Welcome everyone to the December 4th, 2025 regular meeting of the zoning board of appeals in Chattam, Mass. 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 the use of AI notetaking apps, please notifi notify the chair. Is anybody recording the meeting? Seeing none, 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, suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law until June 30, 2027. This meeting of the Chattam Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted in person and via remote participation. Every effort will be made to ensure that
the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided far in the order. A reminder, persons who'd like to listen to the meeting while in progress may do so by calling 508 945 4410.
conference ID 735 029607 pound or join the meeting online via the Microsoft's team link in the posted agenda. This is a live broadcast in Simocast on Cadam TV but despite our
best efforts we may not be able to provide real time access. We'll post a record of this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible. In accordance with town policy, the public can speak to any issue, hearing, or business item on the agenda during the
meeting when recognized by the chair. The procedural steps are as follows. We do a roll call vote of all members authorizing this form of a meeting. We ask that anybody on the phone just make it possible for us to understand who you
are, your identification. We the hearing notice is read by staff zero 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 and you can only speak when you get up to the microphone and you're recognized by the chair. Not in that order. Um anyone against? No. Then I will read or summarize all the letters received by the board. Anyone against or
has a question will also have up to five minutes at the podium. The applicant can then rebut anything that they had heard or anything that was in the letters. Uh board members will ask questions to anyone present here
further information and we will close the public hearing. At that point in time, just the board will deliberate and we will uh vote on the application or appeal. All votes are taken by roll call and at the end of the meeting we will
close via verbal confirmation and note the time of adjournment. Please shut off all uh gadgets that make any noise whatsoever and if you have any conversations, please take them into the hall. Okay, at this point, uh, we'll do
a roll call vote starting with Dave Vich. >> Yes. Uh, David H. Vich, I approve this meeting format. >> Uh, Ed Actton, I approve. >> David S. Nixon, I approve. >> Paul C. Simple, I approve. >> Lee Hubby, I approve. >> Steven D. Debor, I approve. >> Virginia Fenwick, I approve. Randy
Podash, I approve as well. So, voting today is David Vch, Edward Actton, Paul Simple, Virginia Fenwick, and myself. You need four out of the five of us to see it your way in order to prevail in the in the uh Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. All right, with that, do we see we have uh approval of minutes, two sets, >> Paul? >> I do not have list of minutes. >> October 30th, >> 2025. >> Um I'll move to approve the minutes of
October 30, 2025 uh as published. Uh Dave, you'd say >> second and then we'll see who if anybody has anything. >> Okay. Yep. Sure. You >> have changes? >> Not to this one, >> Jenny. Yes, >> I do have a couple of changes at the beginning. Um
first of all, all also present were Andrew Singer, Rio >> Sachetti. >> Suchi Carmen Chung was not attending that meeting, so she should be out. Also, it the way it reads, Joe Henderson, Charlie Adams from Penrose.
Joe Henderson doesn't work at Penrose. So I think it should be >> for maybe Joe Henderson Penrose. >> Joe Henderson from Horsesley uh Whittenly Whitten. >> Charlie Adams from Penrose. Mark Warfield. >> What page are we on, Jenny? Uh
>> oh, page 207. >> 207. >> 20 of seven. >> And then also uh there were others that were attending that weren't listed. So just to be clear, Joe Henderson was attended. Mark attended. Paul Adelman
attend. Adaman attended from Union Studio and Paul's not listed. Um, and Carmen was listed and not attending. So, if you just want to take out Carmen and add Paul and forget about the names of where they're from because they're represent different companies.
>> Chantel is paying attention. So, >> um, okay. >> Okay. >> With that, uh, we already have a motion >> and second. Yeah. >> Yes. And with those changes, how do you >> I vote yes. >> And how do you vote? >> Ed votes yes. Uh Paul
>> Paul votes yes. >> Jenny >> Jenny votes yes. >> As do I. Okay, that's unanimous. Now we'll go to the next set. >> Then we have a set of minutes for the November 6, 2025 meeting. I'll move to approve those as published >> and uh I will second and offer uh changes.
>> Please go ahead. >> So this is fairly simple. Um, page three, uh, the, uh, top of the page, there are one, two, three, four, uh, sub bullets that, um, reference M. Uh, it should be
Ms. Ricks. It says Hicks. And on four of those bullet points. >> Ricks, I believe that's what it said. And I, >> are we talking about Gloria? >> No. No. >> No. We're talking about the uh, uh, >> Her last name is Hicks. That's why I said no. >> No, >> it's Rick's >> if you go. Yeah, it's it's
>> Okay. So, it's Rick, right? >> Okay. >> Okay. >> It was the project on Briders Cove. >> Okay. You have that Chantel? Yeah. >> All right. >> I have one change. Um on page two of 12, it says attorney in the middle of the page. Attorney Riley requested continuation. I think it was Jamie
Norcross for that hearing 202 Lime Hill. >> Okay. Very good. With that, I will vote yes. >> All right. Ed P. >> Ed votes yes. >> All votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes.
>> As do I. All right. Now we're going to go to application 25-102. I believe. >> Application number 25-102. Robert J. McCarron Trust Care of Michael D. Ford, Esquire, PO Box 485, West Haritch, Mass
02671. Owner of property located at 151 Main Street. Also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 17 C block six lot 48A. The applicant proposes to change alter or expand a non-conforming dwelling in a non-conforming lot via the partial
demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of an addition. The existing dwelling is non-conforming and it is located 17.6 ft from the road where 25 ft setback is required. The proposed addition will comply with road and abutter setback requirements. The
existing building coverage is 1537 square ft 17.8% and the proposed building coverage will be 1537 square ft. 17.8% or 15% is the maximum allowed. The law is non-conforming and that it
contains 8,635 ft where 20,000 ft is required in the R20 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General law chapter 4A section 6 and section 5B of the protected bylaw. >> Welcome gentlemen. just state your names for the record if you would.
>> Um, yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Attorney Michael Ford representing uh the applicant, Robert J. McCarron. Um, they hold the property in a trust. >> And John Barker from Polyus Savory Dilva. >> Welcome. >> Thank you. >> Uh, thank you. Um,
this is u um very interesting building. Um, it's uh obviously in the old village and it's a contributing structure uh in the old village. uh that we're all familiar with. Um I enjoyed reading the form B before I went
to the historic commission um to get uh their approval for uh what's being proposed here this afternoon. And I learned that this was the old Andrew Harding store uh at one point. Um, apparently Andrew Harding, uh, who had a
brother who had a shack down on the beach that sold goods, and Andrew had one over in Water Street, got together and they made a store out of this one and, um, built seats out front, which uh, apparently became a known as the
anxious seats, uh, where folks got together and, uh, all the gossip took place, um, in front of the general store. Um, and what caught my eye was that apparently there uh uh is is some folks who would suggest that Joe
Lincoln, who we've all read his books on Cape Cod, um picked up a lot of his material sitting on the bench uh talking with others in front of the Andrew Harding store all those years. So, a lot of history with this particular structure. It was commercial
u up until about 1940 um when uh it was purchased and um for a house uh moved back from the road and kind of turned sideways um and then extensions uh were put on it u over
time. So, uh, my clients are now the the proud owners of this. Um, uh, they take pride in the history of it and, uh, they are seeking to make some changes to the rear, uh, of the structure that I'll have Mr. Barker, uh, describe to you in more detail. Uh, but sufficees to say,
um, as you heard, um, when Sarah read the legal ad, we have a number of nonconformities. Uh, the lot's too small. It's 8,800 ft² with is uh 20,000 required, but it's like a lot of lots in the old village
and uh it's a tight uh area and in some respects that's what makes it uh uh attractive as as part of the National Register District. Um there's also a nonconformity in terms of a front yard setback and there's a nonconformity in
terms of coverage. Um, this proposal is neutral. Uh, as to those, uh, there's no additional coverage. We stay exactly the same. That's where we end up. And, um, we hold the, uh, setback, the non-conforming setback from, uh, the
front yard. Um, we do increase the gross floor area. I know it's not a metric in the bylaw, but the the board is always interested, particularly where they're called upon to make a finding that, uh, what's proposed is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. And those figures are on the front page
of the application where you require them. Uh, currently gross floor area 2,345 and we end up with a gross floor area of 3,000 square ft. And Mr. uh Barker will tell you how we get there. But at the end of the day, if you've been out to
this uh site, you realize it has a unique topography. Kind of drops off from the road back down. And so uh while uh what is being proposed um has two levels, a lower level and a first floor
level, it really is a single story um and and certainly looks that way uh from the roadway as as you look in. Um we are eliminating um much to the uh uh pleasure frankly of the historic
district when we went there a carport um which was uh constructed on this particular uh site uh some time ago but it was constructed after uh it was uh part of the National Register District. um our clients feel it really just
doesn't fit in in that area nor in the district and uh that is being removed uh as part of these alterations as well. So with that, Madam Chair, I'd like Mr. Barker to just kind of walk us uh through the changes in a little more detail and then he'll give it back to me
and I'll I'll run through the criteria for the board. >> Yes. Thank you, Mike. Um so changes from the street side which are shown here on the the first page. Um there are no proposed changes to the front elevation. Uh we're keeping the streetscape exactly
as it is today. All the changes occur in the rear. So we can jump to the next page. Um this view is looking from the backyard. It's not very prevalent from any public way, but there's an existing uh carport
and outdoor kitchen area that uh the outdoor kitchen is remaining, but the carport is being removed along with the roofed connector and roofed uh cover over the lower level entry door. Um the
new proposed uh first floor and finished lower level are actually moving slightly closer to the existing historic structure. Uh and will be a you know the first floor and the full lower level u will be all new finished living space as
opposed to covered outdoor carport pavilion spaces. Um so that's we're adding the gross floor area on both the lower level and the first floor of about roughly 330 square
feet to each level. Um which show as an increase to gross floor area but as uh no change to site coverage because of the fact that the carport covered walkways are all building structure. Um
if you go on to the next page please. So here you see the the carport portion and the covered connector piece which are being removed. The outdoor uh pavilion for the barbecue grill is to remain. Um
you can see pictures of the carport in place today and is being replaced with a u extension to the finished living space uh here at the walkout lower level rear portion of the property. Um if you go to the next
um so this view uh is the north elevation north side of the property. Uh well not directly visible from Main Street. It is visible from Lighthouse Lane, which is uh the corner lot. Um so on this
elevation, we've added shutters. Um kind of spruced up the elevation a little bit to make it it's more visible. It's more prominent. Uh but again, it's def it's kind of secondary and subservient to the main historic portion of the structure. Um
and and from a floor plan standpoint, the uh proposed new addition actually does pull back slightly from the rear property line. We're u condensing
condensing the the structure slightly. Um we are requesting that we maintain the existing site coverage. Our actual floor plans you'll see are a few square feet below what is there today, but we wanted to have a little bit of
construction tolerance um so that we don't have to return. Um but we are expanding a slightly larger kitchen and pushing the primary suite towards the rear of the property. Uh
current presently the kitchen's tucked in this corner uh right on Main Street um which is now becoming more kind of functional mudroom, powder room, pantry storage spaces. There are no proposed changes to the the
second floor, upper floor as that's part of the historic front portion of the building, trying to isolate all of our work to the rear. I think that's summarizes the this the project. >> Great. Uh thank you Mr. Barker. So uh
with respect to the criteria um the applicable criteria works for usually. >> Pardon? >> The applicable criteria. >> Yes, the applicable criteria. Okay. Um as indicated at the outset, it's in
an R20 zoning district. Um um the lots 8,635 ft. That is a nonconformity. Uh there is that um nonconformity to the front yard, but of course that doesn't change as as we've indicated. We're making no changes to the front historic portion. Uh it's
176 where 25 is currently required. Existing dwelling uh is uh 17.8 in building coverage. I know Mr. Barker was using the term site coverage, but building coverage is the oper operative term here. And um uh the proposed
changes will keep the uh the dwelling at 176 off the road and 178 at building coverage. So there's no change there. So we'd suggest respectfully that um the site is adequate. Um two, the compatibility of the size of the
proposed structure with neighboring properties. I think it fits in with the the rest of the uh old village. In fact, I think this particular addition, as was observed at the historic commission, uh really fits in better than uh what's
back there now in terms of the carport um which is kind of disconnected from the original uh dwelling itself. Um so, uh the the proposed u house will keep its relative size and and it's uh similar to the size of the rest of those
structures in the immediate area in the old village. the extent of the proposed increase in non-conforming nature. Um there is none there is no increase in any nonconformity. There is some increase in gross floor area as I indicated at the outset and Mr. Barker walked you through where that
was in this proposal. Um we know the gross floor area is not a metrics per se in in in the bylaw but again um certainly something of interest um uh to you in making your necessary findings. But with respect to this criteria, there
is no change in the um nonconformity suitability of the site including not limited to impact on neighboring properties or the natural environment. Um there's no wetlands here. Um there's no issue with uh uh storm runoff um that
we're aware of. Um so we believe the project will have no negative impacts on neighboring properties. We did have uh one um a butter show up at the historic meeting um and u their concern was uh uh
parking uh during the project and u wanted to make sure that their uh drive area uh was not utilized uh for parking by contractors. And so you'll see when I get to it, getting ahead of myself a little bit there, that we've proposed a
condition to address that um at the end. Um impact of scale, sighting, and mass on the neighborhood visual character uh including views and vistas. U we think the changes here fit in uh to the character. Uh no views or vistas are uh
negatively impacted by it. uh the historic district uh seem to concur members concur with with that analysis. Compatibility of the proposed use with neighboring uses uh it continues it will continue to be a contributing structure uh in the national registered district
and part of this uh residential area. Adequacy of method of sewage disposal there is going to be a replacement as I understand it of the existing septic system. Um and there's a note from the board of health to in in that regard. We don't believe there'll be any impact on
traffic flow and safety. Um although during construction we are proposing that condition to ensure that um no adverse effects um uh on noise or litter. Adequacy of utilities there are uh adequate utilities formula business
and um lateral expansion the flood plane are NA. So, we think the board can make a finding uh that this proposal is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than uh what exists there today. But we're happy to take questions.
>> Well, you you'll see I should have have commented on it. The proposed condition that was developed after um and and it was uh Nancy Wayland who actually made the request that we address this. So, we've suggested to the board respectfully that you consider
that as a condition uh that there be no parking along Lighthouse Lane uh while the builder is working at 151 Main Street. No parking signs, we actually have developed signs will be posted along the street during construction. Um and all parking will take place
off-site. Uh arrangements will be communicated to any contractors working on the project um of these conditions. So, >> sounds like a plan. Okay. Um, is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor of this
project? Please raise your hand if so. Seeing none, I will read the two correspondences from one is from our health agent received 122 2025. She has no concerns um about the addition proposed. The permit was issued for the
new septic system for the three-bedroom dwelling. And that's Judith Giorgio. Christina Basset from the uh CHC tells us that the um CHC appreciated all the new construction um that would be would
be back on the property would be to the back of the property and that the new was clearly delineated from the old. The CHC found that this structure is historically significant, but the changes do not
material diminish its significance. So they did not impose a demolition delay. They reaffirmed this structure is a contributing structure in the National Registry District, but the changes did not warrant referral to the Cape Cod
Commission received on 1225. That concludes the correspondences. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wish to speak against or has a question? >> No.
>> Well, when you get there, just please state your name. And >> my name is uh Bill Mulgru. I live at the property at 14 Wilderwood Lane, which is directly behind um the property being renovated. And my only concern really is
I think it's a great project to go off with. Um I have no issues with that. My question really is on what the time frame of construction is. Um just so it's not with my property is basically about 40t away from this house. um that
um you know nail guns going off during the summer months and things like that would be kind of detrimental to uh the use of my property and that and just wanted to know what the schedule was if they going to be able to mitigate as much noise as possible during the summer if the project is going to last that long.
>> Okay. So that will all come into play assuming that this is allowed today. >> So um we'll get to that if indeed we we've reached that conclusion. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Anybody else have anything uh
negative to say or would like to ask a question? >> No questions from the board. Uh Steve, >> um I don't really have any questions. Thank you. >> Jenny, do you >> I don't have any questions. >> Lee,
>> no questions. >> Paul, >> no questions. >> Anybody on this side have a question? No. Okay. Nor do I. So, uh, Paul, >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> And Dave V seconds and votes yes. >> Uh, Ed votes yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes.
>> As do I. Okay. Deliberations. Uh, Mr. V. >> What's not to like here? I mean, this is really a great uh proposal. The addition is it's a complete fit. Um um you know I'm very familiar with this
neighborhood walking small dogs walk slowly. I I get to study the buildings a lot. Um no this is this is really uh there's no substantial detriment here. It's actually a really improvement and meets our criteria. I'll support it.
>> Thank you Ed. >> Um yeah well said. I I I agree with everything Dave had to say. And Paul, >> I agree. >> I agree as well. It's beautiful, beautiful house, great project.
>> Yeah, I think it's a great project and uh they probably are happy to get rid of that carport. So, uh nice nice job. >> Uh thoughtful project. Um very nice plans, Mr. Barker. I wanted to point that really easy to understand and and
you u supplemented it very well. Yeah, I think that it makes a lot of sense to turn the carport into some living space. Um, appreciate that you didn't change the coverage. You made the changes so that that um stayed the same. It meets our criteria and I um would approve it.
>> Given that this is looking like it's going Oh, wait. Paul, you already said Yeah. Right. Yes. >> Yeah. Um, can you just answer the portion of the question of how long you think this is going to take and we'll take care of the rest of the uh >> concerns. anticipating it to be approximately a nine to 10 month
construction duration start to finish. Um drawings are all done, building permits have been filed pending full approval from the board here today. Um so we would like to get started as soon as possible. Um typically on construction projects the noisier
activities are at the beginning and taper off from excavation to painting. So as the project proceeds, the noise level decreases. So we would anticipate that the the loudest of the construction work is completed this winter and into
spring. >> Okay. And um I was going to ask something else. Oh, I just wanted to point out while we're in this portion of it is that you'd have to wait until uh all the uh paperwork is uh come. >> We understand that. Yeah. No, I know you don't. I'm not saying it for your sake.
just saying it for the benefit of the listeners and uh the audience, >> but for the benefit of the gentleman, if I may, Madam Chairman, who raised the question about summertime, >> I I think we'll we'll see when the board gets to its customary um conditions that during the summer there's going to be no
exterior construction allowed. Usually the board's uh condition when they put on it. So, >> yep. Yes, we're going to get to that. But um I wanted him just to understand why you're not going to start tomorrow. So, right. All right. Paul.
>> All right. I'll move to approve the application as submitted with the condition that uh there would be no uh construction uh between June 30th and Labor Day. Excuse me, no exterior construction will be allowed between June 30th and Labor Day. That no work
would be permitted on weekends and the construction activity would be between 8 am and 5:00 pm only. and further that there will be no parking along Lighthouse Lane while the builder is working at 151 Main Street. Uh the
builder will place no parking signs posted along the street. All parking will take place offsite and arrangements will be communicated to any contractors working on the project. >> Yep. Dave seconds and votes yes. >> Uh Ed votes yes.
>> Well, >> all votes yes. >> I think we have one more. I'm sorry. Sorry, I just wanted to clarify, Paul. Um, you had said no exterior construction between June 30th and Labor Day and then went into the no work on weekends and Monday through Friday. Did
you mean that to only for those three conditions to only be between June 30th and Labor Day or were the B and C for year round? >> Well, it's normally between June 30th and Correct. It was just and that's what we would continue. >> I'm just confirming that that's Yes. Okay,
>> that's what I meant. >> Standard condition. >> Okay, so you voted yes, Paul. >> Yes. >> And Jenny, >> I vote yes. >> As do I. It's unanimous. Congratulations. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay, next we're going to go to 74 Palmer
Drive, 25-0 81. Application number 25-081, Herman Sanchez and Aaron Mitchell, care of George Riley, 63 63 Brookt Road, Brewster Mass 02631. Owners of property located at 74 Palmer
Drive. Also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 16G, block 52, lot P17. The applicant seeks to enlarge extend or change a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the construction of a partial second floor addition. The existing dwelling is non-conforming and it is located 20.8 8
ft from the norly of butter and 10.6 ft from the southern lay of butter. The proposed second floor addition will be non-conforming and it will be located 20.8 ft from the norly of butter where a 25 ft setback is required. The building coverage will remain 2,117
square ft 16.13% where 15% is the maximum allowed. The law is non-conforming and that it contains 13,127 square ft where 40,000 ft is required in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under master law
chapter 4A section 6 and section 5B of the protected bylaw. This was continued from September 25th, 2025. Welcome back. >> Thank you. Excuse me. I'm George Riley representing Herman and Eron Sanchez. Um, as you
know, they wanted to uh build a second story uh addition to their u um sort of ranch style house on Palmer Lane. The um this uh proposal is really basically uh
fairly modest to put the take the two bedrooms from downstairs and put them upstairs so they have more room down below for their uh uh growing kids. really. Um, so, uh, let me go through a
couple of things here. Could we put up the, uh, the site plan? Where go site? There. Oh, no. It's here somewhere. There you go. Um, take this. So, um, on it's a small lot,
but the there you go. On this the north property line, there's a row of maybe 20 foot high uh uh arborvite hedge. And this is also a large hedge with many uh with a
large oak and a large pitch pie. So, the views from this side and this side are pretty much stopped. There's a bit of an opening here, but there's a large hedge here. So, I guess what I'm getting at is that view from the back side of this off
the road is going to be pretty much invisible to the abutters. So, the really the only this part here is what you're going to see mainly from the road. So, if we could go back to that sketch there. Yeah. So, um,
it's a we've cleaned it up and made it a sort of a traditional two large dormers. That's one bedroom. That's the other bedroom. And this is what the existing uh house looks like with the shrubbery. So the
the height of this from the foundation is about 26 ft which is u for a point of comparison 2 ft lower than the houses across the street. So it's quite and the
the this part the which is the addition is probably 60% of the footprint of the existing house. So, I guess what I'm saying is a relatively modest uh second story proposal, although I
know that when the original elevations looked a little more grandiose and I think the project really is. So, I'm saying that uh this then becomes quite uh compatible with the neighborhood and I think it is not only
non-detrimental but a positive uh a positive look. Now, Um, so that uh that's pretty much my proposal here. So if we could >> So those are the changes. >> Yes. Right. We've cleaned that taken the
windows out and cleaned it up in the front to make it look a little more compatible with everything else around it. >> Okay. Um I don't think you need to go through the conditions again. I mean the um criteria again unless anybody else here thinks because we did it before.
You agree, Mr. V? Yeah. Everybody. Okay. So, um, is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wish to speak in favor of this application? If if so, please raise your hand. Okay, I will read the two
correspondences that we received. One is from our health agent, uh, Judith Giorgio on 92325. She tells us she reviewed the plan to add an addition to the dwelling at this property, including a new second floor relocating two bedrooms. The property is
an existing three-bedroom dwelling and will remain uh she has no concerns. And then we have uh something from the uh the collector's office. Um so do you want to check into that later? Um Mr. Riley? >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Okay. So there's that. All right. Um, is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wish to speak against this project or has a specific question? Now's the time. No. All right. So, we're just going to
compare this to what's there now. I would say our board should do, not necessarily what you had last time. That's my opinion. Um, because that's really like how this is supposed to work. Um, all right, Jenny, what do you think?
Well, I actually was comparing it in my pre-work to what was there last time because we did talk last time about the fact that it was topheavy what was being proposed and that it had too much mass. The dormers were too large. So, I guess
my questions would be um is it just the uh you took the top you took the top window off. >> You took the windows off and uh and some of the trim and uh >> really
when I looked at it and realized it was not not as massive as I thought everyone thought it was because it was it's only 60% of the footprint of the house. It's >> really not that much and it's considerably lower than the
>> houses across the street. So, >> I think it's probably not as massive as as what we thought. And I when I if you go back Yeah. to the sketch. There it is. But go back to the sketch a little bit. You do that. Yeah.
We're not Okay. So the part of this where it's expanded in the side that's really not visible much because it's really behind the chimney and way set back. It's really just the front part, >> right? And that's the only thing that
you changed was the front. The back is recessed. I I see that. >> Now I think that's a very attractive rendering, but this is just a picture we have to really look at. Can we go back Sarah to the other one because I think that I think that is better. >> Yeah. Um,
>> so I just want to clarify the change was the window at the top of the two dormers and actually the the window >> we cleaned up that little piece in the middle there that >> and added shingle. >> Yeah. Right. >> Yeah. >> Um, okay. Those that's my only question. >> Okay. Thank you,
>> Steve. Questions? Um, are the the the ridge of the dormer is that the same height as the ridge of the house itself? >> Right. >> So, they're not that's not stepped down in any way. >> It's not stepped down. No, but uh
but that height is not a you know, it's not it's not a huge tall building. I mean, it's it's only 26 feet. It's quite normal size uh ridge. I guess I'm kind of a symmetry guy. There was there ever any thought of
centering the door between the dormers? >> Uh I know. >> Yeah. I I think they you know they had what they had to start with and they've just tried to make it as best they can given the space that they had and not to
go like overboard and like build >> God >> around the whole thing. just put a two bedrooms on the second floor and p close enough. Yeah. Gota. >> Okay. >> I mean, it would be nice to do that, but >> that would be a big problem. You know, you'd have to really move everything around below.
>> Okay, >> that's the problem. >> Okay, that's it. Thank you. >> Sure. >> Leah, any questions? >> Um, no, just a clarification. The the upper the upper portion on the side. >> Yeah. In the in the sketch, the rendering,
it looks like it has been reduced, but in this it >> Well, yeah, because you can't really see it. The side comes out and the chimney comes uh in front of it. >> Okay. >> And it's set behind the chimney. So when
you look at it from the road or from an angle, the chimney blocks it. Okay. Well, I think that uh the sketches, you know, shows accurately what it looked like if you were standing at that point. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. Just wanted to make sure. Thank you, Paul. Do you have
any questions? >> Uh well, I uh I was in favor of the design the last time around. Um >> um at this point, I I see it as topheavy. Agree. And uh I'm somewhat
offset by the asymmetry too. Um and the the the sketch uh helps because it uses foliage to break up the lines, but I'm not sure the foliage is actually there to do it.
>> Well, the all that foliage is there now. There's there's nothing added. That's what's >> in the ground right now. >> About that size, too. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Mr. Nixon. No. Um, Ed questions.
>> Um, no. I I I understand that, you know, it would be nice to have the the front door centered, but um in order to to do that would would require quite a bit of >> quite a bit of work. >> Yeah. Relocating everything. >> Yeah. In the first floor. Do you know offhand how far back the dormers are set
from the the front roof line because um >> I think it's like three four feet something like that. >> Yeah. >> Not much more than that. You can look at the plan but there's a big overhang. >> Yeah. >> In the front of the house and so when it's set back even against the wall it goes back at least.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Go up. I think the way it's so far set back, right? >> Sort of >> uh diminish the the the size, >> right? It diminishes that. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, that was sort of the idea anyway.
>> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> Yes. You're welcome. >> Any questions, Mr. Beach? >> Yeah. Excuse me, George. Just so I want to make sure I'm reading this correctly. I'm I'm looking at the rendering and I'm looking at a photo of the existing
house. Um and my read on the new design is that you know you have that portion of roof that's let's let's say the front portion of the roof >> right >> which in the as it's existing
>> you know we're looking at it and that roof is is is fading away it's a probably a a seven or eight pitch maybe. >> Yeah. But now that portion of roof that's showing the drawing has been increased so that this is essentially like a gamrell type. >> It's more like a man.
>> It's more like a gamrell form. >> So that so that that that section of roof that's showing there is much more vertically um uh presents more vertically than the exist more vertically. Right. >> Yeah. I just want that's what I thought I saw
>> looking at the uh elevations. It's a little >> It's not too dissimilar from the house across the street in that way. >> Yeah. The the houses across the street which you've sent photos of of course art. >> Yeah. >> More of that kind of form, I guess you say. Yeah. Several of them. Anyway,
>> all right. Thanks. >> So, um I have a couple of questions. Yes. >> You know, >> I look at dormas all the time. Oh, good. Part part of being on this, you know, and I look at that house and I can't really call those dormers. I mean, they
first of all, they have three windows and they're just so horizontal looking to me. I I don't even know what to even make of the dorm dormers. So, I just want to be honest. Um, >> so you calling them dormas?
>> Yeah. I mean, they're, you know, structurally coming out from the roof line. They have a roof of their own and extends the first floor out. So, >> I think the when I see wider ones, I'm used to seeing like um shed doras, >> right?
>> Oh, no. Like dog house. Yeah. >> Well, that those look like dog house dormas for like a golden like a I don't know what's a big name. A big >> They're smaller than the one across the street. >> Like a mastiff. >> Yeah. That sticks out like the same way.
>> Yeah. And then the shed dormers are usually the wide ones. Yeah. >> Right. So that's why I'm just a little confused looking at them. Right. >> And then um was there an architect involved here? >> Yeah, I think so. It wasn't me. Right.
Right. >> I mean because it looks like stuff is sort of just, you know, stuck in different places. Oh, we need one of those rooms. Let's just pop that over here. >> You know, people have t their own taste, you know. So, >> yeah. I guess >> I'm just trying to make it fit in best we can.
>> Yeah. But I mean, we're talking about streetscape. This is a pretty nice street. Palmer Drive is, you know, no slouch. Yeah, it's a really nice street. >> I think I think this will look fine. I mean, all that down below, all that stuff that's already there. >> I understand that
hasn't is not adding to the >> Now we have kind of a large muffin top over it. Um I don't know. And then uh let's see what else. Um so there was a builder and an architect. Yeah. >> Yes, there's a builder and an architect. >> Okay. Um, I don't have any other
questions. Paul, >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> David seconds and votes yes. >> Uh, Ed votes yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> As do I. Okay, now we're going to do deliberations. Um, and we'll go to uh Ed.
>> We might as well get this side over with. Um, architecturally I, you know, it's it's not perfect, but um, you know, it's basically what I would call sort of like almost like a large Nantucket style
dormer up on top, which I've seen before. Um, I, you know, I I think it's fine. I think it'll it'll fit in with the neighborhood. Um, and I don't have anything more to say
than that. That's okay, Mr. Vich. >> Well, I think uh um I know I I that there were some um problems with the apparent massing the first time around, and I believe that I said that I thought that
it it was not um excessive for the neighborhood. Um and I I guess I still feel that way. Um, but I am a little I I I was a little surprised at what came back because it's
not as far as the mass goes, it's really not significantly different than what was presented the first time. Um, there's been some changes of fenestration, etc. to to deemphasize some of it. But as far as the actual
mass, I I don't see that as having changed. Uh now that said, that's comparing to what was pre brought to us the first time around looking especially they did include the last time around some photos of some of the neighboring properties and especially when I look at those and
then I I project this to be in place there in my mind. I I can't find that it's substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. I think it will fit in with those some of those neighbors at least the ones that on the other side of the street. So I could support it.
Thanks. >> Okay. Um Jenny, >> so I um I do appreciate that additional thought went into it. I I'm I'm still troubled by the topheaviness of the which was the comment last time. And in
fact, I think there's actually something um the dormers have improved by taking that extra window away. And it does look like that middle section was shortened a little bit, that connector. Um, but what I'm seeing in the picture, the new picture,
not the rendering, but the actual computer is that the the roof the top part of the roof is overhanging like more way more than the original one, which contributes to the top heaviness
again. So, um I mean I think it's better. I do I do I do think it's better and I think it's because of getting rid of those curved windows, at least the two. Um but I I really think that we were pretty specific last time that we liked the
height. We liked uh we appreciated that they were trying to just add on to the existing home and not start over. And I would support that. But I I felt like I said last time the mass and it was too topheavy and I don't know that they
really changed that. And in fact I think by having that roof anchor roof anger roof overhang on the left hand side I don't know why that increased unless I'm reading it wrong. Um and Ed and Dave would know best. Um I think
that makes that takes away from the improvements that were made to reduce the top heaviness. So, um, those are my comments. >> Okay, Steve. >> Um, well, I guess when I first looked at this, I and I
don't want to insult anybody, but I thought it was sort of like a a trade show display. Um, there's round windows, there's half round windows, there's double hung windows, there's a diamond shaped window on the side, there's awning windows, there's trapezoid
windows. Um, there's there's there's a lot going on here. And it looks like maybe even two different kinds of siding. Um, I don't know if that's a it was done on purpose or that's a computer problem, but looks like there might be clabards on the on the bottom of of the
side with cedar shakes above it. >> I think it's all shakes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Um, I I I you know, I think this deserves a second look. >> And Lee,
>> yeah, I agree with a lot of the comments that have been made. I I don't think the the mass and the top heaviness of the second floor has really been improved that much. Um it is better. Uh but if it were my house, I' I'd want to go back to the drawing board one more time.
>> I'm trying to remember who's vote. Oh, Ed's voting. Lucky you. Uh okay. Well, >> well, I uh I tend to agree with Jenny. I I don't think that uh I don't think the mass has been helped at all by uh the
changes that have been made. Um and I'm more disturbed by the design this time around than I was before, which is uh >> I wasn't that's not good >> unfortunately. That yeah, that's not particularly helpful. Um,
so, uh, I'm inclined to think that it does need another redo in order to satisfy the overall comments of the board. >> Mr. Nixon, >> well, uh, comparing this with what is there today, which is what we need to
do. It it flunks with streetscape, flunks with compatibility with a neighborhood, and the massing, as you have heard from a number of people, is just too topheavy. It's just doesn't do it. So, all in all,
I would find if I were voting, I would have to vote no because it is detrimental substantially to the neighborhood. >> And I feel the same way. And I I also thought Steve's comments were uh were helpful in this calculation too. The
fact that there's it, you know, I'm not trying to be I've already probably insulted you or somebody. >> All right. Anyway, but um I don't mean to be rude, but it just looks like it needs more thought in terms of the uniformity because again, it's an
important street and no matter where it is in in this town, I think um it could be improved um and to look like the other houses in the neighborhood. Um and the style uh the impact on scale
sighting and mass. Number five is my problem. the visual visual character um and the streetscape. So, um I would vote no if I were voting. It seems like um if you want us to take a vote, we can do that. Um
>> well, I'd like to get a if I could more uh specific suggestions that uh I'm hearing uh what I take to be a little bit more abstract. Do you want the dormers reduced in size? Is that the
idea? They I mean if you look around on that street and you look at other dormers you know maybe >> I mean I looked across the street and I I don't see a significant difference between those two but on the other ones yeah you know a more traditional roof line with a a smaller dormer is I think
what you're aiming at. Is that am I reading that correctly? >> Probably. >> Probably. >> Yeah. I don't think we're supposed to give you design. >> No no I'm not. And I'm trying to get I'm trying to I I we can redesign it, but we'd like to redesign it to fit into what your criteria.
>> I've already crossed enough lines. So, um >> Right. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> It's not a good sign when you say it looks worse than it did before. So, >> yeah. Well, I didn't say that one. >> I know you didn't. >> Yeah. We should this be a
>> Should we um we continue this to one more shot? >> Yeah. No, be withdraw. Uh, I think it's a withdrawal might be in in store. Um, >> well, I know that I got a clearer picture. I think continuing might be
really helpful to me. >> Well, I am the chair today, but I will not be the chair in January. So, I turned to the uh the chair and wait, and he sounded like he wanted to be withdrawn. So, I'm going to blame him. >> All right,
George. when uh something has gone on this long. >> I know, >> you know, it's it's unfair to all the others that we're cutting out when we continue something. You know, Sarah's got a backlog like you wouldn't believe. So, in fairness to your clients and to
staff here and to ourselves, a withdrawal would be appropriate. It gives you the time to really get it where you think it should be and your client should be. A continuence wouldn't do that.
>> Plus, we have 240B still open, you know, so we are awfully busy. >> Yeah. >> All right. Thank you. >> All right. So, um, >> can you just request a withdrawal? >> Yeah, we request a withdrawal. >> We appreciate that. Paul, >> I'll move to grant the requested
withdrawal without prejudice. Uh David seconds and votes yes. >> Ed votes yes. >> All votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes >> as do I. Thank you very much and hopefully third time will be a charm. >> We'll see you next time. >> All right.
We are going to go to 25104 124. Mooncusser application number 25-104 Elizabeth A. Sorenson 2019 Trust Care of Michael D. Ford Esquire PO Box 485 West Haritch Mass 02671
owner of property located at 124 Mooners Lane also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 10A block 4 lot H2. The applicant proposes to install slashrelocate exterior mechanical system appliances, AC units, generator, and heat pump within the setback to the
Coastal Conservancy District. The proposed mechanical systems will be located 11 ft for the AC units, 12 ft for the generator, and 15 ft for the heat pump from the coastal conservancy district where a 50ft setback is required. In the R40 zoning district, a special permit is required under Mass
General law chapter 48 section 9 and section 8D2B of the protective bylaw. >> Welcome back. >> Thank you uh Madame Chair, members of the board, attorney Mike Ford representing u Elizabeth and William, excuse me, Sorenson. with me is John
Barker of uh PSD um who uh uh they they've worked on this particular property and and they're the designers of this particular site plan. So why are we here? Um we're proposing a
generator and uh relocated uh air conditioner um units that are currently uh up in front of the house off of uh Moon Penney and to move them to the side here. um both the generator and the air conditioner units meet the 25- foot
setback. However, in May, the town meeting in their wisdom uh voted that um accessory mechanical structures um are now subject to the 50-foot setback from the Coastal Conservancy District. And you'll see the Coastal Conservancy
District is in that blue line um on the plan. And so, um, we're unable to get the 50 feet away from that particular line. Um, and so we're here, as the bylaw allows us to be to ask for a
special permit. Now, this is a special permit, not under the non-conforming section, under the general special permit standards in the bylaw under section 8. And therefore the criteria while not dissimilar are a little bit different than the criteria um uh under
um section VB. Um I'm happy to go right to the criteria. Uh Mr. Barker, anything else you have um you want to add to the >> Not a whole lot to add. No, >> with your permission, Madam Chair, I'll
go to the criteria. And again, I'm working off the criteria on section eight. uh of the bylaw. Um get to my copy. Uh so we've got a very large lot. It's
over 52,000 uh square feet. Um buildable uplands uh just under 26,000 where 40,000 is required. uh proposed uh we're relocating um the AC units and the new generator and they're all proposed to be
located within the conservancy district 50oot setback. Um uh the uh proposed heat pump will be located um 15 ft at its closest point to the coastal conservancy district. As I said, it'll meet the sideyard setback of
25 ft um where 50 ft is required from the conservancy district and the AC units would be 11 ft off the uh coastal conservancy district. However, they they meet the uh setback requirements and the generator uh 12 ft. So, u all the units
as I say meet that 25 ft setback. Uh we think the site is adequate. Um they're doing some other work in the port in front of the portion of the house that's out on Moon Penny where the AC units are now with that uh patio um being
constructed to connect to uh a covered porch with this which this board allowed under a special permit last year. Um and so this is really the best space on the lot in terms of any affected neighbors um and frankly their own um living area
um uh to put these particular items. Um suitability of the site for proposed use. We think the site is suitable. Uh these are accessory and uh to the single family residential use. Traffic flow and
safety is an NA. I'd suggest, Madam Chair, um I don't believe there's any visual impact on on views and vistas in the neighborhood as to where they're being located. Um sewage disposal and source of water and drainages in NA. Um
the uh there are utilities uh present. Um noise and litter I'd suggest is a not necessarily noise but uh litter is is an NA but I think the location here is not one where noise will become an issue uh
for a butters um compatibility the of the proposed use um it is accessory to residential dwellings and and we're seeing more and more now where uh residential dwellings are uh looking to install generators uh in the event of a
loss of power. Um impact on natural environment including slopes, vegetation, wetlands, groundwater, water bodies. Uh where they're located uh while they're in the um uh setback area under zoning uh to the conservancy
district, uh they're in an area not subject to the jurisdiction of the conservation commission. So uh I'd suggest respectfully that there's no negative impact on the natural uh environment there. impact on neighborhood visual character. Again, we
think the location's a good one and and won't impact on on other neighbors. Uh we'd suggest that the board uh can make uh the finding here for a general special permit. Um which is a finding that um uh what's proposed will not be
detrimental to the established or future character of the neighborhood and will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of uh the bylaw. And the bylaw does contemplate um these types of structures being located um within the
50-foot setback, but only upon a special permit. Give neighbors an opportunity to come out and and for the board to take a look at see what impacts there might be. And that's our presentation, Madam Chair. >> Thank you very much. Is there anyone here on Microsoft Teams that wishes to
speak in favor of this application? Yes, please. Uh, good afternoon. Dan Gilbert, 152 Moon Penney Lane, right across from the Sorensons. And, uh, not a ton to add. I've known the Sorensons since they moved in. very considerate, thoughtful
neighbors and um I just wanted to support the plan as proposed by Mr. Ford. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else wish to speak in favor? Seeing none, we have no uh correspondences to read. So now I'm
going to go to Would anybody like Yes, go ahead. to speak against or has a question. And everybody when they say their name, we know it's for the record. Just so you know, it's always for the right. >> In that case, Brian Phillips 374 Orleans Road. I mean, I kind of make a generic
spiel against things being built in the coastal conservancy districts. Um, grew up playing with Mr. Hockey with Mr. Barker, one of the nicest people ever met. I really have a lot of respect for Dan over there, but I think it's a bad thing to be building things in the Coastal Conservancy District and not meeting the required setbacks. Not only
is it, you know, um affect flood mitigation, um I don't know if you guys saw the uh select presentation by Jerry Stall about, um you know, like the flood uh level rises and the creeping salt margins and stuff like that and the reasons why we have these laws. We shouldn't be putting stuff in these
coastal conservy districts. Um >> the law provides that we do this under a special permit. So, you'd have to go change the law in the first place to make that argument effective. It does provide that we can do this under a special permit. So there's no universe
where the law doesn't provide it. >> Okay. Um >> just I just wanted >> my brain I got I'm going to have to think about what you just said for a minute in order for me to make sense. Um we're not in the conservancy district. >> You're not meeting the setbacks. >> There's a there's a zoning setback. We're not in conservation commission
jurisdiction. We're not in a flood plane and we're 25 ft off the property line and we're not in the coastal conservancy district. >> Okay. So, but how far are you from the coastal conservancy district? >> Uh, 11 ft with one and 15 feet with the other.
>> But doesn't the law require 50 ft setback? >> Uh, since May, accessory structures now have to meet a 50ft setback. And as you can see, the house is 50 feet. So, there's no place to to put them. >> I'm not trying to be personal. Everything that's built, you know, in in the coast district, I get to speak
against. So, anything personal, but um >> Okay. But it's not in the district, >> but it doesn't meet the setbacks. All right. Thank you. Okay, we we just humored you for that. Okay. All right. Anybody else wish to speak against or has a question?
No. All right. Questions from the board? Are there any? >> Yes, please. >> Uh well, I do have one question. Mike, you could probably answer. So, um I'm thinking that the there were two recent
changes at the the town meeting and with respect to to these the this issue. Is that correct? I mean the the first of all we were we we were granted the ability to give um special permits for
this for this type of equipment and then there was something also dealing with the setback to the conservancy district. Uh did did those did >> uh the way this is drafted um it it now captures the setback from the
conservancy district where prior to this and I'm sure Mr. Briggs will correct me if I'm wrong. While principal structures were subject to the 50-foot setback, the bylaw was at best unclear as to whether accessory structures were subject to
that. If you read the Coastal Conservancy District um literally. So, this now captures um any accessory structure that's in that 50-foot zone and requires it to meet the 50 foot or seek a special
permit from this board. What about swimming pools? >> They're not in that. Yeah. So, let's Sarah. Um, so there were two separate modifications. One to the conservant one, one to section three. Yeah. >> Um, specifically the mechanicals prior
to May were only required to meet the butters setback for the zoning district. >> Oh. >> So, from the road, they only needed to be the abutter setback. Now they're required except by special permit to meet the full road abutters and conservancy district setbacks
>> by special permit. They are they are able to apply for a special permit whereas formerly if it was a new nonconformity it was by variance. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> I'm just trying to follow somewhat. You know there's a lot there. Thank you. >> Yeah the variance part was the other part.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. Right. Okay. Other questions from the board? It's good to go through all this. Yes. Jenny or and then Steve. >> Um, so Mr. Ford, it looks like the um
the heat pump is a new device and the generator is new. The AC units are existing and they are currently at the back of the house and they're being proposed to be moved to that new location.
>> Correct. Um, and the pool equipment is where everything is going is going. That's because that's already existing, too. >> The right. That's correct. >> Okay. So, this this home was in front of us a few months ago for the porch.
>> Yes, the covered porch that we're left in. >> Yeah. >> So, were the AC units just uh kind of an afterthought like, you know, we really should move those because they're the new porch is there and >> I don't think anybody contemplated there'd be a change in the bylaw. >> Okay. Okay, >> that was the we came for the covered
porch before the zoning changed, >> right? Okay, thank you for confirming. Thanks, >> Steve. >> Just very quick, do these need to be elevated at all or are these at at ground level? >> Um, they're ground level. >> The the air conditioner condensers are
at ground level. The generators at ground level. The heat pumps are required to be elevated. Um, I believe it's 12 to 18 in to get out of snowfall accumulation. Gotcha. >> Uh as part of the manufacturer requirements. >> Okay. >> Um and are you planning any I don't know
if you need any kind of um foliage around it. So you're going to try to hide these at all or do you think it's not necessary? I don't feel it's necessary. The access to the driveway meanders in through the front yard. There's quite a bit of land
um and it's down on the screen which is to the east >> um where the driveway navigates in. So they're out out of view from the roadway uh as presently located. Um >> you won't see them from Moon Custer or
Moon Penney. >> Okay. All right. Very good. Thank you. >> Lee, no questions. Paul, >> no questions. >> All right. Paul, >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. Dave each seconds and votes yes. >> Uh Ed votes yes. >> All votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes.
>> As do I. Okay, let's deliberate now. Um Ed, >> um >> it it it seems like a logical place to to put these units. It seems like you've gotten sort of caught in the in the uh
in the change. Um, there does look like there there's potentially a place where you could put it to be out of the uh conservatory area over where the screen porch is, but that doesn't really seem like a a good spot
for for these. >> Yeah, it really doesn't. It would be up front and and it would be closer to Moon Penney and it would be closer to >> Yeah. >> house on the other side of the road. >> Yeah. >> Spoke. We're trying to keep it away from any other house. Yeah. Yeah. >> So, um, as far as I'm concerned, I I
don't feel it'd be detrimental to to anything and it it seems like a given everything that's going on, a logical spot to put these. >> Okay. Mr. Nixon, >> makes sense to me because the U pool equipment is already there and just to
put it, you know, stacked up behind it. Uh, it it it's totally logical and it's a good spot. Yeah, >> yeah, I I would agree. I think especially these days with the heat pumps and things, I think the generator
is the only thing that's really going to generate much a lot of noise. Uh and it seems like a good location for all of that equipment. So, I would support it. >> Yep. And uh Paul, you support it? >> Well, I don't know why you can't anticipate bylaws that we haven't passed
yet. >> But I'll assume that you haven't developed that technique yet. So, uh, >> I'm working on it, Paul. >> All right, good. If you can get that p perfect perfected, you could be in demand.
>> Um, but I think it clearly does not uh uh detrimental to the established or future character of the neighborhood and will be in harmony with the brand purpose and intent of the bylaw. >> All right. >> We can therefore approve it. >> You would? All right. Lee, would you?
>> Yes, I agree with my colleagues >> and Steve. Yeah, I I think I kind of agree with Ed. They're it's a good spot to put them. They're inadimate objects, so they're not going to be causing any erosion or anything. So, um I I think
they're they're fine where they are. >> And Jenny, >> well, I I think Mr. Nixon's right. The key here is the pool equipment is already there and it's nicely screened and it's it's um I think it makes sense to have all the mechanicals in one spot
and the pool equipment was already there in this and it uh which uh was built before this change of the conservancy set back. So, um I uh I think it makes I I do think it makes
sense and I think that um while it doesn't it it and it does meet the zoning setback. So, I think agree with Ed, you were sort of caught in that that bylaw and um I think it's good that we are paying attention to that, but but I think the fact that the pad is already there, it's nicely screened and it makes
sense to have everything in one spot. Um I could support that. >> Yeah. So, so to be clear, um I I support it, but I I just kind of just for the sake of the listeners and certainly um somebody in the audience that has concerns about this, I do too because
can you just confirm that if you were going to build this now, right? This pool and the house, all this in that spot, would you be able to do that now if it was from the beginning? >> The pool would have required a special permit. >> The pool would have.
>> Yeah. But today >> today but it didn't then. >> It didn't then. >> And then also would you even be able to build anything within 50 ft if it was new construction of the of the conservancy district? >> Um these uh types of units. >> Yeah.
>> That's why they've provided a special permit. If you meet the special permit standard, you can construct it. >> But the change in the bylaw doesn't say you can't have this type of thing within the 50oot setback. It says if if you end up proposing one there, you need a special permit from the board of appeals.
>> No, but I mean if it was a new construction, if there was nothing there and all of a sudden you buy this lot and now you want to do that, could you do it? >> You could apply for a special permit. >> Okay, >> that that's what the bylaw says. It can be within the 50oot setback, even new
construction, provided that you get a special permit. Now, that's for the accessory mechanicals. That's not for new house. >> That's what I meant. So you couldn't put this house there now, right? >> And the house was built 50 feet away from the conservancy district where it
was located when the house was built. See the other complicating factor is that the flood plane changed, >> right? Yeah. >> And envelop more of the lot. So >> So the regulations change over time. >> Yeah. So the but of course you can you
can do things because you already have a house there, you already have stuff there. And I think some people in the community just are troubled by the fact that you can do anything at all, you know, in sensitive areas, but the law provides that you can with a special permit.
>> Right. >> Okay. I just wanted to get that on the record one more time. And uh that being said, Paul, >> it's a little bit like watching the three cups and the balls underneath them and moving them around. >> Sure.
>> I'll move to approve the application. And uh as submitted uh I don't think we need conditions with respect to uh construction at this location. >> No. No. >> Uh uh Dave seconds and votes yes. >> Uh Ed votes yes. >> All votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes.
>> As do I. It's unanimous. Congratulations. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. >> All right. Does anyone need a break on our board? Yes. No. Anybody? No. Okay. We'll power through. Next one. Uh, when Sarah is
ready, we'll go to page two. >> Application number 25-105. Elizabeth No, Car William G. Lichfield, Esquire, 330 Orleans Road, North Chadam, Mass 02650. Owner of property located at 127 Shane Drive. Also shown in the town of
Chadam's assessor's map 15G, block 76, lot B26. The applicant proposes to construct an accessory dwelling unit, ADU, under section 7B19 of the protective bylaw. The applicant is seeking relief from the maximum building coverage requirement for the
construction of an ADU. The existing building coverage is 2,244 ft 13.7% and the proposed building coverage is 2,654 ft 16.2% where 15% is the maximum allowed. The property contains 16,43
square feet in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law Chapter 4A section 9 and sections 7B919 and 8D2B of the protective bylaw. >> Welcome, Attorney Lichfield. >> Thank you very much. Good afternoon,
members of the board. Bill Ledgefield here on behalf of Betsy Noir, who is in the front row, seeking uh an ADU uh for Betsy's mom, uh to be constructed on the property where she has lived for a
number of years on Shane Drive. I know that you've all been out there. I also uh heard from Betsy that several of you had very positive comments about a potential revision to the plans and I'll get to that right uh later. I want to
start though, excuse me, about uh talking what what we're seeking and why. Um Betsy's grandparents actually lived uh not too far from where Betsy lives now and her mother uh would like to uh
have uh a place to live a separate residence in ADU on the Shane Drive property. So Betsy approached me last May uh with the idea and on ear very early June uh I contacted the department
community development and also our housing and planning people as well as our central perating permitting coordinator and we had numerous discussions about whether it would be possible to locate the ADU uh in another
location rather than shown there whether it would be possible to slide it lower toward that rear corner. There's nothing directly back there. Um and we considered the possibilities. In order
to do that, we would need a variance uh to address the sideline v dimensions. But there's a curious aspect of our zoning bylaws provision for ADUs
which says sort of nonsensical but it says that the ZBA which can under state law grant variances can't grant dimensional variances under Chadam's ADU bylaw. We'll get to that later. So Betsy very
much wanted to put it in a location other than where proposed and and thereby save that very nice tree in the backyard, but we realized that it couldn't readily be done, certainly not under the the current bylaw. Uh we'd have to be too
close, quote unquote, to the law line. Uh and we'd also have excess coverage. We have excess coverage anyway. That's what we're seeking. But you have under our ADU provision of the bylaw, you have the ability to wave the excess coverage
provision. So I'll go into what is proposed because that's the only thing in front of you. I would hope that you would support it and at the end of my presentation I'll talk about some other options. This is not a
question of substantial detriment. This is a special permit under the the broad criteria of whether it is appropriate uh as a use whether it will not be detrimental to the established or future character of the neighborhood or the
town and that the use involved will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the bylaw. Well, our bylaw says, not in regard to ADUs, but generally that one of its purposes is to provide housing for folks of all income levels
and circumstances. Beyond that, the ADU language is very specific, encouraging exactly what Betsy would like to do for her mother. So, I'll go into the criteria as to what's proposed. And Sarah, maybe if you could just bring up one of the the uh
representations of it. It's a very simple small 400 square foot unit. Uh ad our ADU by law allows ADUs of up to 900 square ft but because we were already
in excess of coverage and didn't want to press the issue. We are seeking a modest coverage increase and that relates to the first criteria criteria on the adequacy of the site in terms of the size for the proposed use. On the second
page of the handout, you will note that we have for that neighborhood, Old Harbor Pines, we have one of the largest lots in the neighborhood. Most of them, many of them are 10,000 square foot. We have a 16,400 ft lot, one of the largest in the neighborhood, which is certainly
adequate for the ADU with a modest waiver for 194 square ft of excess coverage. If you compare that to 90 Cod Lane or 67 Palmer Drive on that chart, they are smaller lots with much larger
houses, whether by gross floor area or living area. The combined gross floor area of Betsy's house and her mom's ADU is only 20 2326 2326
square ft. And the total living area of the two of them is just 254 square feet. So this is a modest ADU. as the suitability of the site for the proposed use. The site has been suitable for residential use since the house was
built and the neighborhood developed back in the uh mid 1960s. As you know, state law as well as our state local priorities favor ADUs, but our bylaw hasn't caught up in the 16 months since
the state law changed. Uh, I could give you more comments than any of us would like as to why that's happened, but it hasn't happened. And right now, we have to live with our current bylaw. I understand that there's going to be a proposal in May, which would allow, if
we go back to the site plan, Sarah, thank you. Which would might allow ADUs to be as close as 10 ft to the lot line. That isn't going to do a whole lot for Bets's mom. She was born in the second administration of Franklin Delanor
Roosevelt. Okay. Uh so there's a time factor. Uh Mrs. Lambie would like to be in the house this summer in the ADU this summer. She doesn't want to wait. Betsy doesn't want to wait. None of us want to wait for the the bylaw to pass in May
assuming it does. And then we have to wait for the AG to approve it. So, we are seeking approval today for what is there. In any event, despite our bylaws failings, the site is suitable for this ADU. It meets the setback requirements,
and we're seeking again a modest and reasonable waiver on coverage, which our current bylaw allows. Even though it won't allow you to grant variances, it for setbacks, it does allow you to to wave the coverage or to modify the coverage. There's no traffic flow and
safety issue. As to neighborhood visual character, there is none. You impact the neighborhood visual character will essently be none. It's a, as you know, a relatively large lot. It is cited at the rear, much closer to Palmer Drive really than than anywhere else. And I know you're familiar with Palmer Drive. We
also have neighborhood support. Several of of Bets's neighbors are here or were at 2:00 to speak in favor of this. It's without impact the neighborhood visual character as to adequacy of sewage disposal source of water. We have town
water and a title five septic system. The chair will read a comment from the board of health. We have planned from the outset to eliminate one of the bedrooms in the house converted into a den. So this will remain a three-bedroom property. Two in the house, one in the
ADU. As the adequacy of utilities, they're all available. Betsy's mom is not particularly noisy, so there is no issue as to uh noise and litter. As the compatibility of the proposed use, it's a purely residential use in a
residential neighborhood. An accessory dwelling unit is exactly that. It's accessory to a residence which is almost by definition compatible. There's no impact on the natural environment. The special permit, as you know,
requires a finding that the use will not be detrimental to the established or future character of the neighborhood, to the town, and is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the bylaw. And it is what we are seeking today is approval for something which is not delightful to
us and which is not delightful to you. We would rather have it further to the back. we would rather not have to to sacrifice that tree. I would suggest to you that if you approve this today
uh and if between now and we when we might next be in front of you, which would have to be not later than January 22nd in order to get this built, if Ms. Clark and Miss Donovan and Mr. Briggs
can come come up with some options which would allow us to put it where we'd all like it. We'd be very very happy with that. For today, however, we would ask that you
approve this. And if the if somehow the the board is willing to grant a variance even when it's told it can't grant variances, uh that'd be fine by us. And frankly, the concern that any board member would
ordinarily have about a variance is that well, it might get overturned in court. Yeah, it might, but there's nobody against it. You could give a you could grant a variance for anything as long it was univer as long as it was universally supported, which in so far as I know
this is. >> Can I ask you a question? >> You >> So, I just wrote something down and I think this is what you're saying. So, the bylaw doesn't allow a variance, right? uh dimensional variance >> dimensional variance on this. So you're asking us perhaps that we should allow a
variance as to that no variance provision. Is that what you're saying? >> It Mr. Porter is town council in another town and he has left. Uh so so having said that I I don't want to cause any
difficulty. We want Mrs. Norah's mom, Miss Lambie, to have her ADU. There is a possibility that if this is viewed as a guest house, which it might be, uh
it would require if viewed as a guest house, it would require a variance as to provision uh for uh as as to dimen the dimensional setbacks. It might also require a
variance in regard to the language that says that uh a guest house has to be let me find the exact language that you can wave the when such guest house is part of the principal dwelling unit which this is
not and is occupied by a member of the immediate family the board of appeals would grant a special permit to wave the additional land requirement for one-bedroom guest house. you would have to grant a variance in that regard because these two structures are not connected.
Alternatively, approve what's there, which is not horrendous. It's not a bad thing. It's just not ideal for Betsy. It's just not ideal for that tree. But it would at least enable us to move forward in the event that there is no other solution.
Although I I have such respect for Miss Clark and Mr. Briggs and Miss Donovan. I expect a solution might be developed between now and January. Does that respond to your question or or only in a lawyerly way? >> Well, I don't I don't think we would do
that. You know, approve something today and then see what you come up with. That's not like part of our, you know, MMO. So, I'm not saying no. I'm just saying like just talking here. Well, and then you just said when such guest unit
is quote part of the principal. What is part of mean? It's part of the bill that they're going to pay. >> Physically connected. Yeah. >> It doesn't say physically connected. >> Part of I I I I defer to uh Mr. Briggs,
but my andor >> we'll get we could get to that. Yeah, we definitely >> My view has always me been that that meant it was physically connected that you have a a connected structure. >> I mean, there's lots of ways you could say something is part of something that
they're not physically connected. Like, you know, your family is part of you. You know, there's lots of parts. Anyway, we'll get to that type of discussion later. Um, >> the the issue that we have is timing. Uh
when you when several of you went out there, you suggested to Betsy that you would like to see it move to the rear. Uh and we appreciate that and we agree. The the issue that we have now Betsy spoke, she and I have spoken several
times since then. I've also spoken with Sarah. The issue that we have now is getting this done by the end of June. And in order to do that, we would what I would suggest to you, even though it's not your your ordinary
modus operandi, that this is an unusual situation and you can in fact approve this today. And if a better solution can be achieved, that'll be perfectly fine by us. But approving this today, you know, even as it is, it'll be 2026
before this special permit is available. Uh it's only a 400 square foot unit, but it's going to be about a fourmonth construction project. So we'd like to move forward and if the board >> can come up with a better solution, that would be fine by us.
>> So So we have an application in front of us right now. So I think we need to go through all the different uh portions of that hearing and then we'll see what we come up with. Um all right. So is that your presentation? >> It is. >> All right. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wish to speak in
favor of this? Yes, please go ahead. >> Um, hi, my name is Terry Charbano. I live at 69 Bishop's Terrace. I'm not in a butter to Betsy, but I live in the same neighborhood. And um I think this is a really good test case for Chadam
for more affordable housing. And um I actually have a double-sized lot. I don't know if at some point in the future we may want to do the same thing. Um but I know that there with the new affordable housing that's been approved and the others that have been presented,
most of them are um apartments. And this would give an opportunity either for somebody to add a yearround rental to their home or potentially sell it as a small housing for somebody else. So,
um I think that the zoning board really needs to be careful with density and how things would look, but um in this instance, I know that Betsy has very good taste and resources behind her and
that it would be a good project and I think it would be very favorable to the town, particularly in this neighborhood that a recent sale was $1.2 $2 million and we should be affordable housing on slab ranches. So, Chadam needs to do
something. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you very much for coming in. Anybody else wish to speak in favor? Yes, sir. And then we'll go to Brian. >> Just state your name, please. >> My name is John Huther. I'm 98 Card Lane.
I can't say enough about my neighbor. haven't I haven't had a neighbor that nice in 40 years. And I just, you know, it's it's really good cause to get her get her mother into a place in town
beside her so she can help take care of her. And I'm I'm all in favor of it. >> Yep. Thank you for coming in. And Brian, please step up. Brian Phillips, 374 Orleans Road. Can I have permission to ask a question?
>> Um, that comes later. So, this is in favor. >> Okay. >> Um, >> we're in the favor. >> Kind of makes it, but Okay. So, in general, I am totally in favor of this project because they're kind of going through the right process >> where I see, you know, other people putting offices and bathrooms in garages
and like not calling it an ADU. So, I I do support this. Thank you. Very good. Thank you. Anybody else in favor? Yes, ma'am. Please step up. >> Welcome. I'm Judy Carlson. I live in Chattam. I own property that we rent year round
on Shane Drive. And I'm in favor of this because um of the petite size of it, of the usefulness of it for family. Um I'm not against it, which is another reason I'm speaking today. But as I heard
presentations and speakers, I wanted to add that in our own experience when we first moved here and brought my mom, we had the opportunity in the mixed juice building where we were to convert some space for her to have an apartment and for us to get back, you know, for our
little family to have our, you know, two bedrooms for us and my mom have our space nearby. that space um after she lived there many years has since been used year round. And I know that I don't have any idea what will be the future of this possibility if it if it goes
through, but I wanted to share that we've been glad to have all that possibility for us and for helping. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anybody else in favor? And Brian, you you spoke in favor already.
>> Okay, gotcha. All right. So, now I read the correspondence from Judith Giorgio, our health agent 1225. She tells us, "I have reviewed the plan to add a one-bedroom ADU at this property. The property is an existing three-bedroom dwelling. A fourth bedroom
is not allowed under the board of health. Nitrogen loading regulation. Existing and proposed floor plans are needed to confir confirm bedroom numbers." Um, anything on that now or you want to
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. I had I had mentioned that in passing in my presentation. We fully understand that. >> Sure. Okay. >> The only reason that the board of health doesn't have a floor plan of the existing house is that the existing house isn't before you today, right? We
recognize we'll have to do that and we are converting one of the three bedrooms in the house to a den, >> of course. Okay, good to know. Uh, anybody wish to speak against D has a question, please. Yes, sir. >> Ryan Phillips. Um, are these ADUs
allowed to be used as uh seasonal rentals? >> Is there a law against that? >> Depends on which law you're talking about. Uh, the state statute, which ultimately is, I think, superseding, uh, says that you cannot have use or
occupancy restrictions like that. The town's bylaw does have language in that regard. >> So, you're not supposed to in Chadam. >> Okay. Also, for the There's a lot of lawyer talk I didn't understand in this hearing. Thank you.
>> There'll be more. >> There just was. >> Yes, definitely. Okay. So, anybody else against or a question? No. What? You have a question, sir? Sure. knowing the property that you're
speaking about it. Yes, it is a threebedroom, but that she's a single woman and >> did you have a question? >> No, it's >> Are you asking her to marry you? >> I guess it's a more of a statement because of what you what you read about
the three bedrooms in >> loud. Well, this is this time it's just questions or speaker. I thought I'd throw that. But we're very I'm very strict with uh with the rules here. All right. Anybody else? Just a question or
against online? No, no, no, no. All right. Questions from the board. So, let's discuss what what we all think we ought to do here. Um and with this one before us, uh Mr. V, what say you?
Oh, I I'm I feel pretty strongly that we need to be moving forward with this application that's before us. I mean, I think he it's good that um Bill has explained that there may be some possibilities that can work um better. Hopefully, we can find that, but I think
we need to take this one on its merits. Thanks. >> Did you have any any questions about this one? >> I don't No, I actually I don't have any questions. I if I'd had any they might have been about the about the tree but I I qu I I just I mean I looked and I
looked at the setback dimensions and I went geez it's tough but I don't I don't imagine but here's where we are. >> Yeah. Ed do you have any questions? >> No questions. >> Okay Mr. Nixon >> just questions. >> Yeah questions and like I said what you
think we ought to do. >> Um I think we move forward what's presented to us and and then we can go from there. definitely move forward and if something happens in six or eight weeks then we'll deal with it. >> We'll deal with it. Yep. >> No questions.
>> Paul questions. >> I agree. No questions. Let's deal with this one. >> Deal with this one. And Lee, no questions. >> Um Steve, >> um I guess my question would be what can you describe what your preferred
location is or how things might change? >> Uh it would be to the site plan. It would be behind the tree uh further to the rear corner, shifting it down. Thank you. Where where Sarah's
hand is. Uh it would be in that location. >> Okay. And then so if that were to happen, you'd have to come back here and explain all that to us. >> We we would need your we would need uh your approval for either a modification
or probably a variance. Uh, we would also need the input of Mr. Briggs, Miss Clark, Miss Donovan, four members of this board, and probably an act of Congress. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. >> No. Okay. Sorry.
>> I don't have any questions. >> Okay. And uh All right. That would be it, Paul. >> Well, the act of Congress would be the easy part. I'll move to close the hearing. Move into deliberations. >> D seconds and votes. Yes.
>> Ed votes yes. Paul votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> As do I. Okay. Deliberations. And Steve. >> Well, I mean, I think this is a good project either, you know, where it is now um or or you know, moving it
slightly in the future, but um I I don't see any issues with this as long as you can make it happen. >> And Judy agree with Steve. I think um I support the project as you're presenting it today with the hope that um perhaps
it can be improved by and what I mean by improved is shifting it farther back saving the tree. Um I think it would make sense to have that uh the ADU just a little farther back for privacy of both the homeowner and
for the resident in the ADU. >> Lee, >> yeah, I I agree with my colleagues. I I am a huge fan of um ADUs and I think we should support them as much as we can. >> And Paul, >> clearly this looks like an ADU should be approved.
>> Sure, Mr. Nixon. >> Yep. And Ed? >> Uh no, I'm I'm happy to see uh this before us and I certainly would would vote for positive for it. >> Mr. V. Yeah, I I mean we have not seen
that many ADUs and and so I feel pretty strongly that that's a that I that I feel like I I absolutely have to support this the creation of an ADU. I would um mourn the loss of the tree, but I understand the circumstances and if it
comes down to that um I think that the um creation of the ADU um wins out and you know they can plant another tree. It wouldn't be that size for sure. But I I think that the creation ADU is is what rules in my mind.
>> Yeah. And we couldn't stop you from taking the tree down anyway. You could take it down tomorrow if you want. you get a SAR and go right now and take it down unfortunately if you wanted to. So, um, so yeah, I'm I'm in support of it and anything else that we had done couldn't have been today anyway because
this is all we have before us. So, we were just chatting before and uh with that Paul, >> I'll move to approve the application as submitted. uh clearly is not uh a use which is detrimental or to the
established or future character of the neighborhood and the town and the use will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the bylaw. >> Dave each seconds. >> I don't see any need for additional conditions given the circumstances here. >> I I I don't think so. I mean it's a
small it's not a large project. Um, >> get it on Amazon. >> Okay. >> So, I will second and vote yes. >> Ed votes yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> As do I. It's unanimous. Congratulations.
>> Thank you very much. >> Okay. We're just going to take a short break and we'll be back in between five and 10 minutes. We we are back. >> All right. This is still the zoning board of appeals meeting on December 4th, 2025. And our next application,
Sarah, >> application number 25-109, Beachy Days LLC, care of Michael D. Ford, Esquire, PO Box 485, West Haritch, Mass 02671, owner of property located at 229 Main Street, also shown in the town of
Chadam, Assessor's Map 16C, Block 74, lot 58. The applicant seeks to modify special permit number 23-108 granted on December 7th, 2023, which allowed for the partial demolition and construction of an addition The applicant now seeks to modify the special permit to allow
for an increase in building coverage. The approved building coverage was 263 ft 23.3% and the constructed building coverage was 270 ft 23.4% where 15% but not more than 2800 ft is
the maximum allowed. The law is non-conforming and that it contains 8,843 ft where 20,000 ft is required. in the R20 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 4A section 6 and 14 and sections 5B and
8D2B of the protective bylaw. >> Welcome back and feel free to keep it brief. >> Uh we will. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mike Ford representing uh the applicant BGS uh LLC, Mckenti family. with me is uh
John Barker again uh of PSD uh whose uh office designed and and then undertook the construction here. Um just very briefly the uh background um given these old houses and when you pick them
up and put them back down um uh PSD has learned and uh we have decided and we have on a couple of occasions already uh ask for a little more when we come in than we think we really need just to try to prevent this because you never know
what's going to happen when a househ. We did that with respect to setbacks here and everything worked. We didn't put anything in with respect to law coverage and so uh during the construction it became necessary uh in
saving the old sheathing once they took the um the outer layer off the old clabards and some of it was I think vinyl on the back of this. >> Yes. >> Yeah. A lot of it was vinyl siding that was taken off. It was necessary to put plywood over the sheathing uh in order
to meet the uh building code um stabilization requirements and and uh uh for the walls to be structurally sound. And so who thought that that additional plywood uh around in certain areas uh
would come out with lot coverage. Well, lot coverage is now um and has been for quite a while and we're all aware of it in town measured from uh not the foundation but from the closest uh building member. And so this
uh increased the lot coverage and we had built um 4t into lot coverage um but it came out 11 feet more. We only need seven because we had that four feet that we had put in there. So, um, we're seeking a further modification to allow
what is the asbuilt, uh, out there, and I'd suggest to you respectfully that, um, that will not be substantially more detrimental than the 23.3 coverage, um, uh, that you allowed previously. Um you'll see my findings
are are quite thin and they are because I think the only question before you is um is it substantially more detrimental now to allow this house to remain uh at 23.4 as opposed to 23.3 an additional 7 ft of coverage as a
result of the way it was constructed. We're happy to take questions. >> Thank you. Is there anybody here are on Microsoft Teams that wish to speak in favor of this change? Please uh raise your hand. Seeing none,
there are no correspondences. Is there anybody here or Microsoft Teams that wish to speak against this application or has a question? Seeing none, any questions from the board at all? No.
>> Yeah, >> you have a question. Please go ahead, >> Mr. Ford. I think as you know, I'm really against granting pardons. Since this is pardon week, I
understand our charming presidents let a drug dealer go, and I understand we're not quite at that level yet, >> but um can't you just fix this? Can't you just fix it? You know, I I'm sure you did, too. I was brought up in a
in a household where you make a mistake, fix it. >> We are. This is the fix. That's the trouble. But you can't go to mom and dad or auntie or uncle or whoever you might have to get a fix. Can't you just fix this?
>> I don't think PSD wants this on their record. Had to go to ZBA for a pardon. Does that look good? actually um given the fact that u this was one of these historic houses that we saved, the board made a finding that um uh this was a
good application uh back when you granted this in December of 2023 because it was saving an old house. And so what they did was to make every effort, Mr. Nixon, even though they hadn't seen the sheathing because they hadn't had the ability to take the vinyl siding off yet
and figure out what was actually going to go on. So sometimes these things happen. Um we don't really see it frankly as a mistake. Um perhaps what the mistake is that when we bring in an application like this, we should say to
the board, we're building more building coverage in there because it's an old house and we may have to do that and we would ask the board to give us that little extra and if we've learned anything from it, we better do the planning better and tell you about it ahead of time because we just we don't
find these things sometimes until the vinyl siding comes off and you start adding the plywood and then it gets measured. So, >> so the answer is no. You can't fix it. >> U, not without taking it all apart. >> Gotcha. >> Okay. Any other questions from the
board? >> No. >> No. The only only other question I have is we at the time of the original presentation, you really made an effort to add on some surplusage so that you wouldn't have this problem. >> We just didn't add enough.
>> Yeah, that's what it came down to. I don't know how you make that determination of whether how much >> we thought we might need about four more feet and that's what we added. We added a little bit for the setbacks and that worked. >> Yeah. >> But we didn't figure quite enough on the coverage >> and now that coverage is measured by the
thickness of the walls. Um has been for some time now. We all know that. Um >> but that's what got us. >> Okay. But I hear what you're saying, Mr. Mr. Nixon. What what's the saying? Mayor Coopa, Mayor Cooper, Mayor Moxima Cooper through our most grievous fault. And
we'll put that on the record. >> All right, Paul, you want to close the hearing and move to >> I'm having fun with the hearing. >> I'll move I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> Uh Davey seconds and votes yes. >> Uh Ed votes yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes.
>> As do I. All right, deliberations. Jenny, >> uh yeah, a couple things. one, I agree that saving the historic structure on Main Street is um is very significant. It's costly to do that and I applaud the
homeowners for doing that. So, um that on its on its own would would give me the grace for plus I think that I appreciate that there was the allowance that was built in and it just wasn't enough. And I think that these older homes do need a little grace because
they can be quirky and um they I think get the grace because they saved these properties and made improvements, significant improvements to Main Street in doing that. >> And Steve, >> well, yeah, I I think saving the old
house is sort of paramount here. So, you know, at the cost of seven square feet, I I don't think it's uh detrimental to anyone in the neighborhood. >> And Lee, >> um yeah, I I agree with both um with my
colleagues. Um and I also asked myself, would I have approved this uh initially and I would have so that Paul >> I agree. >> Anybody over here? as do I.
>> Yeah. And I I would just say um and you know respect to Dave's question, I mean this it makes perfect sense. I mean first of all I it's my understanding that the historical commission these days is in
very encouraging save all the old materials. Save the old materials. Save the new materials. So, if you've saved some of the sheathing and you in order to meet the the requirements of the code, well, and you want to save that sheathing,
well, you put plywood on the outside of it. And and it kills the two birds with one stone. And and that's the the sensible way to deal with it. You don't take the old sheathing off because you're you're going to go a half an inch
more on your ground coverage really. I mean, that doesn't that really isn't serving anyone's uh um interests. I can't see. So, it it this just it's a the solution makes perfect sense. And the fact that they didn't build in enough uh ahead of time, even though
they tried, I think they should get an A for effort on that one. So, um I'm in favor of it. >> Yeah. And obviously it is in no way, shape or form substantially detrimental to the neighborhood. So um I I support
it as well. So how about a motion? Paul, >> I'll move to approve the application as submitted. >> Dave seconds and votes yes. >> Uh Ed votes yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> As do I. It's unanimous. It's a had to be a consideration for you today. Right.
>> Of course, I didn't get the vote. >> All right. We'll see you next time. And now we're going to go to looks like 74 Ellis Street.
Application number 25-106 Brett and Amy Sad care of Alex Maziel 157 Pine Bluff Road, Brewster, Mass 02631. Owners of property located at 74 Ellis Street, also shown in the town of Chadam's assessor's map 10D, block 44, lot D84. 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 except clause of section six of Mass General Law Chapter
48. Such substantial alteration requires the grant of a special permit. The existing building coverage is 946 square feet, 8.4%, 4% and the proposed building coverage is 1,352 ft, 12% where 15% is the maximum
allowed. The law is non-conforming and that it contains 11,39 square ft where 20,000 ft is required in the R20 zoning district. A special permit is required under master general law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw. >> Welcome. Just please state your names
for the record. Yes, I'm Alex Mazio from Mazio Construction. Welcome. >> And my name is Tavis Babbot. was the designer on the project. >> Very good. >> So, I'll primarily be, you know, doing the uh the talking this morning there this afternoon, much later than morning now. >> Yep.
>> Um so, as you can see, we have a a small house on a fairly decent sized lot, but again, it's a non-conforming lot. As we see, it doesn't meet the requirements for the R 20 zone. It's 11,9 309 ft as opposed to the 20,000 required and just
shy of the 100 foot uh frontage. So, those are the two areas that the lot's not conforming. So, those are real issues with the reasons why we're here. Um, you'll also see that it's uh the last house on a dead-end street in a quiet neighborhood there. And so, what
we're seeking to do is uh expand the house. It's a relatively small footprint as you mentioned. It's currently 496 square feet, built in 1973. And so, we're looking to add uh some more room uh to basically more open floor plan. If
we look at the first sheet there on A1, let's see on the floor plan. Currently, the the wall is essentially right where that living room and kitchen is in that dotted line is. That's the extent of the old house. So, we're adding it uh let's see, let me pull up
my plans so I'm on the same page as you. So, we're adding a 15 and 1/2t addition to the width of the house. And that's really to create some more living space that's open in a dining room and a sitting area. Uh currently the coverage
is as mentioned 8.4 and so this addition will put us at 12% lot coverage which is still underneath the 15%. So uh the addition will not in any way trigger any new non-conformities. So we're completely within the requirements of
the current zoning. So, uh, as you will also notice, the the lot is within 50 feet of the flood zone. Uh, but currently, if you notice, the the back the back corner of the addition that we're putting on will be at 18 ft and the flood zone is actually 11 ft. So,
the whole lot uh is entirely above that flood zone level. Uh, and we are building in the 100 the 50 to 100 foot area. However, none of that is actually going to be affected by that flood zone. So, um, happy to answer any questions you might have regarding the addition. >> Did you get a copy of the, uh, special
permit criteria? I can just go through it with you. >> Sure, if you would, >> if you'd like. Um, >> yep. >> So, number one, that would be applicable. Um, do you have an argument to make on that? >> So, yes, we are underneath that uh that
lot um, coverage requirement um, the 15%. So, the addition will keep us under that at 12%. And you think you're compatible with uh neighboring properties? >> Yes. And in fact, this is probably uh still smaller compared to a lot of the houses that are are being built in that
and and and added on to closer to that 15% is a lot of the neighborhood. So, >> and suitable site. >> Yes, the site has plenty of room and as I mentioned, we're not going to be in binging on any of the setbacks. Um it's kind of a uniquely shaped lot. So, um but we're not taking advantage of any of
the um areas. None. There's no trees that are being removed. It's it's an open area >> and impact of scale sighting in Mass. So you don't think there really is one on the visual character? >> Very much in compliance with the neighborhood? >> Yeah. Okay. I think uh the rest of them sort of speak for themselves.
>> Um is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wish to speak in favor of this application? If so, please raise your hand. No. Okay. Read the correspondences. Uh on 122 2025, Judith Giorgio tells us
that she received the plan to add an addition to the dwelling at this property, including an additional bedroom and in the basement. The property is an existing fourbedroom dwelling. A fifth bedroom is not allowed under the board of health nitrogen
loading regulation. The basement bedroom must be removed. The new addition and deck will not encroach on the existing septic system. Next, we have a note from the conservation commission and the property does not appear to be within their
jurisdiction. So, they don't need to be conditioned um from them. And that was on November 18th, 2025. >> Do you want to respond to the the uh health agent? >> We will. Uh so, we were discussing which bedroom to keep and and not keep. And
so, in this particular case, I think we are going to you know, not have the basement uh bedroom. So you'll set her send her a >> We'll keep it to four. Yeah. We won't be having that. >> And you'll show her that. Yes. >> Yes. Yeah. Currently these plans were submitted. So since then we've made the change.
>> Yeah. Sure. It happens all the time. >> I'm sure it does. >> Does anybody Let's see. I already did. No. Is anybody here on Microsoft Teams will wishing to speak against this application or has a question?
No. All right. Are there any questions from the board on this? >> No. Paul, >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> Dave V seconds and votes yes. >> Ed votes yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes.
>> As do I. Okay. Deliberations. Um Ed. >> I I don't see any uh any issue with the project. It's certainly not substantially detrimental to the neighborhood and think it think it'll fit in well. Nice job. And Mr. V. >> Yeah, modest proposal. It fits right in.
Fits the house and neighborhood. Uh, and uh, I will support it. >> And Mr. Nixon, same with you. And Lee, >> uh, yeah, great addition. U, meets our criteria. >> And Steve, >> same. >> Kitty,
>> uh, nice height, meets coverage, uh, modest project. I would support it. >> All right. And Paul, >> I agree with my colleagues. >> All right. As do I. So, do we need any conditions on the this Paul? I think we may. This is a tight area here. Uh when you go in that end of Ellis there,
you're you're there. Uh what what's your plan for construction and how you're going to stage it there? >> So we going to um when you approach the property on the immediate right there is a little divided area as an old parking spot that will the dumpster will go and
um and there is a circle laded driveway. We will park the cars as we um first car first and then um block this completely this um um circulated driveway and um try to have three cars maximum there. We
did addition at um 30 Ellis street. So we already dealt with that conditions there. The 30 street the driveway was even smaller and we managed actually we um Dunkin Donuts down the street. We parked the cars they allowed us and uh carpooled with one car. So, we are
experienced in tiny spaces. >> You've got experience there. Okay. I'll move to approve the application with the condition 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 shall be allowed. Net no work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8 a.m. and 5:00 PM only. >> Yeah. David seconds and votes yes. >> Uh Ed votes yes. >> All votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. as to why I it's unanimous. Congratulations. Thank you very much. All
>> right. Good luck with your project. Next, we have 817 Riverview Drive, 25-108. Whenever Sarah's ready, we'll take on that one. Application number 25-108. Linda A.
McCormack and Jeffrey L. McCormack, Carthad Eldridge, 1038 Main Street, Chattam, Mass 02633. Owners of property located at 8:17 Riverview Drive. Also shown on the town of Chadams, assessor's map 9J, block 59, lot C40. The applicant
proposes to change, alter, or expand a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the construction of an addition and deck. The existing dwelling is non-conforming in that it is located 20.4 ft from the Westerly butter where a 25 ft setback is required. The proposed addition and deck will be will
comply with all bulk dimensional requirements of the bylaw but is considered a substantial alteration and under the second except clause of section six of mass general law chapter 48, such substantial alteration requires the grant of a special permit. The existing building coverage is 2,228
ft and the proposed building coverage is 2,658 ft where 2850 ft is the maximum allowed. the law is non-conforming and that it contains 20,824 square feet where 60,000 square feet is required in the R60 zoning district. A
special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw. >> Welcome. >> Thank you. Good afternoon. For the record, I'm Thad Eldridge, East Southeast. The McCormicks are here with me and we can go through um this
conforming addition that's being proposed in the back of the house that will hardly be visible from the street in the summer. >> Is that your presentation? >> Just about. If that covers everything, I'm happy to conclude. >> But
uh the building coverage is less than the max even with the addition. Uh it's similar to other homes in the neighborhood. I've provided a vicinity map that shows the size of those homes in the uh nearby. I made a little um tangent about Echo Street having smaller
homes. And if you consider River Bay its own neighborhood, uh it's it's even better. But if you consider everything, it's still a little more than the average, but certainly not as as much as the greatest. The nonconformity is increasing by 412 square feet.
And uh we're basically equidistant from properties. So we're not impacting everybody by about the same amount. We're not going to impact the neighborhood visual character as this addition is right out the back, but
it will look nice all the same. uh we're compatible with a residential use and we have fine utilities and the others are really not applicable. If there are questions, I'm happy to answer them. >> Thank you very much. Is there anybody
here on Microsoft Teams who wishes to speak in favor of this application? If so, please raise your hand. >> No. Okay. I will read the two correspondences. Um, Judith Giorgio has no concerns about
the family room or the deck. And she tells us that on uh 122 2025. And then we have a letter from Edwin Edwin Woodaker by Janice Whitaker, power of
attorney. Um, and he lives at 827 Riverview Drive. I am a director of butter to the McCormack property. There were several concerns that I had about the construction project plan for that property. Question of septic system
location, the view of the addition from my property adequacy of the natural vegetative screen and storm runoff as 827 is downgrade from 817. I had several discussions with Mr.
McCormack, the proposed builder, Mr. Eldridge and Sarah Clark, Department of Community Development in Chadam about these issues. I would it would have been helpful to have had a septic site plan included in the packet of materials.
There was a mention of post 1995 septic system in place, but I had no idea as to the location of either the septic tank or the leeching field and its proximity to the new addition and deck. Miss Clark was able to help me with that. She also
indicated that the board of health had signed off on the project, noting no concerns, but that detail was not known to me until yesterday. And we received this on 123 2025. Um, my concerns have been addressed and questions answered
about the proposed addition and new deck and potential impacts. I support the application and have no objections to the planned construction and feel that a well done project will have no negative impact on the neighborhood are on the
value of my property specifically. Okay, that concludes the correspondences. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak against or has a specific question? No. Are there any questions from the
board? No. Paul, >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> David seconds and votes yes. Uh, >> Ed votes yes. Paul votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> Oh, so do I. Yes. Sorry. Um, all right.
Let's do deliberations. Mr. Nixon, any deliberations on this from you? >> No. Ed? >> No. I think it's going to fit in nicely with the neighborhood and certainly not substantially detrimental to uh the neighbor as he has suggested and uh
would support the project. >> Yeah. Again, a very modest proposal and um and and to note I'm glad the neighbors concerns were addressed but however it did meet all the bulk and dimensional requirements of the bylaws.
So >> yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. >> So anyway, not substantially more detrimental. We'll support it. >> No, not possible. And Jenny, >> um, great project, more space, it's always good. U, meets all of our criteria and I would support it. >> Steve,
>> yeah, I feel the same. I don't think it's, uh, adver adversely affecting uh, anything over there. >> I agree with my colleagues. >> And I agree with my colleagues >> as do I. It is certainly not repugnant to our bylaw. And, uh, I support it as
well. So, >> I'll move 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 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.m. only. >> Dave each seconds and votes yes. >> Uh, Ed votes yes. All votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> As do I. It's unanimous. Congratulations. >> Have a great afternoon. Thank you for
coming. See you next time. All right. Now, we have uh 25-049. Are we going to read them both? >> And we also have 25-115 uh School Street in Hallet. Whenever
you're ready, Sierra, >> it's the last one. Application number 25-049 Elizabeth English and Lee Williams care of Palm Dune 693 Main Street Chattam Mass 02633 owners of property located at 67 school
street also shown in the town of Chadam's assessor's map 16C block 66 lot 38. The applicant proposes to change, alter, or expand a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the construction of additions, installation of exterior insulation, and installation
of a new foundation. The existing dwelling is non-conforming and that it is located 8.5 ft from school street and 13.9 ft from the southerntherly abut. After the exterior insulation is installed, the proposed setback to school street will be 8.1 ft where 25 ft
is required. The proposed addition will be non-conforming and that it'll be located 14 ft from the southerntherly of butter. And the proposed deck will be non-conforming located 14.5 ft from the southerntherly of butter where a 15 ft setback is required. The proposed
building height will increase from 22.3 ft to 23.5 ft within the required setback. The existing building coverage is 1,850 ft 13 or 16.3% and the proposed building coverage is
1,964 ft 17.9% or 15% is the maximum allowed. The law is non-conforming and that it contains 11,397 ft where 20,000 ft is required in the R20 zoning district. A special permit is
required under master law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw. This was continued from July 24th, 2025 and September 25th, 2025 for readvertising. Under application number 25-115,
the owners 40 of 42 Howlet Lane proposed to change, alter expand a non-conforming accessory structure, garage, apartment on a non-conforming lot via the construction of an addition and reconstruction in an exterior stairway. The existing structure is non-conforming
and it is located 1.3 ft over the Northly Butters property line. The proposed addition will comply with road and abutter setback requirements. The reconstructed stairway will remain nonconforming and that is located 1.3 ft over the pro northerly property line
within an easement where a 15 ft setback is required. The existing building coverage is 1,850 ft 16.3%. and the proposed building coverage is 1,997 ft 17.5%
where 15% is the maximum allowed. The lot is non-conforming and that it contains 11,393 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. If both applications are approved, the total proposed building coverage on the property will be 2,111 square feet, which is 18.6%. >> Welcome. >> Thank you. Thank you, Sarah. Uh Paul
Maldun, SV Design, you're representing Elizabeth English and um Lee Williams and their property at 67 School Street 42 Howlet Lane. Um, we've been before the historic commission on this project on a handful of occasions. I think we
went to three or four hearings, three for the main house, one for the accessory structure, and through um some major collaboration and cooperation and uh creative thinking, we present the project uh here before you today. Um the
historic commission uh deemed the structures historic, but the changes did not material diminish the structural uh or the um significance of these structures uh providing an approval with no demo delay and uh no referral to the Cape Cod Commission.
The uh property itself is an R20 uh property and uh as Sarah had mentioned uh we have less than required lot area. Um for the the main house at 67 School Street, we have uh a rebuild of a bumpout on the uh the southerntherly
side in a very similar location to where it is and a removal of the deck in front of that pushing the deck to the backside. Uh we have a small cantal levered bumpout on a first floor bumpout on the northerly side and then the the rear of the structure existing is a
covered porch and we're infilling the covered porch both on the lower level and the first floor level and then adding a little over 2 feet of an extension off the back that encompasses the the full rear width. Um the front
yard setback going from 8.5 to 8.1 similar to one of the other projects discussed today. We are putting an exterior skin of insulation on the uh the historic material that we're intending to save. We're adding a little bit of of uh buffer for ourselves there.
Uh similarly, the 195 square ft of overall addition for the main house includes 25 square ft of expansion around the perimeter of the structure. Um the the project itself is is to really
save and maintain this this structure for the next 100 years. Um the added height itself is is uh determined by adding a new foundation underneath it and raising the structure entirely up by a little over a foot. As you've seen it uh you walk past school street angles
down very closely and very quickly to the front uh stoop. We're trying to get it up out of the out of the mud. Um so the structure itself is being uh saved and maintained. We're we're raising the structure up a little over that foot or about a foot. Um the the front elevation
here uh we're we're reskinning it back to its original intent. We're we're pulling off the vinyl siding in all cases. We're bringing it back to that cedar shingled bungalow that was prevalent when it was first built. Um there's minor changes to the front elevation with regards to uh new
windows, some new sidelights, a new door, and the trim levels being rebuilt in kind. Um you can see the existing bump out here um on on the the southerntherly side from the western elevation. This is from the school street elevation. Our
update is to um it's not projecting any further but it is putting a a peaked roof or hipped roof on top of it um with a a sliding door um in view of the street view. I'm sorry if you can go to the next sheet please. uh the southerntherly side again this this
projection being rebuilt um providing full habitable space underneath it uh where it's a a crawl space of varying degrees of um safety currently. And then again removing the the vinyl siding for for shingles, reorienting some windows
and adding the option for future of um some solar panels. The the red line here is demonstrating the existing roof line here for that covered porch. And this vertical line demonstrates where that uh porch line sits. Um so again, we're
we're adding habitable space underneath the the covered porch in that small extension. And same on the first floor, the rear elevation. This this is where our our mass is from School Street. It's on the furthest section back on the house away from the public view. Um,
we've we've maintained a strategy that the the covered porch was an addition to the original house. So, we've maintained that strategy of having a roof line sit below and almost detached from the main roof line. So, you can tell here's the original structure versus the new structure. Um, adding some windows here
for dining room, adding some windows for a bedroom on the the the first floor, and then some windowing and a door for the um habitable bedrooms on the lower level. Uh the southern ele uh I'm sorry the northern elevation um changes by adding
this um one-story bay window projection. Again you can see the red line of the profile of the original structure adding some windows here for a bedroom on both the upper and and lower levels. Um, as Sarah had suggested, the the building coverage for this particular
project is a little over 1% at 195 square feet, increasing from uh 16.3 to 17 and change. Um, the overall expansion of both structures at 2.3%. Um,
>> it goes away. >> Question about procedure. I I can go through the accessory structure and then get into the criteria or I can do criteria specifically for this structure. >> However you want to do it. >> Okay. >> Um the criteria uh for for this
particular structure um the adequacy of the size of the site in terms of the proposed use the the use isn't changing. Um it is becoming our our owner's um full full-time year-round residence. So, I think that's a change from the
previous use or pre previous owner. Um, the existing non-conforming lot is less than required. It's a modest addition of a little over 1% on this structure and and and two and a quarter% or so uh over the entire property. Um, and again, 25%
is is attributed to using that exterior insulation technique to meet the energy code. Uh the new area is added to the rear of the structure away from the public view. So we feel like there's very minimal view change or massing change from the
from the public way. Um suitability of the site for the proposed use. No change in the proposed use. It's a residential use in a residential neighborhood. Um no impact on traffic flow and safety. Uh impacts of the neighborhood visual character uh including views and vistas. We are
raising the structure by a small amount. We don't feel like that interrupts any views or vistas. We do feel like the visual character will be brought back to its original intent. You know, removing the plastic wrap, removing the the vinyl siding, and bringing it back to the gem that it was is is really part of our our
our heart and soul in this project. Um the adequacy of the method of sewage disposal. Um Judith Georgio made some comments and and we'll we'll get to that. Um she noted a an upper level bedroom. Uh there is a space up there.
It has a 6'2 ceiling height, no eress, and a dangerous stair, non non uh non-code compliant stair. Um we're transitioning that space that is deemed non-habitable into a bedroom in the lowest level. So we're still maintaining a three-bedroom home, an upper level of
storage, and then the the fourth bedroom on the property is inside the apartment. I did speak with Judith. She mentioned that that would be put in her notes and she accepted that uh rationale. Um adequacy of the utilities and the public service. Uh we will upgrade the
service the electrical service from 100 amp to 200 amp uh servicing uh the main house and and the accessory structure. Um no additional noise and litter will be created by the modest addition. Um compatibility of the proposed use with the surrounding uses. its residential use in a residential zone and um again a
year-round home which which might be a little bit different than some of the neighboring properties. Um impact of the natural environment including slopes, vegetation, wetland, groundwater and uh water bodies. Um something that's very important to the owners are the gardens that they will produce along the northern and and southern sides of the
property. It's an homage to uh one of their children who's passed. It's um a series of gardens and terraces that will be produced on this property uh to beautify to to to give some visual character and to be u more in tune with the neighborhood. I feel like those are
all very positive things. Um visual impact for the neighborhood and town visual character uh as a business establishment um not appropriate. >> Okay. Very good. Project number two. Um, so we have an apartment and a garage
space and an accessory structure. This this structure, um, I'm sorry, sorry. Can you go back to the site plan? The stair of this structure on the northern property line does cross over by 1 foot3 and there's an easement on the neighboring property to have that um
have that work. Uh those stairs will be rebuilt in kind. They are falling apart. Um the structure itself um the interior of the lowest level doesn't quite fit a car. So, the the proposed structure change is a six-foot addition off the
southern side uh within the zoning envelope um to create a an expanded garage space uh one-story addition underneath the existing deck. There is a a deck structure that sits in front. Um so, we're effectively taking that space directly below the deck for that
expanded garage area. Um the space above it, the stairs on the side would remain. it becomes a a waterproofed deck with a roof line over the top. Um so no new habitable space on the upper level. There is of course roofed area and building coverage. Um the structure
itself uh doesn't change from a use perspective. It will still maintain an apartment on the upper level and will be garage space on the lowest level. the uh structure itself um the building coverage will increase by 147 square ft and and in this particular
case going from 16.3 to 17.6 again with an overall percentage increase on the property 18.6 a little over 2 and a4%. Um the criteria is very similar and I can run through that if you like. No, you don't have to do that. Okay.
>> Um, thank you very much. >> I'm happy to take your questions. >> Yep. Is there anybody here or Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application? Please raise your hand. Seeing none, um, I will read the correspondences
and starting with this school street and we have five. So, Christina Basset um, on Tuesday 12 2, 2025 from the CHC tells us that after a few meetings and many alterations by
the applicant. They found the structure to be historically significant, but the changes did not material diminish its significance and they did not impose a demolition delay. They also reaffirmed that this structure is contributing
structure in the national registry registered district, but the changes do not warrant a referral to the Cape Cod Commission. Judith Giorgio, a health agent, writes on 1225 that she reviewed the plan to add an
addition to the dwelling at this property, including an additional bedroom in the basement. The property is an existing three-bedroom dwelling, including an upstairs attic bedroom and is not shown on the existing plans. The fourth bedroom is not allowed under the
board of health nitrogen loading regulation. The lot is approved for a total of four bedrooms, including the garage apartment. Um, next we have a note from Susan Haj
and Timothy Dunovan from 123205. They are the owners of 61 School Street in Chadam and would like to share their main concern for the proposed work. We would like to ask that no external construction is done between June 1 and
September 30th. We rent our property to vacationers during these months and would not like to impact their stay with noisy construction. Next, we have a note from Robert and Winterford Leair from Monday 121 2025.
Uh we are the owners of 44 Howlet, which is an abiding neighbor to these two applications. We rent this property on a short-term basis throughout the year, particularly in the summer, and periodically stay there ourselves. This is a typical old Chattam village. The
structures are quite close together and construction noise quite intrusive. Therefore, we are asking that the board add a condition to approval that outdoor construction do not take place between June 1 and September 30th. Thank you for
your consideration. Now, we have a note from Craig Cappo, uh, November 24th, 2025. I'm writing about 67 school and 42let. I own the adjacent property at 40 Howlet.
I have owned this house since 2005. Over the last 20 years, this house has been used exclusively as a summer rental property. I have many repeat renters. I am totally supportive of the architectural plans that were recently approved by the historical commission
for 67 school street as well as the plans for 42 lane. My property is an L-shaped 9 foot right ofway access photo. Uh let's see the a photo of his mortgage inspection plan was attached.
This right ofway is the only vehicle accessed to 42 Hal Lane and the rear of 67 School Street. His concerns um are that about construction and traffic and the right using the right of way during the project. The right of way is only 9
ft wide. Large trucks are too wide um to be able to tra traverse it. The potential exists for damage to the driveway. garden fences. Um, access through this right away is further complicated by the fact that hat
lane is extremely crowded during the summer. Um, trucks would have difficulty making the turn. I rent from June 1 till October 31. Renters enjoy the peacefulness and privacy that 40 lane offers. He requests that there be two
stipulations. one uh pro prohibit construction uh from trucks from using the right of way. All vehicles should access the project from school street. Also
prohibit exterior construction June 1 through September 30th. Thank you. And that's from Craig Capel. I think that concludes the ones for 67 school. And now the two that are a
little bit different for 42let include the board of health's letter and the CHC letter. The board of health uh I'll read that one first. She has no concerns um regarding the small addition and rebuilt stairs at the existing
one-bedroom suite over the garage. And that was received on 122. And the CHC in this letter says they found the structure to be historically significant, but the changes did not material diminish its significance, so
they did not impose a demolition delay. That concludes the correspondences. >> If I may, um, our our owners here have spoken with Mr. Capel and his property behind them, um, and the 9 foot easement and, uh, they discussed regularsiz
trucks and vans. Okay. Bigger equipment and uh dumpsters would come from school street. >> Okay. >> With with no turning around in the rightway. They've got to come all the way on the property to turn and and exit appropriately. >> We can get that in the event we have uh the opportunity to do conditions here.
>> Understood. >> Um yeah. So is there anybody here that would speak against or has a question? Please go ahead. Brian Phillips, 374 Lans Road. Um I've been following this project all the way through the historical um committee
meetings. I well aware they made a lot of compromises on this project. Um I believe uh a lot of the additions you know towards the back and the porch and all the windows. I mean, it substantially uh changes the character of this house in a very, you know,
important historic district. Um, I mean, it it seems like it kind of breaks all the laws already and you would have to, you know, approve, you know, variances or special permits, whatever you guys do. Um, and I don't know, I just it's just too
much, you know? It it was a beautiful little Cape Cod house and now it's being turned into I don't know. I just I don't want to be too negative. I just don't really like the look of it. Um I do think it substantially um is detrimental
to the neighborhood. Um it really takes away, you know, the character and the charm of this house. Um again, I don't know if I'm going to be able to properly express how much I disapprove of this, but I think that's all I'm going to give you guys. Thank you.
>> Yes, you did. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else have a question or wishes to speak against? No. Okay. Thank you very much. Uh questions from the board. Are there any? Yes. Okay. We we're going
to go through then. Absolutely. Steve. >> Well, are we specifically asking questions on 67? >> You can ask for both. Both either. >> So, my question would be the the stair that is uh over the property line. What? What? Why are there two sets of stairs
for that apartment? >> It's an accessory dwelling unit needing two means of aggression. >> You need two. Okay. Okay, that's it. Thank you. >> Um Judy question. >> Um yeah, so um
the chimney I know historic weighed in on the changes. Did is that go that went away? That's not being okay. I just wanted to confirm that. I I didn't see it in the in the >> We had added a chimney to the side elevation at one point and that was the bone of contention. We removed it from this project.
>> Okay. Um and then does does historic weigh in on solar panels? I was just curious. >> Um as a general >> they were part of the application, part of the drawings package. Um >> and they didn't comment on that. Okay. So I was just curious. Um is the garage
an ADU? >> Um I I guess it could be considered an ADU. It it's historically been called an apartment and from the form B that that was its original intent original um and it has a kitchen facility. It has a full bathroom and sort of essentially
>> well you you didn't mention it but it is noted on your pa pages so I didn't know if uh technically you calling it that and then you because you're a little bit over building coverage and you would get that as part of the but you're not >> putting it as like the restrictions the
deed restrictions part of it or I I just wanted to clarify >> we're calling it an apartment because it's historically been an apartment. >> Okay. So that you don't re it's not this isn't really what >> Okay. Understood. >> Okay. Just I I just wanted to know. Um I
those were all the questions I had. Thank you. >> Thank you >> questions. Lee questions. Paul. >> No. No questions. >> No. Anybody over here have any questions? >> Uh yes, Mr. Nixon. >> The uh Koopa that you put on top of the
garage. >> Yes. seems way out of place uh >> or the old village >> essentially. It's it's signifying the accessory to the main structure. You know, it it's a in a former life. Could it have been a
barn? It it may have been. It wasn't, >> right? >> But u there there was a a chimney structure there that's defunct that's not servicing anything other than a leak in the roof. And we felt like having the Koopa and the weather vein up there was
a an appropriate alternative. >> Yeah, it seems to me it should be removed. >> Um, did let's talk about the chimney for a moment. I I listened to all those different hearings as well. I thought
they wanted the chimney, the historic board. Didn't they want the chimney? Um the the chimney that we placed on the side they did not want >> which where did they want you to put it? >> They didn't offer an opinion on where where it was just that it was more
intrusive and uh changing the streetscape. So we had a an a chimney on the southern elevation closer to the front of the house. There there's a family room in that space. We're still putting a gas fireplace in that space, but the wood burning fireplace and brick
chimney associated with it has gone away. So, did they want you to put like a fake FA chimney, I'm not sure how to pronounce that, where the original chimney was? >> No. >> Would that have been a good idea in your opinion? >> Um,
in in the true historic nature of of what happens and what what doesn't? A brick-shaped box on the top of a roof doesn't do anything for me. >> No. Okay. So, and at the end of the day with that, they were fine with you taking it out as long as you didn't put
it where they didn't want it. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um, and then as far as the Koopa goes, did historic see that? >> Yes. >> They had nothing to say about it because I don't remember that coming up. >> They had nothing to say about it. It was part of the application and >> and so they didn't think that took away
the the historic nature or anything like that. >> We chatted about it on site when we did our walkthrough >> and they probably warned you Mr. Nixon doesn't like Koopal is right. >> I know Mr. Nixon doesn't like Koopa. >> I know they know that. Yeah. Okay. Um do you think it takes away from the
historic nature? >> Um I I think it does signify that it's an accessory to the main dwelling. You know, it's an accessory structure and a Koopa or a barn structure or something that is in access to the main structure would generally have a Koopa. >> Are there any other ones in the main in
in the in the old village? >> That's a good question. I I don't >> because I don't remember seeing one. question >> maybe. No, I don't think there is. Okay, I don't have any more questions. Paul, >> I think you covered my questions. I'll move to close.
>> That's all right. I'll move to close the hearing and uh move into deliberations. >> Dave each seconds and votes yes. >> Uh Ed votes yes. >> All votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> As do I. Okay, deliberations. Jenny.
>> Uh so I agree, Randy. I love the chimney and I'm sorry to see it go. I think that I do remember the historic commission didn't like the previous design where you had it on the side and it was too bulky, but I I agree. I don't I didn't remember them saying uh anything about
it not about it being removed. Um so, um it does does the chimney just you mentioned gas fireplace. Does it line up with the the gas fireplace line up with where a chimney the current chimney was? I mean, it's it's in a different place.
Okay. Okay. Um, so I I know they're over their building coverage a little bit. They're already over and they're going just a little bit more. But the improvements that are suggested to the home, I think, in my opinion, outweigh the little bit of extra building
coverage. And that's one of the reasons I asked about the ADU because you would would get building additional building coverage as a as a grace for that. Anyway, but um so I I think it's um an improvement from the previous design
historic our historic commission which is their role has approved it. Um I love it and I think it's a improvement to what's what's there. Yes, it's getting a little larger, but it's a small bungalow now. So I think a little more space is
um and it's been very appropriately uh designed, I think, in my opinion by um by Paul's firm DSD. No, I'm sorry. SV. SV. Sorry. >> Thank you. >> All right, Steve. >> Well, um I think it's a good project.
Anything that can get vinyl siding off of an old house is great is a is a big plus. I think, you know, the restoration work that you're doing and, you know, bringing this back to um a bungalow style home. Um, you know, most of the um
the mass that's being added is sort of below grade. You It's behind the house, so you're not even going to see it. I don't think from School Street. >> Agreed. >> Um I I I you know, anything you can do to restore the house is is a good project. As far as the garage goes, the
ADU or the apartment, I you know, I think um that needs a little dressing up and I think this is going to help that out as well. So, it's a good project. Very good, >> Lee. >> Well, um, excuse me. I love this. I love this plan, too. Um, I especially like
the fact that the garage is now included in the plans. I don't think it was before, but I could have missed that. But I think that um it's a very um really great renovation. Um, School Street is a really special street. It's
a historic street. There have been a lot of renovations over the years. beautiful jobs and um I think this is going to be one more. >> Thank you, >> Paul. >> Yes, I think you've certainly been worked over by the historic uh commission and uh it's been a good
process I think to develop something that's attractive. Uh I think your perspective from school street will remain substantially the same which is important. Um, so, uh, I think it overall it, uh, contributes very well to
what we're trying to do here. >> And Ed, >> I agree with my colleagues. I think it's going to be, uh, an improvement to the to the neighborhood. I think it's going to fit in perfectly. And, um, yeah, getting rid of the vinyl siding certainly is going to make it look more
historic. >> Yep. And Mr. each. >> Yeah. Some sometime in my spare time, I'll have to review those historic commission meetings. I because when I look at the original proposal that he brought into us and I look at where they
ended up, I'm hardressed to see what all what took so much to get there because I mean I thought the initial was sensitive to the building and and would have fit, you know, the streetscape, but that's my thoughts. I'm not on historical commission. Um, so, uh, I nice job. Very
nice job. And you know, and consider also and and I'm considering maybe I'm speaking personally, too, because first of all, they're going to raise the house up about a foot to get away from the pitch and u I've done that, had to do that. Um, and you won't really that
difference won't be um obvious when it's all when it's completed. And um the goal here was to convert that house into a year-round home. And so I
think they've done a very good job of that in a way that totally honors the uh the the building itself and the streetscape. A very very nice job. So um it's I I'm very much in favor of it and
we'll support it. >> And Mr. Nixon. >> Yeah, I think overall it's it's excellent. I will go back to the Koopa. I don't I don't buy the story that that makes the garage subservient, you know, it's it's just totally out of the place
down there. And I would propose that in our conditions we include one that says no Kopala on that building. And I I think if I remember right with all those meetings, wasn't it always about the chimney every
single time? I could have sworn there was not a lot. >> There was maybe two of them that were very specifically about the chimney and it was it was the new chimney. It was the new location and the the former location of the defunct. >> They kept sending you out because of the chimney. The chimney. The chimney. And now we have no chimney. >> Correct.
>> Which Yeah, it's seems like >> they were very pleased in that last hearing that there was no chimney. >> Yeah. I thought, okay. Well, anyway, um I think uh it's it's great the way you can lift it up and then does that make the floors even inside too when you do that
>> as best we can? It is a bit of a roller coaster and the foundation walls are are just bulging in and wonky in a number of locations. So, it'll be a more secure and more stable home in for the future years. And are you okay with June 1st to
September 30th or what? What you mean your your owners are going to live there year round and these people all just rent. I feel like they should have first priority over that. >> Of course, we would stick to the standard condition, >> right?
>> If we had to compromise a couple of weeks on either side, sure a month on either side is is a little bit drastic. >> And what are your thoughts on the Koopa? I don't know how we would vote in terms of taking that out or not. I know one we have one vote to take it out. I don't
know about any more than that. Pardon? >> Oh, he's not voting. >> What? No. >> Yeah. Well, we have what? We have some support for >> It's got nothing to do with it. >> No, sir. That's Sarah reminded me. Yeah. Yes. You're not voting on that. >> Thank you.
>> Yeah. Yeah. But what are your thoughts on it? Uh >> we'd like to keep it. >> Yes. Because that's their taste and that's what they like. >> Yes. Yeah. And are they going to rent just out of curiosity, are they going to rent that apartment? Is >> that's a good question. We haven't we haven't talked about it. They have some
family that will come in and out. They have a few other kids that will come in and out and it'll be primarily family use. I I don't expect that they'll rent it. Uh >> yeah, >> it won't be a seasonal rental. No, >> I don't believe. >> Okay. Very good. Um All right. So, Paul, how are we going to do this?
>> We're going to vote one at a time. >> I think we'll Yeah, we'll we'll deal with them separately. Um and I guess uh one question I had with respect to conditions is uh how do you want to handle the uh right of way and uh I know you've talked with the with these people
and you've come to what you think is a a solution uh for the use uh of the driveway. Um do you have language that you specifically want to include at this point >> regulariz trucks? I mean, I guess we
could go with the tonnage of truck, but excluding heavy equipment, driveway use, excluding heavy equipment. >> Well, that's that's going to be hard to hard to agree as well. >> We're looking at the heavy equipment definition for our town.
We need to be specific. Yeah. The definition for heavy equipment means any vehicle's truck, tractor, loader, or lifting device with a rated carrying lifting capacity of greater than a ton or a gross vehicle weight of 10,000 lbs or greater.
>> Okay. >> That that seems to me to be maybe bigger than what you're talking about. >> I hope so. I'm I'm thinking standard pickup trucks and and work vans. And uh you're confining those to the
what would you describe that area as? Uh the driveway. >> Driveway. And that would apply to both applications. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um I'll move to uh I'm not
inclined at least at this point to include the Koopa issue on the conditions. So, I would uh move to approve the application with a condition that all construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the
permission of the property owner with the exception that the driveway shall be used only by uh regularsized pickup trucks and uh panel vans. Uh and uh two that uh construction between um
>> I'm inclined to say June 15th and uh September 15th to give some leeway on both sides. Uh between those two time periods, 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. >> So can you second that, Dave? Just for the purposes of discussion, >> I will second for purposes of discussion. >> All right. So, first let's discuss the time period if >> Yeah. >> Um, where do you think it should be?
>> Well, I'm not First of all, I I not I noted the coordination among the neighbors letters. >> Yeah. Um and you know we do this and we've come to do
this as a matter of course but when the more we the longer we need the more we've delay or lengthened the project. >> Um and it's a it's always trying to find a balancing act. Um,
I I think Paul's suggestion was maybe a little more than I would say, but I can go along with his suggestion. I would I think I'd be more inclined to go two weeks on one end or the other.
>> I agree with you. So, uh, and that's that's about because you know those time I mean certainly and then I guess I would go the the two weeks in June are a less prime time than those two weeks in September. So I could I could see you
know what what I can't even remember a normal one. >> Are you going to say June 30th to September 15th? Would that work for you? >> That could work for me. So, let's just go around and we'll just check and we'll see what the consensus is. What do you
think, Ed? Just on that, >> that's fine. I I I would say our standard ones are are fine. >> I agree with you, too, on that too. So, uh what do you think, Mr. Nixon? >> Yeah, I I I believe our standard is >> standard. Okay. I like that too. Uh Lee,
>> I actually I actually like the uh June 5 uh June 30th to September 15th. >> Okay. I am sensitive to those renters. >> Okay. What do you think, Steve? >> I think June 30th is fine. I I suspect that most of the exterior work >> So when done June 30th till
>> I think our just our standard uh >> September to Labor Day, right, Paul? Is that the standard? >> Our standard would be uh Labor Day. >> June 30th to Labor Day. >> Yes. >> So you like that one? >> And and I think most of the exterior work is probably going to be done by June anyway. >> With any luck yet.
>> So okay. So you have June 30th to Labor Day. >> What about you, Jenny? >> Standard >> June 30th. It seems like that's the preponderance. >> Okay, let's let's amend it to uh to June 30th to uh >> to Labor Day. >> Labor Day would be that condition number two.
>> And this is going to be for both of them, but we're going to get to the Koopa when we get to the second application. Okay. >> All right. So So >> So Dave Votes yes. >> Ed, >> Ed votes yes. All votes yes. >> Jenny >> Jenny votes yes. >> As do I. Okay. Okay. So, that's unanimous. Very good. So, that's School
Street. Now, we'll do Howlet. Paul, can you do the >> Yes. I'll move to approve the application with respect to uh 25115 uh which is the 42 Howlet Lane portion of this application >> with the same time
>> with the same uh conditions u uh as we've just uh mentioned. I again would not include the Couple. >> Okay. at this point. And can you second that just for us? >> I Well, yes, I second that. Yep. >> Okay. What do you think about the Koopa, Mr. Beach?
>> You can just say yes or no. >> With all respect to my fellow long-erving board member and who I frequently agree with uh on Koopas and sometimes disagree with. in
this particular case. I I don't I I think it's not a not prominent necessarily. And I don't and I think that that that low pitched um sort of generic roof
that's on that structure. Um and I'm I'm going to say actually benefits from having just a little ornament on it. So, I I can support the >> Koopa. What about you, Ed?
>> Um, perhaps I'm more gullible than Mr. Nixon, but uh I I'm going to go with Paul's argument that uh it subordinates the buildings, so I I would keep it. >> You keep it. And you know, you >> Oops. Yep. Okay. So, we know you don't
want it. And I um I'm not going to say anything yet. Paul, you want to leave it? Yeah. Uh I uh yeah, I want to leave with the uh with what has passed through the historic commission and is provided for by the architect with a provision
that it not be uh eliminated. >> Okay. And what about you, Lee? >> Um I I I agree. I like it. I think um it adds a little character. It's set below and so I don't think it's really going to be standing out. I think it's fine.
>> Yeah. What about you, Steve? >> Um just a a qu. Is it going to be illuminated anyway? >> No, >> I like a good Koopa. >> Do you? What about you, Jenny? >> Well, I was going to ask, too, because what's shown in the picture is just the louvers, and it's very small. It's a
very small uh Koopa, which um I think some of the objections to other Koopas have been, you know, really large, oversized, have, you know, light have it uh lit inside. Um, but I'd like to negotiate keeping the Koopa and then
adding the chimney to the house. >> Yeah, that I was gonna say that I I want >> I don't I don't I don't think it jives with everything that they've said, you know, with all respect to historic and I'm no, you know, expert at that at all, but it seems to me that there should be
no Koopa. There's no Koopala in the historic district. Um, and also that there should be the same fake chimney in the same spot as the original house because they're always talking about the snapshot of the house and I just don't
understand it at all. But um yeah, so I I would say take out the chimney the uh Koopa, but um it seems like I'm outnumbered. >> We could note your dissenting vote. >> We can. Yeah. So anyway, and Jenny, you
>> where we're where we're at is a Koopa remains in it, but it's not illuminated. >> Yes. >> Agreed. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> We can't I don't think adding it. You would have had to add it, you know, during the deliberations or something,
you know, say I'm going to vote no unless you go back and add a fake chimney, you know. Oh. >> All right. I guess we better vote. >> So the uh the vote I've made the motion for >> you have and it hasn't changed.
>> And there's a second for Mr. V. So let's vote. >> And uh and Votes yes. >> Ed it votes yes. >> All votes yes. >> Jenny >> yes. >> I vote yes too then. And that's unanimous. >> Thank you so much. >> Doesn't make sense but it's unanimous.
>> Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Have a great holiday. >> You too. >> And uh I guess we need a motion to >> I'll move to adjourn. >> Dave seconds and votes yes. >> Ed votes yes. >> All votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> Steve votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes.
>> As do I. And what time is it? 510. >> 507. >> 507. And good evening Chadam.