the other day. Mhm. Welcome everyone. It's July 10th, 2025 and this is the Town of Cadam Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28th, 2025 signing of chapter two of the acts of
2025 extending certain COVID measures, this meeting is being held um conducted in person and via remote means um remote participation as well. Every effort will be made um to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings as
provided for in the order. A reminder, persons who'd like to listen to the meeting while in progress may do so by calling 508-9454410 conference ID 872 580 911 pound or join the meeting through
the link post in the posted agenda. While this is a live broadcast and simo cast on Chattam TV, despite our best efforts, we may not be able to provide realtime access. We will post a recording of this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible. In
accordance with town policy, the public can speak to any issue or business item on the agenda during the meeting when recognized by the chair. I'd ask you to shut off any gadgets that make any noise or vibrate in any way, shape, or form. And if there's going to be a lot of
conversation, if you could do so on the hall, that would be that would be helpful. Um the first uh thing that we usually do at our meetings is we take a roll call vote of all board members as after that we ask that whoever is uh participating by phone make sure that we
can identify you our staff Sarah Clark on my right will read the hearing notice and the representative or the attorney uh or the person who is responsible for the application will have a chance to present their case. Anyone in favor will
have up to five minutes to speak and then I will read all correspondences. Anyone against or has that has a question will also get up to five minutes. And then the applicant can rebut anything that they heard that they don't agree with. Members will ask
questions, hear further information. We will close the public hearing, deliberate, and generally we vote on the applications. Not always, it depends. Um all votes will be taken by roll call and at the end of the meeting we close via a
verbal confirmation and note the time of adjournment. At this point um we will do a roll call of all board members authorizing this form of meeting starting with Mr. Vich. Uh David H and I approve this form of meeting. Uh Ed Actton I approve.
Paul C Simple I approve this form. Lee Hubby I approve this form. Steven Dbor I approve. Virginia Fenwork, I approve. And Randy Pardash, I approve as well. Um, we are a citizen board made up of volunteers. And we, um, have five
members that are generally the voters. Uh, one is absent today. So, voting today will be David Vch, Ed, Edward Actton, Paul Simple, Virginia Fenwick, and myself. and we also get input from
all our members. Um, as a general rule, but that's will be how the voting goes. In order to prevail on your application, um, the applicant would need to get four out of five votes. That's the law in Massachusetts. A super majority. So, at
this point, we have approval of minutes meetings held on June 5th, 2025. Um, Paul, yes. I'll move to approve the minutes as published for June 5, 2025. Uh, I have some corrections.
Could you just second that? I'll second that and and offer um and on page five, the um last page top of the page uh you find three uh references to July 14th. Uh and I said we want to
change those three to July 17th. Okay. Anything else? That's it for that. That's it for that. Okay. So, can we have a vote on that? Uh, starting with you, David. And I vote yes. And Ed, uh, Ed votes yes. All votes yes. Jenny. Jenny votes yes.
As do I. That's unanimous. Now we have, uh, June 12, 2025. Paul. Yes. I'll move to approve the amendments as published for June 12, 2025. Uh, Dave seconds. And, um, there are a few a little bit more extensive in this case. Okay. Please go ahead. So the first u is
at the bottom of page one. Um we the sentence of members voting and that sentence finishes with associate member we want to add Steve Dbor to follow that.
on uh subsequent pages um there are 13 um instances of David Nixon who was not present at the meeting showing his voting and in those 13 instances we would um strike and substitute Steve
Dbor for Dave Nixon. Thank you. And then uh on there are four instances uh on pages six, eight, nine and 10 where um
the um this statement is um that uh the vote 50 unanimously approved to continue application. I'm going to strike the words to continue
on on those four and that's in on page six. Um the same is true on page eight, page nine, and page 10. Does anybody else have any corrections? Seeing none.
So I I vote yes. Okay. Ed. Ed votes yes. All votes yes. Jenny votes yes. As do I. Okay, that's unanimous. So, um, our first application is 25-043 Kendall P. Kellaway Jr., Susan M.
Kellaway. Whenever Sarah is ready, she will read the advertisement. Application number 25-043 Kendall P. Kellaway Jr. and Susan M. Kellaway, care of George Riley, 63 Brook Trail Road, Brewster Math 02631.
owners of property located at 255 C Pine Road, also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 12K, Block 4, lot HC18. The applicant proposes to change, alter, or expand a non-conforming dwelling on a conforming lot via the construction of a
covered entry and porch. The existing dwelling is non-conforming and it is located 24.4 ft from the Westerly Butter where a 25 ft setback is required. The proposed additions comply with the required setbacks. The existing building coverage is 4,392
square feet, 11.7% and the proposed building coverage is 4,667 square ft, 11.97% where 10% is the maximum allowed. The lot contains 39,633 ft of buildable upland in the R40 zoning
district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5 v of the protective bylaw. Welcome, Mr. Riley. Thank you. I'm George Riley uh representing the Kellaways. Um as uh as
Sarah said, the lot is non-conforming uh uh because the building is 24 ft 24.5 from the west property line and the building coverage is um 79 1.79% over
the um um I'm sorry. Oh, 1.7 uh 1.07 I'll get it down uh percent over the u the uh building
coverage requirement. Uh the application is requesting to uh really a uh a small addition to the uh coverage by extending the uh the entry canopy about 4 ft out
and then connecting that canopy to the garage along the house by uh a porch uh roof coverage. Um and that's uh pretty much it. Uh the house is quite set back quite far from the road. It's really uh
not visible very much and uh given the architectural style of the house and the abuing uh uh neighboring houses you can see. Um I think it'll probably fit in and really hardly be noticed at all.
So it's your position it's not substantially detrimental to the neighborhood? Absolutely not. All right. So, thank you very much. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wish to speak in favor of this project? If so, please raise your hand.
Seeing none, I will read the two correspondences. One is from Judith Giorgio, our health agent. She tells us on July 8th, 2025, she has no concerns about the proposed covered entry and porch. We also have a note from Christine McCarthy. Um and if you could
just tell your client there's a balance at the town of Chadam. Um and it's uh rather modest. So very modest. Yes. Y thank you. Okay. So that concludes the correspondences. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak
against this application or has a specific question? If so, please indicate. Seeing none, are there questions from the board? Please don't be reticent. Just Yes.
Hi, I wanted to uh ask you if you knew what were the additions that were made in 2024 to the home. 2024. Well, I noticed on the field card it says that there were additions that were made. Um
I uh I really don't know. I think there they uh put on a new pergola. They did some uh work with windows. Uh but that's really nothing that needed to go to the zoning board because I I saw that No.
Um so nothing that is what bumped up the coverage. No. So the coverage is over, right? I'm not really sure why the coverage went over. I know that the property was uh subdivided and then the property line between the two properties
was changed and there was I think a mistake in the survey card and that's why the uh the property line was moved but but I'm not sure why it went over now. I don't think it has anything to do with these people have just really bought the house.
We may have an answer from that from Sarah if you would you like that? Yes. Okay. Um, prior to the change in the FEMA maps, the buildable upland on this lot was over 41,000 square feet. So, it would have met the 10% that was required.
When the maps changed, um, it dropped it down to just over 39,000, which caused it to be 11.07%. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Yep. Thank you, Ed Actton. Question. Um, it it looks like there's going to be
some dormers added to the the front of the house at some point. Uh, I think yes, they're changing the window structure on the top to accommodate the Okay. And uh I don't think that has anything to do with the the building coverage issue at all.
Um, no. It just looks like it's probably going to be an increase in habitable space. Oh, I don't think so. Unless you count standing in the window with the overhang as habitable space. I'm not sure that it does. There was no intention of that as far as I know.
Okay. All right. Thank you. We'll find out. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions? No. Anybody please? Okay. So, Paul, I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. Dave Beach second votes yes. Uh Ed Actton votes yes. All votes yes. Jenny votes yes.
As do I. Okay. Deliberations. Uh David Vch. Uh well, it's certainly not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Um I think it me I find it meets our criteria. It's nice looking uh addition of a porch and and entry and
extending the entry. So um I will support it. Okay, Ed. Um I as well it um meets our criteria and um certainly not substantially detrimental. And Jenny, well I have good news and bad news. The
good news is it looks like the coverage is only 275, not 285. So that's actually lower than what they're asking for. But I I don't love the going be already being over and and going over. Um it it's according to my calculation, it's
it's a 6% change. It's it's totally going to fit in the neighborhood. That's not it. But you know, it's a double lot this lot. Most of the lots in Seine are not um this large and I sort of feel like well I'm
torn with this um so I want to hear what the rest of my colleagues say but uh on the one hand you know it's a large lot so 275 feet not a big deal but on the other hand it's a large lot so why should it be over at all it's there
should be plenty of room for what they have you know what they need so okay so I'm conflicted that's an interesting ing uh calculation, Lee. Um well, I initially was concerned about going over um building coverage wise
since it's already over, but Sarah's explanation of the maps changing, that's nothing that we can control. Um it is it is definitely not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood to reconfigure the entry. So, if I were voting, I would be voting for it.
Okay. And Steve? Yeah, I guess I I I had the same feeling as Lee just mentioned that, you know, they were already over the coverage and going further over, but um Sarah explained that well. I think that um you know, it really wasn't their doing that
caused that to happen. And um you know, I think they're trying to to change the aesthetic of the house a little bit to make it u um a little bit nicer and and modern. So, um, you know, they are going over, but it's it's because of no fault of their own.
So, I guess I'd be okay with it. And Paul, your thoughts? Uh, I think I agree with with Dave V in terms of his approach to this. I do uh understand that there is a change in the overall coverage but it's pretty min
minor and given the way the house is set it's really set way back in such that uh there is uh no impact as I nearly as I can see on the neighborhood. So, I don't think it's substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood.
And and I also take um Jenny's approach in terms of when I see it's already over and then they want to go over more, I think, what a nerve at first. And then, you know, then I go down there and I go into the driveway and there's no way I could in good faith say that this change
would be substantially detrimental to the neighborhood. I'd like to see the neighborhood even figure out it happened. You know, you'd have to really have some serious vision. Um, so I would never vote no on it, but it does raise our antennas. Just so if you're surprised, Mr. Riley, that's why. That's
why because we always notice that. So, a word to the wise. And, uh, so I would vote in favor. Um, are you ready to vote? Um, Miss Fenwick, do you think? Uh, well, I
was criteria three. I agree. It's not substantially more detrimental, but I I felt like the extent of the proposed increase in the non-conforming nature was um a a little large for something that's uh you know, aesthetic. It's not really
necessary. It's not like it's a covered area from the garage to the front area or but anyway, I appreciate the feedback from my colleagues. So, I'm I'm ready to vote. Okay, Paul, I'll move to uh approve the application.
I think we Oh, yeah. We did we close the Yeah, I think we've already closed. Yeah, you're right. I'll move to approve the application as submitted. Uh the only uh condition I would add would be that all construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property
owner. uh given the fact that it's set down so far in the property uh and uh a large lot with a fairly good isolation, I don't think we need our other conditions. Everybody I would agree with that. Yeah.
Yeah. Okay. So, uh David seconds and votes yes. Uh Ed Actton votes yes. All votes yes. Jenny votes yes. Um as do I. That's unanimous. Thank you very much. Nice to see you. Nice to see you. See you next time. Our
next application is 25-044 Patrickcliffani and Jennifercliffani 51 Saddleworth Way in Middleton and this is about 35 Evens Way in Cadam. Whenever Sierra is ready.
Application number 25-044. Patrick Jake Scofphini and Jennifer C. Clefini 51 Saddleworth Way, Middleboro, Mass 026 02346. Owners of property located at 35 Evans Way, also shown on the town of Chadam's
assessor's map 3F, block 27, lot B24. The applicant seeks to enlarge, extend, or change a conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the construction of an addition. The proposed addition will comply with all bulk and dimensional requirements of the bylaw, but is considered a substantial
alteration, and under the second accept clause of section 6 of Mass General Law Chapter 48, such substantial alteration requires the grant of a special permit. The existing building coverage is 1,57 square ft and the proposed building coverage is 29 square ft where 2900 ft
is the maximum allowed. The lot is non-conforming and that it contains 22,579 ft where 60,000 ft 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 protected bylaw.
Welcome sir. Thank you very much chair committee members. My name is Patrick Scfani. Just a point of clarification on the actual announcement. Um we don't live at 51 Saddleworth Way anymore. We sold that before we moved to 35 Evans Way. So we
we're full-time um residents here at 35 Evans Way South Chattam. That was in 2021. So Oh, that's fine. Okay. We won't hold it against you. All right. Thank you. So basically, we want to So we currently live in approximately a thousand square
feet and we want to expand over to the south of our existing structure. Um, another um thousand square ft, uh, twocar garage, a bedroom, bathroom,
a, um, office, and a new stairwell with a new entry. As you can see from the elevations, um, we we're kind of set back from the road. Um the struct the
new structure will not exceed the existing width of the current house that we have there. Uh going south um we have plenty of setback to the south to the neighbor on the south side of that the
new structure and west which is the back of the house. There's plenty of setback all the way to the conservation land. Okay. So, do you have a copy of the criteria or often when when you don't have a representative? I I go through it
with you. Would you like me to do that? Sure. I'd appreciate that. So, we do have 12 criteria. They're not all applicable. So, I'll just go through the ones that are. So, you think your your your site is um is appropriate for this project? Yes, very much so. And I think we have a
couple letters of support that indicate that. Yes, you do. Um, and you think that it's compatible, which at the end of the day with this project, it'll look compatible to other neighboring properties. It'll look compatible, and I think it'll be an enhancement to the neighborhood.
Okay. Um, and you think that, uh, it won't have an impact on the natural environment, uh, vegetation, water bodies, um, and the like? No. And, uh, and the scale sighting in mass, you don't think it'll overwhelm the neighborhood? The visual character? No,
it's it's not a I mean, I know it's doubling the size of our house, but it's still within a a reasonable um looking home compared to some of the other homes in in the neighborhoods around surrounding us. Yeah. And obviously, it won't impact traffic flow, uh noise, and litter. And
at the end of the day, would you say that this is not substantially detrimental to your neighborhood? No, it is not substantially detrimental. And I'm going to be on site for the whole con time of the construction. I just retired, so I'm going to make sure I general contract it myself. So,
okay. Um, is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor of the application? If so, please raise your hand. Um, seeing none, I will read the correspondences. The first one is from our from our health agent, Judith Giorgio. She tells us on July
8th, 2025 that she reviewed the plan to renovate and add to this property. The board of health approved the property for an additional bedroom with an IIA system in October of 2023. The approval um has since expired and
the applicant will have to go back to the board of health for an updated approval. And then we have a letter in favor from Katherine Gland May 19th, 2025. She tells us she lives on Eban's Way
directly across the street. she's uh regrets that she can't attend the meeting and that she'd like us to know that she is in full support of the renovations and to let her know if she needs any um if we need any further information. Then we have a note also in
favor from Sandra Burns and she is um also somebody that lives on the same street and she tells us in July 5th, 2025 that she has known that um your family um and your parents for decades and they're fortunate to have you as
neighbors. They're looking forward to seeing the planned remodeling. Um she was fortunate to have seen the plans. It's well done. um fits with the neighborhood overall. Uh adds adds to the home with the updated kitchen,
master suite. Each portion seems to fit well and the exterior is also nicely within the land has definite elegance and graciousness in terms of its design and a balance in front of the side views from the home. The windows and
doors are also uh placed well and it certainly adds to the neighborhood. And that's from Sandra Burns. That concludes our correspondences. Is there anybody that wish to speak against or has a question? No questions from the board. Jenny,
no questions. Steve, no questions. Lee, no questions. No questions. Ed, uh, no questions. No questions. Mr. V. Okay. I have no questions either. Paul, I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations.
Dens and votes yes. Uh, Ed votes yes. All votes yes. Jenny votes yes. As do I. Okay. Deliberations. We'll start with Jenny again and we just go right around. Okay. I think it's a terrific project and I was fortunate and was able to speak with you directly. You were there when we did the site visit. Um, I think
it's a very great use of the topography. It is a large addition. It's more than doubling. Um, in fact, it's almost it's it's a big increase to the gross floor area, the living space, but it's appropriate because it's a current currently it's a pretty pretty modest
home. Um, the lot size is, you know, uh, even even though it's, you know, it's it's under the it's in an R60, but it's still almost a little over half an acre. the I love the fact that the height is um again that's the the I I think the
successful use of the topography adding all that space to two levels but yet it's not overwhelming the current home so and then the building coverage is is um only 8.9 so it it's under that meets all the setbacks and it meets our
criteria in my opinion not substantially more detrimental right Steve I agree with everything that James yeah and Lee as do Hi. Well, yeah, it's pretty clear that this satisfies our criteria. I agree. Yeah, I agree as well. And and and would
note that it's um even though he's more or less doubling the size, it's still significantly less than the largest allowed on the lot, 2900 square feet. So, um and I agree with all previous. So, yeah. And, uh I was surprised to see that neighborhood. So, it's the first
time I've been down there. So, um very interesting and it looks like it's going to be a great project. So Paul, I'll move to approve the application as submitted. Um I think probably we should use our usual standards here. Although um I'm trying
to think about the neighbors and uh who's available on the opposite side of the road. Uh how are those houses used? Are they used in the summertime for rentals or? Um, the ones directly across from us that submitted the letter are full-time. Mhm.
Um, to my north full-time, to my south full-time, at the back is the conservation land. Um, mostly everybody. There's a couple houses that are summer residents. Primarily, we're all just there year
round. It's a really quiet, nice neighborhood. All right. Well, I'm sure you'll be quiet and doing your your construction. Uh hopefully. Um I I will move to approve the application with the condition that all construction activity in vehicles shall be contained on site
or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner. I'm not sure I see a need for any additional conditions. No. Okay. I I I agree with that. I will second that and vote yes. Ed votes yes. Paul votes yes. Jenny votes yes. As do I. Thank you very much. It's
unanimous. U that last um portion is because often we limit uh construction to this um time of year that's not summer, you know, but we're not doing that here. Okay. You got lucky. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate it.
All right. Thank you for coming. Next up, we have 166 Landing Lane. Uh Roland Trailer and Deborah Trailer. Um 25-045 when Sarah is ready. Application number 24-045 Roland R. Trailer Jr. and Deborah
Trailer Carob Tom Fitzgerald 90 Route 6A Orleans Mass 02653 owner of property located at 166 Landing Lane also shown on the town of Chadam assessor's map 13K block 30 lot R11. The applicant seeks to modify special permit
number 22-110 granted on December 1st, 2022, which allowed for the demolition of the existing deck and the construction of a new screen porch. The applicant now seeks to modify this special permit to allow for an increase in building coverage. The app approved building coverage was 2,717
square ft and the constructed building coverage was 2752 ft where 2850 ft is the maximum allowed. The lot is non-conforming and that it contains 21,7 square feet where 40,000 square feet is
required in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and 14 and sections 5B and 8D2B of the bylaw. Mr. Fitzgerald, welcome. Thank you. Uh this was a project that had a few
phases to it. We were here for a few of the phases. This was going on during COVID and somehow the numbers didn't end up the way that they ended up.
I didn't do the original hearings, but the uh what is it like 52 feet or something that were here. So, uh, Sarah told me that we had to come back for this. So, so the project just became a little bit
bigger than you had gotten a permit for. No, I don't know. That's what we can't figure out, but everything was built to what the size was on there, but somewhere between the engineering and what the original application was,
there's that 50 or so feet of differentiation. Okay. So, um, do you think as it is now it's substantially detrimental to the neighborhood? I do not. All right. Thank you. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wish to speak in favor of this application?
Please raise your hand. Seeing none, I will read the correspondences. The health agent tells us on July 8th, 2025 that she has no concerns. That's Judith Giorgio. And we also have a letter from Richard and
Kristen Zabo. um 70 High Point Drive in Chadam on July 9th, 2025. They say they write in support of the application. Uh the the improvements are consistent with the character of the neighborhood and are welcome betterment to the Ryder's
Cove Landing Association and they ask us to approve the application as is. And now is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wish to speak against or has a question? No questions from the board. David V.
So I just so basically this came to light when the asbuilt was done. Correct. Y and but we don't know where specifically and it wasn't necessarily specifically in the sun room part in the back which was the second part of the project. It
it's just what it ended up being. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. And anything? Uh no. No. Anybody on this end have any questions? And everybody's shaking their head. No. Okay, Paul, I guess I I guess I still do have a
question. And that is uh are you saying that it was in fact constructed according to the plans that were submitted to the building commissioner to begin with? Yes, the building was built to the spec.
I guess when the original uh when we were here for the back deck that that number was incorrect I guess. So I guess so the number the number is consistent uh with the plans but it's not consistent with what the application was.
I believe that's correct. Yes. Okay. And and Jenny, I'm sorry. Please. I'm not sure that Mr. Fitzgerald's going to know this. Did you say you were not part of the first project which was the front porch? I was the contractor, but the uh the
architect was the one that took this hearing. Okay. And so, and so that there were two hearings in front of ZBA. One was for the front porch. Y and then one was for the um the back porch. Correct. Okay. Y All right. Um thank you.
Okay. Are there any other questions? No. Okay. Paul, then I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. Dave seconds and votes yes. Uh Ed votes yes. All votes yes. Jenny votes yes. Um, as do I. Okay. Deliberations, Lee.
Um, well, you know, I don't I don't have a problem with this. I think that um had these numbers come before us originally, we would have approved it. So, I have no problem with approving the um modification. and Steve.
Um, yeah, I I you know, and I was going to ask why, you know, I think it's actually 35 ft that it's over, but um, you know, how how that could happen. Apparently, you're not quite sure. Something was maybe made a little wider than it should have been or longer or
whatever, but it's difficult to tell now, I guess, at this point. Um, but it's within the setbacks. It's still under the lot coverage. So, I don't think it really harms anything. Okay. And Jenny,
yeah, I agree with Lee and Steve. Um, I did just take a peek at the previous two hearings because I was confused about what had happened here. Um, both of those porches, the front and the back, received unanimous support from all the board members. Um, so the
project itself was approved unanimously. Not even questions really. Um and and I do like Steve said kind of go with the would I have approved it? It is 35 feet. I would have approved it. Would I have approved it? And the answer is yes. So I
I I'm okay with the with the um small overage. Yep. And uh David, yeah, I I concur with the previous. It's and it's certainly not substantially uh more detrimental uh to the neighborhood at all. So I will support it.
um as do I I you know the 35 ft I I believe I would have approved and the board would have approved um originally so I I don't have an issue. Yeah. And Paul your thoughts? I agree with my colleagues. Y I do too and I I agree with the
reasoning. Um and it's still 100 square feet less than going all the way to the to the max. So you have some le some leverage and so I would I would support it. So Paul, I'll move to approve the application as submitted. Uh Dave seconds and votes yes. Uh Ed votes yes.
Paul votes yes. Yes. Sorry. As do I. That's unanimous. Thank you. And uh thank you. See you next time. Thank you. Moving right along to 30 Pine Lane. Um
Michael G. Lynch 25-04 care of James M. Norcross Esquire. Sarah application number 25-046 Michael G. Lynch Care James Morcross
Esquire PO box 707 Chattam Mass 02633 owner of property located at 30 Pine Lane also shown in a town of Cadam's assessor's map 13J block 6 lot G12B. The applicant proposes to change alter or expand a non-conforming dwelling in a non-conforming lot via the construction
of an addition and decks. The existing dwelling is non-conforming in that it is located 24 feet from the southerntherly abut butter and 32.7 feet from the top of bank. The proposed additions will be non-conforming in that they will be located 20.5 ft from the top of bank
where a 50ft setback is required. The existing building coverage is 2519 ft and the proposed building coverage is 25767 square ft where 2950 ft is the maximum allowed. Also proposed is the installation of a foot path and
kayak kayak rack as allowed by special permit under section 4 A3A of the bylaw. The law is non-conforming and that it contains 36,81 square ft of land area where 40,000 square feet is required. A special permit is required under Mass General
Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of protective bylaw. Welcome attorney Norcross. Thank you. Good afternoon. Jamie Norcross representing Michael Lynch. Um, as Sarah read, uh, the application is for, uh, a couple small additions to the back of the home. Uh, the primary part
of the project is the addition of a new sun room on the back, as well as a, uh, deck that you'll see on the second here. That's all right. So, you see uh, with the the sun room and then there's a deck
next to that. There's also a small deck that's proposed on the back of the garage. Um, this is going to become the primary primary exterior exterior area for the for Mr. and Mrs. Lynch. Um, as part of this, they're doing a extensive uh restoration project of the coastal
bank that they've been through with the conservation commission. Um, they're going to allow that existing lawns uh to naturalize. They're doing a significant amount of plantings. are also creating a view corridor uh down the bank. So, they'll be able to see the water from the uh the new sun room, which you can
see there in the dash lines uh from the the new sun room and the deck area. So, it should create a nice uh backyard area for them with um much more expansive views of the Frostfish Creek than currently exist. In terms of uh nonconformities, the existing house uh
has a couple slight uh nonconformities relative to the street setback and the south lot line. It is also non-conforming as to the coastal bank. Uh the only increase in non-conformity non-conformity, excuse me, is that the uh proposed sun room and deck will be
located slightly closer to the uh coastal bank than the existing structures. Otherwise, the additions will meet um all of the dimensional setbacks. We are increasing by about 250 square feet our building coverage, but as the advertisement read, we're still below the maximum allowed for this
property. Um the second part of this application is the uh footpath and the kayak rack because those are located in the conservancy district also require a special permit from the zoning board. Um so those are included on the plan are also included as part of our
application. Just touching on a couple of the criteria. Um adequacy of the site in terms of size. Um I would suggest the size is adequate. Uh it's a small increase in terms of building coverage and still below the maximum allowed for this property. Um we are going slightly
closer to the conservancy district but uh otherwise we are meeting all dimensional setback requirements of the bylaw. Compatibility of the size of the proposed structure. Again, it's a very small expansion uh and the uh structure is compatible with neighboring
properties. Uh the gross floor area numbers demonstrate that it's certainly right in line in terms of size with uh neighboring properties in this area. Um suitability of the site. Um again, we suggest the site is suitable for the project, will have no negative impact on
neighboring properties or the natural environment. Um they my clients are going back at the end of this month to conser to the conservation commission. we expect they'll issue an order of conditions. Um that was a little bit more of a challenging process. There were some different versions of the project. Ended up scaling it back a bit, but at the end conservation seemed
satisfied with the plantings and the proposal that is put forth by the lynches. Uh number five, impact of scale sighting and mass. I suggest no negative impact on scale sighting or mass. Uh the main aspect of the project is behind the home which is largely unseen from
neighboring properties. Um there is still existing vegetation that will remain on that coastal bank and the the relatively minor scale of the additions will minimize any impact as seen uh from the water size. Uh the rest of the
criteria are really not applicable for this application. Uh so just quickly in summary, I'd suggest it is certainly not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wishes to
speak in favor of this application? Please raise your hand. Seeing none, the correspondences are as follows. Judith Giorgio tells us on July 8th, 2025 that as a health agent, she has no concerns with the addition of a sun room and
deck. The conservation commission tells us on July 10th, 2025 that this property at 30 Pine Lane will be back in front of them on July 23rd. The project will be revised and conditioned to meet the performance
standards under the Wellland Protection Act. That concludes the correspondences. Is there anybody that would like to speak against this application or has a question online or in the room? Seeing no hands anywhere. All right, we'll do questions from the
board. Um, David Vch. I have no questions. Ed, uh, no questions. Paul, no questions. Lee, um, my only question is, um, it looks like there's, um,
um, pilings or posts. There's no foundation under any of these decks. Correct. I believe that's correct. including the sun room. I think it's a in the sun room in the on the profile it looks like. Yep. Okay. All right. And and the deck on the
side of the garage just to make it easier to access that area. I asked myself that question. I I never asked the client the reason for it other than that was something they were looking to have. So, I'm not sure of their their reason, but they were there was a little bit of back and forth with conservation. So, I know they found it
was an important element for them to have that because we actually came around when we went to visit the property, we came around that side and I I'll say it was a little tricky to get around there. So, maybe the stairs it could be for access. Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you. Yep. Yeah. Steve,
um I was just going to ask about your timeline for when the construction might start taking place because there's a project right next door and that's a very small little street. I So, they're doing some interior work right now. Um, our clients, my clients are, so I'm not
sure their time frame for the exterior. Probably sometime in the fall would be their their plan right now. There might be a lot of activity there. Yeah, they seems like they have a decent amount of area on their on their uh property that they can keep the vehicles. So, Okay. Thank you. Yeah. And and Jenny, please.
Jamie, I did watch the conservation hearing um and I think they covered off the increase in the nonconformity towards the coastal bank. They covered that off with mitigation. They were satisfied with that, right? Okay. Yeah, they were very happy with that. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. And I would just say
that, you know, um it's a deck, so it's it's minimal in terms of the Coastal Bank compared to if it was an addition. Yeah. Right. So, okay, Paul, I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. David V seconds and votes yes. Uh Ed votes yes. All votes yes.
Jenny votes yes. As do I. Okay, deliberations. We might as well start with Jenny. Um yeah, I think it's a the conservation hearing. I I didn't see all of it because it was so comprehensive. I I was initially just reading the application a
little concerned about such an increase, but when you go to the site, you see that it's just a portion of the deck. It is not what's there today. all the decks, you know, that are there today are not coming out. So, I I like that and I think it's a beautiful site and a thoughtful plan and um I don't think
it's substantially more detrimental. So, I would support it. And Steve, uh I feel the same way. You know, it's behind the house. I don't think it's detrimental to anybody. Um and I think it's well done. I don't have an issue with it at all. and Lee, I agree with my colleagues and I also
think that what they're doing in terms of mitigation um on that bank down to Frost Creek is really nice. Yeah. And Paul, yes, I think clearly it will have no impact on the neighborhood. Won't be substantially more detrimental. Ed,
uh yes, not substantially detrimental to the neighborhood. meets our criteria and uh conservation um seems like you know they've got it covered as far as the the coastal bank and uh the replacement of the lawn with
natural vegetation. So it seems like it's a win-win for everybody and Mr. Beach. Yeah, I agree with all previous. Yep. And as do I. So Paul, I'll move to approve the application as submitted. Um I think we should have a condition that all construction activity and vehicles would be contained on site
or at neighboring property with the permission of the property owner. Um there is a circle there which presumably could be blocked with some construction vehicles hopefully not happening often. um between June 30th and Labor Day. Um
I'm not sure I see a gain for con the uh conditions on this uh situation either because the construction will be downhill way behind the house. Um it seems to me with just the primary condition is is sufficient.
Yeah, I would agree. And I'll second and vote yes. Ed votes yes. Paul votes yes. Jenny votes yes. As do I. It's unanimous. Congratulations. Thank you. All right. Well, that was the pen ultimate application. Another vocabulary word for the day. That means second to
the last. Yeah. I know, right? Yeah. Talking vocabulary. All right. 20 29 Main Street is the next application. 25-047.
And uh whenever Sarah's ready, we'll hear that last one. Application number 25-047, Beachy Days LLC, care of William F. Raleigh, Esquire, PO box 707, Chattam, Mass 02633. Owner of property located at 229 Main
Street, also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 16 C, block 74, lot 58. The applicant proposes to change, alter, or expand a non-conforming accessory structure cottage on a non-conforming lot via the installation of a foundation. The
cottage will remain non-conforming located 4.4 ft from the norly butter and 13.1 ft from the Westerly butter where a 15t setback is required. The building coverage will remain non-conforming at 259 square ft 23.3% where 15% is the
maximum allowed. The lot 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 car mass general law chapter 48 section six and section 5B of the protective bylaw.
Welcome Mr. Riley and good afternoon. This is Joe Fornier the architect on this project in the um I have to admit that I was a little befuddled this morning when I was getting ready for this
uh because I kept saying why do we have to go to zoning? So I called the person who knows everything, not Jay, but Sarah. Sarah, of course. And Sarah said, "Well, because the building doesn't meet the setback, and you're elevating it by two feet, and so the increase in height within the
setback means you need a special permit." So that's why we're here. We're elevating the building two feet, and it's going to be on the same footprint, and they're just going to rehab the structure. So, April Mackente uh who is
a principal in the BG Days LLC is here also and uh I think they've done a great job on the front building uh rehabbing that antique and so uh they're when they're done with this one, it's going to be a beautiful structure,
a great addition, barely visible from the street. It's in the low point. All the buildings around it are much taller. Uh so uh if there was ever a project I presented that was not substantially more detrimental, this is the one.
Okay. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wants to speak in favor? No. And I have some correspondences from Christina Basset on July 10th, 2025. She tells us that the back cottage is
historically significant and this is from the uh historical uh commission and that but the proposed changes do not material diminish its historical significance. So they do not impose a demolition delay. The structure is also a contributing structure to the old
village national register but the changes do not constitute a sub substantial alteration. So they did not refer it to the Cape Cod Commission. Again, that's Christina Basset and it was on July 10th, 2025. We also have a
note from the health department as usual dated 78 2025 and the plan was reviewed. The f the full foundation will encroach on the title 5 required setback of the leeching facility. Plans for the
foundation and offset to leeching will need to be reviewed prior to approval of the board of health. Sure you're familiar with that? Yes. Uh I think the uh basically the require requirement is
that if the uh floor of the crawl space is below the top edge of the septic tank, then they would have to move the septic tank. But if the floor of the crawl space is above the septic tank,
then they won't have to move it. So that's currently the plan. It's just to keep the the floor of the crawl space above the top of the septic tank so they don't have to move it. Okay. And the you'll deal with the board of health as as I'm going to be out there measuring it myself.
All right. Very good. Very good. That that I'd like to see. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wish to That's where I am. Speak against. Please make it known. Oh, I has a question. No questions from the board. Mr. V.
Well, I I just was thinking about we've recently had needed to uh modify a special permit for the height of a building that they'd put a foundation under. And so I'm I'm just wondering if you built a little bit of cushion in to
the the uh um figures uh for that you've submitted to us anyway. Yes, we did. And we actually had our engineers review that as well for compliance. Yes. Okay, great. Thanks. and Ned. Uh, no questions. Paul,
I wanted to know who came up with BG Days LLC. The Mckinty family. Ah, okay. All right. Now I got it. Uh, no, the uh the renovation of the building in front is uh very nice compared to what was there before.
Yeah, it really looks uh spectacular. Uh I have no other questions. U just a quick one. You're not you're not demolishing the structure. You're just keeping keeping that and just jacking it up, putting foundation under it
so that it will be there 100 years from today as well. Great. Thank you. All right, Steve. Um, I don't really have any questions. And Jenny, do you I have no questions. All right, Paul, then I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations.
Dave seconds and votes yes. Uh, Ed votes yes. Paul votes yes. Jenny votes yes. As do I. Okay, deliberations, Steve. Well, I think it's a good project as long as, you know, they can preserve the the building that's there. It sounds like they're going to make an effort to
do that and um it'll take it another hundred years into the future. So, that's a good project. Yeah. Well, when that happens, I'll be back to make the changes. Okay, Judy. Yeah, I think it's smart to put in the
new foundation. Um, the antique is turned out to be it's amazing. It was really well done. And I just want to say again, and I think I said this at the previous hearing for that home, uh, that I appreciate the interest of the family and the um the investment to save these
historic homes in Chattam and especially on Main Street. So, well, I I I want to say that the Mckinty family is really special. They already home own a home on Hallway Street that they've rehabbed another contributing structure. They did
the front building here. And they were so concerned about the old Cumberland farm sitting there looking ugly that they bought it and helped get it put into a useful use. So now you can have Mexican food. That's the Mckinty family.
They're great, great folks. Very good. and mark this day because I let you talk after the hearing was closed. So, you know, don't forget that you owe me one. So, uh, no, seriously, that was good input. Um, anybody else? Oh, yeah. Who do who didn't deliberate? Wait.
Um, I I agree with what Jenny said. I really appreciate the family's um, you know, willingness to to do this the project that they did uh, in front of this cottage. It's lovely and it really looks great. And Paul, your thoughts?
Uh, I agree. It certainly is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. I would just have Mr. keep in mind that the reason he's not a doctor is because he couldn't do math. If you're going to also be dealing with the level of the floor for the septic
system, let's be careful. Thank you. Neither that nor architect and Ed um certainly not substantial uh to the neighborhood. In fact, it it looks like it's going to be quite the improvement. Uh the house certainly out front came out very nice and I'm sure this will be the same.
And David Vch, I agree with all previous comments. Yeah. As do I. So Paul, I'll move to approve the application as submitted, I think, with our standard conditions. All construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or to neighboring property with the
permission of the property owner between June 30th and Labor Day. No exterior construction shall be allowed. No work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8 a.m. and 5:00 pm only. Dave seconds and votes yes. Ed votes yes. Paula votes yes. Jenny votes yes.
As do I. It's unanimous. Congratulations. Thank you very much. And we're done in less than an hour. I know that we can all go out and enjoy this beautiful day pretty soon. So So um motion to adjurnn. I'll move to adjourn.
David seconds and votes yes. Uh Ed Actton votes yes. All votes yes. Jenny votes yes. And the the alternates can vote too. I vote yes. And Steve votes yes. As do I. Good night, Chadam. Oh, what time is it? 3:56. Officially 3:56.
We are ajourned.