield's clients, the uh
although the tone of voice I didn't think was particularly appropriate, we paid specific attention to Mr. to Warren's concerns which he made very very clear the last time we were before you and I think that Bernardet's design
deals directly with those concerns. >> Well, you said that. Thank you for answering my questions. >> Okay, questions, Mr. Peach. Just questions right now. >> Yep, sure. Um, Bernardet, do you What are the ceiling heights first and second
floor? Do you >> 9 foot first floor and 8 foot second floor? >> Okay. Um and uh >> and and we can reduce that if that makes you know if that's going to make >> Yeah. No, I mean I I understand these
days that's relatively standard uh or what people at least where they begin seeking u or would expect perhaps. Um but I just wanted to ask because there are concerns about or concerns have been
expressed about height. Um Bill just to clarify uh you know you said I think you were saying 25 ft 10 in from top of foundation. Uh I'm doing the math I get 26t 6 in. Is Bernardet is
that correct? >> Bernardet is the one who told me was >> I measured it. I'm I mean I measured it on my computer more than once and it was >> well I just did I just looked at the site plan and and did subtracted the ele the given uh elevations for the ridge
and >> Jay thanks yeah >> Mr. Riley likes to measure building height from the top of the foundation, but the bylaw measures it from grade plane unless you're in a a flood plane. So, >> yeah, >> it's called out on the site plan as 28 and 1/2 ft tall
>> from the plane. Right. So, I'm but I'm getting I was trying to get just get because the the plan shows a an top of foundation at 16.75 and uh the ridge at 40.
I put my glasses on now. and a ridge at 43.25. So I unless this is my math machine is wrong. It's not a big deal. I'm not trying to make a deal out of that. I just I'm just trying to
said sometimes, Bill, your numbers are a little squishy. So >> yeah, I rely upon the architect for the numbers and and to Mr. Briggs, I mentioned several times that the height is measured from the great plane.
>> Okay. Uh um yeah, Bernard, another thing I'm I'm just I'm curious. The um areaway access to the basement on both ends of the basement is I don't know is a little unusual. What's I'm sure there's a reason for that. What's the
>> I think that they had that on the previous design and they wanted to be able to carry things down to the basement, furniture, whatever, without going through a bulkhead. They wanted to just have an area away with a door at the bottom and a drain. But
>> yeah, understandable. I >> part of the previous design that they desired. So I just >> I really kept a lot of the >> floor plan >> features on the first floor. I just shrunk everything as much as I could and
I took off all that height on the second floor that was offensive. >> Yeah. and shrunk it as much as I possibly could. >> Okay. Yeah, sure. Um, and Bill, so Bill, the I mean I from the last time,
especially in this time too, I'm I'm tried to determine because I look at that Lynen tree and it's it's a beautiful tree and um and it's it's not shown on the site plan, so I I can't really tell,
but it looks to me, and tell me if I'm wrong, that the proposal for the the new proposed it gets somewhat further away from that tree.
>> Uh that's correct. The uh >> Can you tell me about how much that >> existing the existing building is 16.6 feet and our building is 20 ft. >> Okay. Property line >> four five three to four between three
and four feet further away from from the Lindon tree. Um, and I I just as a Yeah. Okay. I think I figured I had a little trouble reading the plan. Um, I had to get my colored pencils out to try to because I always
try to look at the proposal versus what's there. So, that's where I had a little trouble trying to pick the outline of the existing. >> It's tough to see the >> but I got it. I think I got >> It's a It's a dotted line. Yeah, I I did
finally work that out, but there's another dotted line which I did work out. Finally worked out. It It shows the existing patio and that's where I got a little confused, but I I unders I finally got the point understood it. So, one of those areaways is in within that
existing patio. And as long as I mean as long as it's far enough away from the tree that that it's not likely to um provide damage to or extensive damage to the root structure, then I don't have a problem with that.
>> Yeah. Well, it's our intention to retain trees and to protect them. >> And because you've also dropped that from from the previous proposal, you've made that wing lower, which is probably better for that tree as well. Correct. Okay.
>> Although we were thinking more about the neighbor than the tree, but when we did that, >> I think we could think about the trees, too. It be be helpful. So, all right. I don't think um I don't have any other questions for any Randy. >> Okay, very good. Uh Jenny, do you have any questions?
>> Um so, actually, let me start with the point you just made. We're thinking more about the na the tree. You know, you said we're thinking more about the neighbor than the tree, the northern neighbor. How about the southern neighbor? We've heard a lot about the southern neighbor. Oh, that's not really a It's more of a
comment than a question, but >> Well, I mean, but we're we're not interfering with their view at all. >> Well, I think that that's your opinion. I I I we'll get to that. >> You want to look at the picture again? Put the picture back up, please.
>> Not to mention the McKenna case. >> You did mention it twice. >> Oh, that's right. I did. Yeah, that's right. No, I >> McKenna not McKenna, not McKenna. >> And I I know the attorney mentioned it's coming farther farther south the
building and the height. I think it's um one well one of my questions was why that the sun it's the sun room, right? That's on the southern side. So it it does it need to be that high? Can it be lower? The sun room. The sun room
originally had a roof deck above it and Susie wanted an extra bathroom and that was the only place to put it. So >> So is it two stories? This >> it's two stories. It's a story and a half basically. The front part is all
attic. I mean if you look on the right hand side it's just a little tiny bathroom up there. It originally >> Wait, I'm talking about the left hand side. That looks >> the left hand side. No, the right the right one is the sun room. Well, on the
top. Yeah, on the top. It's on the left. >> Okay. >> But on the one down, it's right there. That's the sun room with a bathroom above it. >> Um, okay. which originally was a flat roof with a roof deck or a flat roof
originally and then they wanted another bathroom and that was the only place to put it. So it >> so that's why that side of the house the southern end is taller than the the opposite end the northern end. Okay.
>> Um questions um the height comparison Mr. around you keep saying it's 25 ft Mr. Briggs that's not how we calculate height so from a comparison point of view what is the current height of the house the height of the current house visav what the numbers are for the
>> the current height is 21 and it's going to 28.4 four. >> Okay. So, it is increasing seven and a half feet in height >> from the average pre-existing grade or the grade plane the grade plane. >> Okay. So, I wanted to confirm that 7 and
1/2 ft. Um, number two, uh, >> that's not relative to the neighbor behind us. It's not that many feet. >> That's based on the average grade plane. >> Well, it that's the >> we're not we're not going to argue about
it. We just have questions and answers. >> So my second question was a sun room. You answered that. My third question um is no chimney on this proposal for uh >> they have a gas fireplace. >> Okay. The center part of the house is
the part the historic really wanted to save, right? And presumably maybe that chimney was part of it. >> You could put a fake chimney up there. >> Okay. Um >> good good answer. Number five is the arbor looked like on the site plan which I agree with Dave Beach was very
difficult to read. Um the arbor is TBR to be removed. >> That's what it says. >> You talk you cannot talk from the audience. Not happening. If if they want you to Yeah. to answer our our panel's
questions, you come up. It's a long white fence along >> your name if you would. >> Oh, Tony Grim. >> Okay. Welcome. >> Glad to be here. Um, been a resident for over 50 years. I know that doesn't make
>> We're going to do questions and answers. You are on the answer part. >> Okay. Long white fence with a big white arbor, right? >> It's been there a long time. We plan on keeping that. Um, as far as the trees go, we're not planning on cutting anything down. You know, anything could
happen, but we're not going to do that. We're conservation people. >> All right. We're gonna wait for the next question if you >> Okay. So, the answer to the question is no. The R was not going to be removed. >> So, it's not correct on the site plan where it says TBR. >> Well, I don't know what TBR stands for. So,
>> to be removed. >> That's one thing it could stand for. >> Okay. Well, let me know what it stands for. Um, number seven was um I sit down. It >> doesn't have to. >> Oh, the the trees. So, um, thank you for
confirming no trees are planned to to come down. Not just the large linen tree. There's some really beautiful trees on the property. So, um, and I keep hearing you say, uh, that we'll do the best we can for that large tree, but would you be willing to like
I don't know what's required to to, um, make sure that the proper steps are taken like an arborist come in to make sure that you're not uh, encroaching with a digger any closer than X feet. Like all all of that you would do. We'd
be happy to have a condition that prior to excavation we retain the services of an aberist to advise us. >> Yeah. >> You know what you know how to how to work around. >> Well, if we get there we'll we'll figure that out.
>> May I just I spend a lot of time with blue flags and have with conservation. >> We're not be we're not able to do this. This is questions and answers. >> Okay. Well, I'm going to answer your question. They the conservation's already said that tree can't be touched. They've already talked about the things we'd have to do and that is in their
plan. Their original plan which was passed by conservation for how they were going to do the plantings around the house. Nothing's to be changed that doesn't have to. They're all into the natural. >> Okay. Native. >> Understood. That's probably the least of your problem. >> You would not dream of getting rid of that len. >> Okay. We wouldn't.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. Anything else? Jenny, any questions? No. Steve, questions? >> Just one real quick question. And when is the effective date of the um >> demolition delay? >> I think it's next November. You know, >> October. >> October. Next October.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. Because it's recent. Sure. >> All right. So, nothing can be done before then anyway. >> No. No. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Yep. Okay. Um Paul, did you have any questions? >> I uh I have one question. Uh, Bill, and
I look at your uh the last page on your submission today in terms of gross floor area uh under the 127 State Harbor Road, I don't quite understand the figures there that uh you've got gross floor area of 2358.
And then below that, it says total equals 6,170. >> Well, that's Yeah. So, that's proposed. that includes uh the basement. You know the next two numbers are first and second floor only.
>> Okay. So uh so the difference the difference between the 6170 and the total of 2365 and 1440 is the basement. >> Yes. >> You just wanted to emphasize the reason we broke it up like this. We want to
emphasize how small the second floor was. >> Okay. So overall, your your gross floor area is 6170 and that's what we should be comparing to the other ones that you've listed there.
>> Well, that's the way the board works. I've never felt that concluding the basement made any sense, but >> I understand. Just trying to get a feel for how it fits in with the rest of the properties there. >> Okay. I don't have any other questions. >> I don't think we got a plan for the
basement. is did >> there's a plan. >> There's a plan >> was submitted. >> Yeah. >> There's nothing in there, but there's >> What? Okay. >> Foundation. >> Where's the >> just the foundation? >> That's okay. >> Nothing in the basement.
>> No, I understand. Okay. All right. Um so I just want to say that um when you talk about the Kenna case just for the benefit of the public you're essentially saying that case law is that if it's only one person's view that is uh being
uh that it's detriment the project is detrimental to their one person's view that legally wouldn't uh count. Is that what you're trying to say when you say the Kenna case Kenna case? >> Well that's that's what the Kenna case said. It does. It does.
>> How how you uh deal with concerns addressed by raised by neighbors, that's up to you, >> right? But but no, I think it's a great point. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I just want to, you know, when people hear the name Kenner, you were calling it Kenner. I know.
>> Yeah. But it's Kenner. And that's a really important case. It was right here in Chadam. And it's true that if people have problems with their view, they need to talk to their neighbors and see if anyone else does, too. There's also the SJC. >> Yeah, of course. Of course. Okay. So, um
that being said, Paul, >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> I second that and vote yes. >> I'll vote yes. >> I vote yes. Jenny votes yes. >> As do I. All right, let's do deliberations. Um, who wants to go first? Anybody want
to go first? >> No. Nobody. Go ahead. You might as well. >> I can go first and then pick. >> Yeah, go ahead. We'll just do it that way. Yeah. You'll give us something to >> Oh, yeah. >> Give us something to >> uh give you something to go. Yeah.
>> This is a tough one. I It really is. Um I I I think but on on balance what I would say is that this so we have to look at it. we we're charged with looking at what's there and
what's being proposed. Um so that's what makes it somewhat more difficult. There's no question that this is a vast improvement um visually over and and massing wise than what was what
we saw the last time. Um that's it's making um a much different architectural statement um both up the hill to the neighbors and
down the hill to the towards the oyster pond. Um and um that statement, if you will, I think I can look
not far away uh from from down on um State Harbor Road up the hill and see a house that's not similar to this. It's not per maybe as long, but the main body of the house has a porch and it looks
out over the oyster pond and there's an open view up to it. Couple of gables on it. I think somebody mentioned that possibly in the thing. So I I'm and and given that the trees and the vegetation is going to stay primarily or whatever
they what they can save, I'm sure. and they're they sound very um very much committed to that. Um I think all I think that I could would would find that this is not what they're
proposing is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Um I'm granted that the the um historical commission has made their feelings known
and and and let us know. Um, but I don't think that um, you know, I mean, looking at property owners rights and and the, you know, the house that's there and all and I mean, maybe they'll change their mind over the course of the year and and decide to use some part of that house or
not, but they do need to and they seek to enlarge it and I don't blame them for that. Um the only other just and just as so I think I I I could support it and I just want to say one other thing that in in
my thoughts about looking at this design is that were it mine I I would think about some ways given that sort of long westfacing um wall in a north south or north south
orientation in the house. I I might think about maybe changing some of those full view doors to to um you know west facing you get a lot of sunlight that comes in for long parts of the day and just something to think about and and all
that. But that's an aside. Thank >> y Okay. Thank you Dave. Um let's see Paul. Well, I think uh I think that um the applicant has looked at the comments that were made and Bernardet has really
looked at the comments that were made in the prior hearing and what the objections were and has designed something which is uh really substantially answering all of the questions that they raised at that time.
Um, is it a little higher than perhaps it has to be? Uh, it could be, but um, given the 9 foot ceilings and so forth, but and we've we've seen some ceilings come down from that level. But overall,
it seems to me they've uh answered the questions that were raised at the prior hearing. Um, and it's a substantially better design. whether that's sufficient to overcome uh what is there now. I think probably it is. I think I agree
with with Dave that uh I would not say it's substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood when you're talking about views which we have been and you look at that photograph um and you realize that the property the buildings are not moving into that view
at all. the photograph that's been taken and when you consider the Kenner case and the instructions which basically say it's not your individual view, it's the neighborhood view, um it seems to me that you're uh you're in a an area where
it's not substantially detrimental to the neighborhood. And let's see, Jenny. >> So, I wasn't on the board when this went to historic few year or came to this board a few years ago. Um, but I watched that hearing and I watched the historic
hearing um uh recently and Frankina said that street is one of the most historic streets in town. So, when we're talking about neighbors, we aren't just talking about the couple. We are talking about the ones around them, but in my view, we're talking more broadly. Um, this
property 1905, it's an iconic streetscape. It is a stones throw from Main Street. It's at the mouth of the Oyster Pond with the Oyster River beyond. And that's the broader neighborhood in my opinion.
So, I think that is very important. Why is that important? because I don't think this house is uh is is appropriate for that neighborhood. So, I'm struggling with criteria five. I think it is too much mass in that neighborhood because
of the visual character, the um the um including the views of which there's streetscape and seascape and um I so I am struggling with the mass. I think that the lot is 15,000 square feet
and it's a large house. The current house, I agree with you, Mr. Riley, it's not that it's footprint-wise that much bigger, although it is bigger. Um, but it it's going up in in in scale drastically. And I appreciate that. Uh,
it sounds like they've agre either spoke to or agreed to maybe didn't speak to, but Mr. Lichfield's client, the neighbors on the north, uh because they they did lower the height in in responsiveness to to previous neighbor feedback. And I would like to
see the same thing done for the neighbor on the south. I I um you know, if it if it's approved and that design stays, I I would really like to see that. Number one, I think it's a generous thing to do to the neighbor, but number two, it's um
I don't like how it's taller than the other side. There's a very symmetrical look to this house in the center with the full cape with the large dormer across the top and and then it's sort of I'm thrown off a little bit visually by the the extended
um southern uh height. Okay. Um but I do think that this design we are not a design board. We're a zoning board. I understand that. But I do think that maintaining the his the uh keeping in mind the the importance of the historic nature of this neighborhood. Um I I do
think that I I was actually I'm not going to say happy to hear this, but but a little bit relieved to hear that the the historic board wanted more time. The one-year delay, I agree with a comment that was made. Hopefully that will maybe give a little more time to absorb some
of these additional comments because um I think it could it's a little bit unimaginative for that spot. Um I agree with you Mr. Riley, that preserving it would be wonderful to preserve that center part that is historic, but I
understand that it may not be practical, but I think to try to listen to our historic commission board to say then at least have the house potentially have aspects of that historic element and also the fact that that house is nestled
into that side of the I I don't see this this uh prominent home really working in that also because I think the original uh home was an outbuilding to the large Georgian Federal that's to and so this
house doesn't complement that. It almost tries to compete with it. And I I just find it to be um I would like to to encourage the family to just take a little uh take the time that you have the one year and and maybe make a few of these modifications that we're
suggesting today. All right. Um Lee, um yeah, there's there's a lot here. Um I just uh want to acknowledge what a unique area this um house is in. Um from
the fact that it's was once a part of, as Jenny said, the the estate um and it's, you know, a bunch of buildings, really attractive buildings that are close in, you know, closely knit. um neighborhood and I think that makes it
um you know just a really special spot and I also want to come from it from a seascape perspective as well. I mean looking from the oyster pond back towards town is one of the best views in Chadam I think
and um it's really special. So, I think what goes there needs to be really special and I do and I was actually on the board. This was one of the first applications I looked at when I first came on to the zoning board. And um so I
do remember what was proposed and I am pleased with um this design. I know we're not supposed to compare those two and and I'm not, but I I do appreciate the changes that have been made. Um, I
especially like the the north wing, the master wing. I think that's really attractive. Um, and I like how it's kind of um subordinate to the main house. And I agree with Jenny. I'd kind of like to see something similar happen on the
south wing. Maybe as a nod to the old um, you know, historic home. Maybe have the roof deck back on there. I I don't know. I you know it's that's up to the up up to the owners. Um but I
think um bringing some aspects of the historical home to the new home would be really appreciated from the streetscape and the seascape. Um even if it's as simple as putting a
faux chimney on and it really kind of looks like that old home. Um uh so I I think that would do a lot. Um anything else? Um I kind of would like
to see a landscape plan because even though people I mean the lynen tree is the linen tree, but um the other trees some of them aren't like great. There's some that are probably could be removed. Um, I'd love to see a little
bit of a landscape plan with with what really might happen there. Um, I guess that's all I have to say right now. >> Okay, Mr. Nixon. Well, the major thing that bothers me
with a bigger home is that it's being pushed back towards the wall that's right behind it. And I noticed the other day, even at this time of the year, there's
cars behind that wall elevated up. And if the lights are on, they would look right down into the new front door, which is facing back, you know. Uh so my questions about the number of people who might be using this
uh tell me that on a typical weekend, let's say there's 12 to 15 people. Well, that's six to eight cars. Where are you going to put six to eight cars on that lot and be able to move them around? It's just impossible
when you think about it. So, and don't tell me, "Oh, well, just go down and park at Children's Beach. That's okay. That isn't okay." To me, the house that your clients want to build
does not fit into this space. It doesn't because of traffic, streetscape, and everything else that everybody's been talking about. It's an improvement,
but as Mr. V said, "We're comparing it with what's there today, not what might have been or could have been or all that kind of stuff. And comparing it with what is there today, it's just too much. It's too much of a
good thing, you might say. It's it's forcing squeezing everything in all these cars that could be there. I mean, you don't want that number of cars going over and driving up and down the rightway because then the neighbors
would be even more be, you know, it just doesn't work. Well, I don't have anything nice to say, but I will just uh say that the neighbor did talk about quote the snarl in traffic, the snarl in terms of the space
that you know cars would have to uh jam into and they were concerned about that. So, I think it that again goes back with dealing with your neighbors and also this probably would have been historical this this district if the neighbor if
the people on the street had agreed and they probably didn't want to >> this this property was never included proposed. >> Oh, I I thought maybe it was, but >> No, it wasn't. >> All right. Well, anyway, it's awfully close. Awfully close. And even if it's not uh
it and I again I think that the people on the street didn't want to have it uh have that burden to have to go through all those hoops to be able to remove a house but or change things. But in any event, I think it's uh really delinquent not to honor the historical nature of
the house that was there. Um the the idea of a a faux chimney should have been automatic and dealing with your neighbors should have been automatic too because then you would have probably figured out what to do about the snile and traffic and uh just more honor to
this iconic street and not to just put this box, you know, it looks like it was dropped from god knows where right onto that spot. It doesn't fit there. It doesn't. And uh so I do think it's substantially more detrimental than what's there now. Um and I think that
any comparison to the to the last application is not to be considered. I I that like to me that's nails on a chalkboard because it's not it's not relevant. What's relevant is what's there now and what you want to do now.
Not anything in between in my view. So, do you want us to vote or do you want to withdraw? What would you like to do? >> Request I'll request withdrawal. >> Thank you, Paul. >> I'll move to grant the uh requested
withdrawal without prejudice. >> I second that and vote yes. >> Paul, vote yes. >> I vote yes. >> Jamie votes yes. >> As do I. That's unanimous and we'll see that application again in the future. Um,
>> one more. >> We have one more application. It's quarter six. And, uh, this one Steve will be voting on and Jenny will be recusing herself. And, uh, >> all right. Ready? Ready. Yeah.
>> Application number 25-099, Virginia Louise Fenwick, care of William G. Lichfield, Esquire, 330 Orleans Road, North Chattam, Mass 02650. >> People sh >> Owner of property located. >> You could take the conversations out into the hall like I had asked you at the beginning. That would be great.
>> 61 Hill Crest Road. Also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 15H, block 50, lot W2. The applicant proposes to change, alter, or expand a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the construction of additions. The existing dwelling is non-conforming and that it is located
21.1 ft from the northerly of butter and 15.4t from the easterly of butter. The proposed addition will be non-conforming and that it will be located 10 ft from the norly of butter where a 25 ft setback is required. The existing building coverage is 1598 ft 9.6% and
the proposed building coverage is 2242 ft 13.5% where 15% is the maximum allowed. the law is non-conforming and that it contains 16,560 ft where 40,000 square feet is required in the R40 zoning district. A special
permit is required under Mass General Law Chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw. >> Welcome. >> Good evening, Madam Chairman. Bill Lichfield here on behalf of the applicant, Virginia Fenwick. With me is Leslie Schneberger, our architect.
Uh Leslie is certainly here and available to talk about the architectural plans, but I know that you've been out to the site. I know it is quarter of 6. Those of you who know me know that I ordinarily when I see quarter of 6, it is quarter of 6 a.m.,
not PM. So I I rather suspect you don't want a lengthy presentation. The site plan is shown there. Uh, we have a lot on Hillrest Road, uh, which Miss Fenwick has owned and lived in for six or eight
or 10 years. I forget exactly what I knew when I got here, but I've forgotten since. Uh, and with us is Matt Holden, who also lives there. Uh, we are proposing to put an addition on the rear. It is, however, critical to point
out, and when I went when you went out there, I'm sure you noticed this, the area is in the back of the house. It's 120 ft back from Hillrest Road. And you said, "What's this stuff about being so close to the lot line?" The You look at that grass maintained area, that area.
Uh I don't know where maybe Mr. Riley got mad and took it. No, here it is. Uh, this area here is not on the lot, but Miss Fenwick has a land use agreement with the
Abutter. The butter whose house is down here someplace over on Hillrest Road. So, while we don't own it, it is clearly not impinging on anyone's privacy or any of the other aspects that are covered by by the zoning board by our zoning bylaw.
So, uh, if Leslie will forgive me and if you would prefer, I will go straight into the criteria. >> The relevant criteria >> only the relevant, uh, criteria. We have an older neighborhood with lots of various sizes. Locust is unique in having a house seat cited far back from
the road. Uh, that gives you a sense on the left of of how far we back are back from the road. And that is on the right hand side is what you'll see when we're done. Is very similar to what's there right now. The site is certainly adequate for construction of an addition
on the rear of a house built in 1952. We are compliant as to coverage and again we are adjacent to an area for which the owner has a use agreement with her or butter. It is plainly in a very innocuous location. As to compatibility
of size, like most of the neighborhood, ours is non-conforming. We have comparable but a relatively small house at 9.6% 6% of coverage with neighborhood neighboring properties up to almost 16%. We have a g low gross flare area and a
low living area. Some of the properties uh adjacent properties have gross floor area of almost 10,000 square ft. Uh if you approve the special permit, you can do so based on a finding that the coverage increases by just 400 square ft to only 13.5%. It is still compatible
and less than several in the neighborhood and again set far back from the road and even further from the physical layout because there's a significant portion of of Hillcrest which is not paved. As to the extent of increase and nonconformity we have two
the rear sideline changes but again in an isolated private location far from our butters and with a use agreement for the area on which we are quote encroaching unquote. as to suitability of site. It's an older residential neighborhood long suited for residential
use since Louisie Kent and Meline Kent built this house in 1952. Uh there are no environmental issues and the site is sly plainly suitable for continued residential use. As to scale sighting mass and vistas, Leslie has done her usual good job, but you can't
see it from the street. So really her efforts, I won't say they're going to be lost because they are important to the homeowner, but we have the front facade is now an attractive salt box salt box cape with wings off to the side. The scale is comparable and if you approve
the special permit, while it will be modestly larger, the scale remains appropriate with details to match the existing structure. And again, far from other houses, unlike some on Hillrest, there's no really no mass involved. uh it's without impact in views and vistas
and there is significant neighborhood support. There is let one letter uh nonsup supportive to which I trust the chair will allow me to respond. Finally, as to adequacy of water and sewer, we have title five and a town water. We town water. We have an unusual situation. There are two comments from
Judy Giorgio. The house has had four bedrooms since long before the applicant purchased it. One bedroom on the first floor will be eliminated via reconfiguration. of the septic tank. Another comment that Judy made will be moved as necessary. Uh the board of
health comment, the final comment suggests that they're looking into it and we know as you know that if you approve the special permit, we still need board of health approval. So that's something we will resolve separately. The other criteria are not at issue.
What is an issue is whether this proposed addition set far from the street compliance as to coverage in an exist in an area with an existing setback nonconformity and especially because of the land use agreement we have with the abut whether that is
substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. The applicant like others in the neighborhood has lived through multiple construction projects and is sympathetic uh to the resulting disruption and noise. We anticipate that the so-called standard conditions will be imposed and
she will do all that she can to minimize impact. The proposed addition like the existing house is within the lot line setback but again it is in a neighborhood chalk full of nonconformities and moreover we have that use agreement at the north end of the lot. It's the proposal which Leslie
has developed is designed to be harmonious with both the existing house and neighboring properties. It's again far back from the street. It's about 500 ft from the northern leoter if you care about that. It's so far up there that you can't see it. So, in light of the criteria of the plans, particularly in
this location and at this hour, uh I think that you could find that the proposed uh change is not substantially more detrimental. I apologize to Leslie uh as well as to you for the length of time. No, >> no worries. No worries. Is there anybody here in Microsoft Teams that wish to
speak in favor? Favor. Yes, sir. Please. All right, Brian Phillips, 37 Orleans Road. Come to a lot of these meetings. Virginia does a great job. Uh being on the ZBA is a very difficult thing to do. Um I think she's paid her dues to get anything she wants. Skyscraper,
whatever. Uh so I support this project, even though I wish she said no a little bit more often. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else want to speak in favor of the actual project and what it encounters? No. Okay. Very good. I will
read the correspondences. Um and before Okay. So, the first one's from Judith Giorgio, November 20th, 2025. As uh council noted, she is presently unclear the number of approved bedrooms and they're trying to uh locate uh that
information. and they're attempting to also clarify the septic system. It was designed um and installed for a three or a fourbedroom. This will determine whether a bedroom can be located in the proposed foundation basement level of the property. Additionally, um the
proposed addition appears to encroach on the existing septic tank. The retaining wall is shown directly over the septic tank which is not permitted. Um next we have a note from Lewis and Monica Lupy. Before I read it, I'm just going to
remind anybody listening that this is not a variance despite what's in this letter. This is a special permit. Very different uh set of criteria. So this Lewis and Monica Lupy right um on November 19th today, oh no, actually
yesterday, 2025, we are writing to express our strong opposition to the variance request for 61 Hillrest. As nearby residents at four Hillrest, we are deeply concerned about the precedent this approval would set and its impact
on our neighborhood. Um, a dangerous precedent for reduced setbacks. Granting of variance to reduce the northerly setback from 25 to 10 would establish a troubling president. This 60% reduction is in the required setback would signal
to other property owners on undersized lot that similar encroachments will be permitted. fundamentally altering the character and spacing of our neighborhood. Once this precedent is set, it becomes increasingly difficult to deny future requests, leading to a
cascade of overdevelopment, compounding nonconformity on an undersized lot. Uh the subject property is already significantly non-conforming, containing 16560 square ft where 40,000 is required.
Rather than addressing the existing nonconformity, the proposed addition would exacerbate it. The building coverage would increase 13.5% approaching the 15% max. Um, and it's a clear case of building structures that
are too large for an inadequate lot size. Cumulative neighborhood impact. Our neighborhood has endured continuous construction for the past 5 years with constant sound, dust particullet affecting the quality of our life. Approving for the variances for
undersides lots will only encourage more intensive development that our neighborhood infrastructure and lot patents were never designed to accommodate. The proposed variance does not meet the criteria for approval. There is no demonstrated hardship unique to this property. Uh the applicant is
seeking to maximize development on a lot that is already too small at the expense of the neighborhood. and they uh ask us to preserve the integrity of the zoning bylaws. Next, we have a note from november.
The address for that was four, I believe. Yeah. >> Um Sunday, November 2, 2025. We have a note from Lisa Spear Mlan. My name is Lisa Spear Mlan. I was at at 31 Hillrest, just two houses away from
Matt, Virginia at 61. And I had the pleasure to meet with Matt and Virginia when they first moved into the neighborhood. And from our in initial interaction, it was evident they are thoughtful and responsible homeowners, qualities that make them ideal neighbors. I distinctly remember them sharing their long-term intentions to
renovate and restore their cartage softbox. As a longtime owner in Cadam and as a realtor, I recognize the market incentive to tear down the old and build new in this ind industry reality. So
their desire to preserve a soon-to-be historic property shows their respect and restraint. When they purchased the house, it had been used primarily as a summer rental for years, and the home and yard required consider considerable attention. Matt and Virginia have done a
tremendous amount of work to improve both the building and landscape. When they shared their project with me, I was impressed by the practical and studied design that beautifully complements the architectural aesthetic of Hillrest Road. I look forward to seeing the end
result. Then we have a note from Rich Buckley. Rich and Amy from 27 Hillrest, my wife and I. Uh they actually write on October 26, 2025. They've had the opportunity to meet with um Matt and Virginia who informed us of their
renovation plans with um we wanted to share support for their renovation. We've been impressed with their efforts and design to be respectful to the historic layout. We're confident that the outcome will be a further addition to the neighborhood that we live in.
Katherine Clapperic Clapper Rich from let's see October 21, 2025. The she resides at 62 Hillrest directly across the street from Jenny and Matt. I my husband Alex and I wholeheartedly
support um the project. After reviewing their plans, we believe the addition has been designed practically and will seamlessly enhance the aesthetic and character of our neighborhood. Since moving to 62 Hillrest and renovating our property in 2020, we have come to know
the owners of 61 Hillrest. They are diligent stewards of their home and we admire the meticulous care they take in maintaining their yard. We love how the long setbacks of their home from the street brings diversity to the neighborhood which is already unique. A
unique variety of architectural styles. It brings us great satisfaction to see Virginia and Matt's pride in contributing to the quiet charm of our road in North Chadam. And they encourage us to uh vote yes.
Ellen Briggs, founder of Protect Our Pass, writes on October 2, 2025. Though the house on 61 Hillrest North Chattam is about a year shy of being 75, its half cape architecture lends a
visual historic identity. Its tastefully peroscoped additions on the right and left lends it to its charm. lends to its charm. The current owners are act acutely sensitive to maintaining this
property's Cape Cod visual identity. Consequently, their proposal before you for adding to this house uh northern rear side has been developed in order not to alter its current landscape streetscape view. Though this plan does
not meet the back's setback, there is room for this section to be built in this location which results in saving its frontal field of vision. From our protect our p from protect our past and thus my point of view, this proposed
plan is ideal. It's appropriate to grant them your ZBA approval. Meredith Heatherington, 48 Hillrest, writes, "On October 2, 2025. My I reside at 48, which is located across the
street. I am in full support of the renovation project to the property. Jenny and Matt considerate neighbors and wonderful stewards of their property. They have enhanced their home and yard in the front and have shared their plans for a kitchen renovation and family room addition in the back. They have told me
how they explored it, adding other practical options such as going up an additional bedroom and adding one car garage to the west, but they chose not to add those and instead selected a simplified plan, one that doesn't appear will even be visible from the street. I
asked Jenny why they needed to come before this board and she shared that the nonconformity in the back created when the house was built in 1952 so far back from the street. As a neighbor, I do appreciate the distance their house
sits from the road. In fact, it's the only one like that in our neighborhood. I urge the board to evaluate and improve their plans for the following reasons. It's simple and practical um for preserving the original home built in
the 1950s and for requesting modesty over mass. Thank you. That concludes the correspondences. Is there anybody here or on Microsoft Teams that wish to speak against this application or has a
specific question? No questions from the board. Mr. Beach, do you have a question? Mr. Nixon, no. No, >> no, no, no. >> Yes, I do. >> Yes, please. >> Yeah. Um, number one, Mr. Litzfield,
would it be helpful if we conditioned this to mention that we believe it's a four bedroomedroom home or no? >> Uh, we appreciate that suggestion, but I I I
I think perhaps I can communicate if that's the board's sentiment, but the board of health might. >> Okay. Thank you. Secondly, >> Leslie, you work like a dog on this. So, please tell us as a professional that
you are. What were the problems you faced or the obstacles and I don't mean the two occupants, but the other obstacles in designing this? >> Um, well, this was a very tricky one. We we did as was noted by one of the
neighbors a lot of iterations um and studied a lot of different things and wanted to be really mindful that um it is not dwarfing the house and that instead it is below and in character. So it thank you for recognizing it took it took a lot of time and clients who were
interested in preserving the character of their home. >> Great >> Paul Lee Steve questions >> questions. No >> no questions. No questions. Oh, I don't have any questions either. I don't think so. Paul. >> All right. I'll move to close the
hearing and move into deliberations. I would second that and vote yes. All votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> Votes yes. >> As do I. All right. Let's do deliberations. Steve. >> Well, okay. I uh
you know this this house has two slight disadvantages. Um the first one is uh how it's cited uh where it sits on the lot and it it because it's so far back it doesn't lend itself
to additions that um given the design of the house would be most likely to be made. So, um you know that that's about the only place you can make an addition and and um and and have it be mean meaningful to
the house. The second um disadvantage, it's slight disadvantage is that um the lot is about half the size of the other ones around it. So to use those same criteria that we might use on a lot
that's twice as big and and to apply them to this lot, I think is somewhat unfair um because the lot is so much smaller. So I um I think this is a great project. I don't think it's going to harm anything. It's not going to be
detrimental to anybody. The nearest neighbor who might even see this is several hundred feet away. Um I I think it's great and you know I encourage it to move forward. >> Yeah. And Mr. Beach if you were voting. >> Yeah. If I were voting um I I would
agree with what um Steve had to say. Um very much true. Um nice job Leslie. really um nice it. And um and this is a a a a
perfect example of um a situation whereby um one one consideration of it might be well this is increasing the nonconforming nature of it. Um, this is
clearly a situation where that's not really the place I would put my emphasis. I don't see this as as increasing something that's not good. This this is some this is a fit for this location. C very much a fit for this
location given given the configuration of the adjacent lot and where the lot line is and things. Um and and I've sometimes in the past um argued, if you will, that that um having
that flexibility with respect to sideline setbacks and things is often a very good thing. And there are neighborhoods and things like mine where uh it's good to have that level of flexibility. So um and this is very much
one of those instances. So certainly not substantially um detrimental. It's really a vast improvement and I I would support it. Yeah, >> Mr. Nixon. >> Yeah, I'd certainly support it. And as far as the uh negative letter that was
sent in and I think Madam Chair, you pointed out this is not a variance and also there's no such thing as a precedent in the zoning board world. So um as Mr. They said, "Leslie, I don't
know how you pulled it together, but great job." Great job. >> I think people use the term precedent a lot of times when they want to say no about something, so they just hook on to that. Yeah. So, um, Lee, um, well, first of all, beautiful home,
beautiful view. Um, and I, uh, really respect, uh, Matt and Jenny for honoring the historical nature of their home as well. I mean, it really it's going to be great. It's going to fit really well together. Um, someone made a comment
that was or a phrase, modesty over mass, and I really like that. Um, and I think that's what Matt and Jenny did, but it also is giving them the added living space that they that they want and need. So, totally in support.
Um, great project. >> And, uh, Paul, >> yes, I agree with my colleagues. I think the only downside to this is the fact that we're increasing the uh u non-conforming aspect on the back line
there towards the uh setback. But that setback when you get to that line just goes into oblivion there. It goes down a huge uh descent and it in no way uh is adverse to any of the neighbors in any
way. So I think the reason we're here is to try and provide the kind of flexibility you need on setback when it's appropriate and I think it's appropriate here. So I think this is certainly not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. >> Yeah. Yeah. The only thing that would al
would ever get my eye on something like this is to be closer to a neighbor so to speak. However, this is very unique because uh the Miss Fenwick and her husband Matt have rights to go there and they maintain it. So, they have all the
more respect for that area that they're getting a little bit closer to. I would actually call in a sense this 10 feet as dimminimous because in it matters not it's really just irrelevant. Um >> there's no such word in the English.
There is there's a word and uh you know so I and it's not often that we find that you know you get closer to a property line and it doesn't matter but that it's really kind of cool the way they maintain it and they're going to be able to benefit from a better I think a
better view if I'm not mistaken. That's probably the whole impetus for the project in the first place. So, um, yeah, so I'm delighted to support it. And I I really also have to respect that our colleague, you know, she practices what she preaches. You know, she doesn't
want to knock down a house or or do things to a historic house when it's when she can do it another way. Um, so I think it's great and uh I support it. and Paul. >> I'll move to approve the application as submitted with the standard conditions that all construction activity and
vehicles shall be contained on site or at neighboring property with the permission of the property owner between June 30th and Labor Day. No exterior construction will be allowed. No work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8 am and 5:00 pm only. >> Yep. Those are our standard conditions.
And uh Dave, >> I second that. And I vote yes. Paul votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> Steve vote yes >> as do I. It's unanimous. Congratulations. Very good. And we just need a motion to adjourn.
>> I'll move to adjourn. >> I'll second that. Vote yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> You votes yes. >> As do I. And what time? >> And I vote yes. >> Oh yes. Please do. Uh >> 6:10 p.m.
>> Good evening, Chadam. What time is it anyway?