Heat. Heat. Welcome everyone to today's Town of Cadam Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. The date is January 22nd, 2026. I will ask our clerk to read a message
from the Commonwealth's governor, please. >> Okay. I'm going to be reading the remote participation meeting procedure for the ZBA meeting January 22nd, 2026. 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 note-taking apps, please notify the chair. Pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28, 2025 signing of
chapter 2 of the acts of 2025, extending certain CO 19 measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law GLC 30A section 20 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 adequate adequately access the proceedings as provided for in the order. A reminder that persons
who would like to listen to this meeting while in progress may do so by calling the phone number 1508-945-4410 conference ID 382312 019 pound the pound sign or the meeting online via Microsoft teams through the
link in the posted agenda. While this is a live broadcast and sim simoc cast on Chattam TV Xfinity channel 1072, despite our best efforts, we may not be able to provide real-time access and we will 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 procedure that we follow is as
follow as as follows. The application will be read by the lady to my right. This is Sarah B. Clark. She's the PO for the town. That is the principal permitting officer.
Following that, we'll have a presentation either by the applicant or the applicant's uh representative. Then we would uh ask for any of those in favor to who wish to join the meeting to indicate they wish to. After that, I
would read any and all correspondence. Following that, we'd ask for anyone who wishes to speak either against or has a question about the application to join the meeting. Following that, there could possibly be some rebuttal. Then we would go on to questions from
the board. And when we were done with that, we would close the hearing and go into deliberation votes in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on zoning board of appeals. To be successful, you need to have a super majority of the votes. That
means five votes. You need four. Three doesn't do it. Voting today we have Paul, Randy, Jenny, myself, and Dave V. Although I
think Mr. V, you're uh recusing on one. >> I'm recusing on >> Okay. >> I'm recusing on one on >> Okay, then you would vote on that on the main street. Okay. >> Okay. Okay. Okay, at the end of the meeting, we would uh close it, have a
vote, note the time, and uh go on our merry way. So, we have to begin with a request on >> Oh, yeah. Okay. Oh, Sarah's reminding me
we have some minutes to approve. So, we have the minutes from December 10th. >> Um, the board needs to authorize this form meeting. >> Correct. >> Thank you.
So, we need to approve this form format of meeting. We all get to vote. Lee >> Lee HVY I approve this form of meeting. >> Steven Dbor I approve. >> Virginia Fick I approve. >> David S. Nixon I approve. >> Randy Podash I approve.
>> Paul C simple I approve. >> Uh Ed Octton I approve. >> And David HV I approve. >> That's it. That's unanimous. Okay. Now we'll go on to minutes. December 10th. Randy.
>> Yes. So, um I move to um accept the minutes with I I do have one edit um on this is for 1218. Um no, I I recuse myself on 1218. I'm sorry. These are the minutes from
December 10th. I totally I was I don't know why I had that note there. Um, the amendment that I need to make is that um, Virginia Fenwick voted no on uh, the project
and that um, Yeah. Anybody object to that? >> No, I think that's correct. >> Yeah. So, it had her as voting yes. Mr. Nixon did vote no and the balance of us voted yes. But um Virginia Van Fenwick
was included in the yes, but she was a no. So subject to that amendment um I move to approve the minutes unless somebody else has >> Okay, Paul. Uh I vote yes. >> Well, you have to second.
>> Second the motion >> and vote yes. >> And vote yes. >> Okay, Dave, I'm lost now. No, Dave Beach votes yes. >> Randy, >> Randy votes yes. Jenny >> Jenny votes yes >> and I vote yes. Okay, next one.
>> Do we have any other minutes? 18. >> Oh, the 18th. Um I have to recuse myself from that, but I I imagine that um I move to approve the minutes unless anybody else has uh to make any other changes.
>> I'll move to approve and second. >> Okay. Dave Votes yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> Jenny votes yes. And who else was voting that day? >> Yeah, I wasn't there that day. >> I Steve Dbor was voting.
>> Oh, yes. >> Then in that case, I vote yes. >> Okay. All right. So, that's unanimous. Okay. Very good. All right. Let's go on now. We have a request about to begin with application 25-12660
House Lane. Uh Mr. Riley >> application number 25-126 Elizabeth debias care of William F. Riley Esquire PO Box 707 Chattam Mass 02633 owner of property located at 60 house lane also shown on the town of Chattam's
assessor's map 7B block 52 lot S25. The applicant seeks to enlarge extend or change a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a new dwelling. The existing dwelling is non-conforming and in that it is located 13.2 feet from the
northeast easterly of butter where a 15 foot setback is required. The proposed dwelling will comply with road and abutter setback requirements. The existing building coverage is 1459 ft 15.5% and the proposed building coverage is
1743 ft 18.5% where 15% is the maximum allowed. The law is non-conforming and that it contains 9,540 square feet where 20,000 square feet is required in the R20 zoning district. A special permit is required under Masser Law Chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B
of the protective bylaw. >> Mr. Brownie, >> uh, good afternoon. Before I start, I have to tell you I have to wrap my head around the revised seating arrangement where the left has gone right and the right has gone left. just you're still all beautiful people,
which is a wonderful thing, but I'm just confused. >> Well, I I suggest you write a letter to the board of selectmen and see if they agree with you that it needs to be changed again. >> Go ahead, Mr. Riley. >> Well, thank you very much. The um the
reason we need a continuence is that uh the applicants have decided to change a portion of the design that's going to require a readvertisement and we've consulted with Sarah
and the uh our plan is to file the revised plans by the 30th and Sarah has indicated that there would be enough time advertising time so we could be heard on the the 26th of February. So we would ask for a continuence to the 26th
of February. Do any members have questions or Mr. Riley about this request? >> Okay, Randy, >> I move to continue the uh hearing until February 22nd. >> 26. >> 26, I'm sorry. 26.
>> Okay, Paul, >> I'll second that motion. >> Okay. >> And I'll vote yes. >> And you vote? Yes. Dave. >> Dave Votes yes. >> Randy, >> yes. >> Genie, yes. >> I vote yes. That's a unanimous decision. Okay, Sarah, let me check that off.
Let's go to 25-063, please. >> Application number 25-063, Monoy Rips LLC, Car William F. Riley, Esquire, PO Box 707, Chattam, Mass 02633. Owner of property located at 53 Little Beach Road. Also shown on the town of
Chattam's assessor's map 16A, block 26, lot H52. The applicant seeks to enlarge, extend, or change a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a new dwelling. The existing dwelling is non-conforming and that it is located 32.1 ft from Little
Beach Road and entirely within the coastal conservancy district floodplane elevation 13. The proposed dwelling will be non-conforming and that it will be located 15.2 2 ft from the Little Beach Road where a 40ft setback is required and entirely within the coastal conservancy district where a 50ft
setback is required. Also proposed is the installation of two new driveways. The existing building coverage is 1,419 square ft and the proposed building coverage is 2773 ft where 2800 ft is the maximum allowed.
The law is non-conforming and that it contains zero square feet of buildable upland where 20,000 square feet is required and contains 32,600 square feet of land area where 40,000 ft is required in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law Chapter 4A sections 6 and 9 and
sections 5B and 8D2B of the protective bylaw. This was continued from August 14th and October 25th, 2025. Uh, good afternoon. Bill Riley on behalf of Monmoy Rips LLC, which is Rod and
Terry Henles, who are well, Rod's present online. Uh, this design was done by Aaron Levan, who is with me here today, and I'd like to ask Aaron to go through uh the changes they've made. As
you may recall, this is our we're hoping that the third time is the charm. Uh this is uh we've paid close attention to the comments of the board uh from our last meeting and there have been significant further reductions in the
size of the proposed structure. So I'd ask Aaron to explain the current design. Erin, >> sure. Um at the last hearing, some of the comments we heard from you were had to do with the overall uh lot coverage as well as the design of the house that included a flat roof connector
connecting two separate gables. So we have removed that flat roof piece and the two gables now u merged together. Um since our original submission in August we have reduced the ridge height 8 and a half inches. We've reduced the footprint 776 square ft and we've reduced the
overall width of the house as viewed from the street 14t 2 in. >> All right. So, as you can and one of the things I passed out was the picture we submitted at the last meeting showing the previous design so that you'll be
able to compare it uh to the current design which is up on the on the board. the uh in any event. So, the Henkles uh have made real effort to
uh pay attention to the concerns of the board and they've reduced the building coverage. They've reduced the gross floor area. And I do have to say with regard to the
gross floor area, you know, we've we've attached a sheet which we do usually um which went somewhere the um so
um we submitted a plan that showed The gross floor area is 3,287 square feet. Uh, and that included that did not
include the floor area of a screened in porch. Uh Aaron felt and I agree with Aaron that the uh because the walls are screens and not
house walls that this was not an area that could be converted uh to living area. The Sarah and I had a lengthy discussion about the definition of gross floor area and your rules and regulations
and it refers to floor area that can be converted to living area within the building envelope. I believe that you know people would think of the building envelope as the walls of the
building. So, if you have a screened porch with no exterior wall that is not within the uh building envelope, now I mean it's
basically 400 square feet of the gross floor area. So when you're considering this design in your deliberations, I just hope you keep in mind that the we think
the gross floor area is 3287 square feet and Sarah's number which I don't have right in front of me is about an additional 400 square feet. So we think that uh our gross player areas is as I say is
less than 3,300 square feet. I can run through the criteria the uh so adequacy of the size of the site in terms of the size for the proposed use. the uh we do have still have a
significant increase in in building coverage uh from 1,379 to 1,997 square ft. Uh that represents a 300 square foot reduction from our previous design.
Uh and you know well over a thousand square feet reduction from our earliest design. the uh but the lot at 53 Beach Road has 32,600 square feet
and so we represent about 6% building coverage. So we think that the the sizes of the site is adequate for the proposed use. Uh compatibility of the size of the proposed structure with neighboring
properties. So again, we have uh an attached sheet that shows uh our proposed uh gross floor area and the gross floor
areas of other homes on Little Beach. and the um so we're still uh larger than most but I think that considering the size of the lot and its location
uh that the size of the building is compatible particularly when uh you look at the design most of the other houses are jammed onto very small lots
uh and we have a 32 32,000 foot lot. So, I think it's it's fair to allow the property owner to use a little bit more of the lot uh than the uh the folks who are jammed in whose percentages are generally way
above 15% allowed in our bylaw. So, uh, would ask you to keep that in mind while considering whether this is compatible with our neighboring properties, the extent of the proposed increase in the non-conforming nature of the
structure or use. So, um, we're still increasing the living space and a non-conforming building. So, that would be an increase in the non-conforming nature. Plus the uh we're encroaching a little closer on the frontage the front setback
of the street. So both those things would be an increase in non-conforming nature suitability of the site including but not limited to impact on neighboring properties on the natural environment including slopes, vegetation,
wetlands, groundwater, water bodies and storm water runoff. Uh the uh we do have an adjacent wetland across Little Beach Road uh from the location.
Uh we do not believe that u because the the ground is level between our property and that that there's significant chance of runoff. But uh our design has been discussed with the conservation commission and because we're changing the design we'll have to go back to
them. But they have signed off on the larger design. Uh and we think with a smaller design there's even less chance of us impacting that that wetland. The uh and we don't believe there's any
impact on groundwater water bodies or storm water runoff. Uh impact of scale sighting and mass on the neighborhood visual character including views, vistas and streetscapes. So
now we understood the concerns u of the board members with the last design where it could be perceived that there were like two buildings two separate buildings kind of attached to each
other. Now uh so what Erin has done with her design is reduce it so that it is much more similar to a standard cape design. uh using dormers for headroom on the
second floor. So we think that the current design uh is a positive impact on the uh views and vistas and the streetscape and certainly not
substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing structure. The compatibility of the proposed use with neighboring uses is a single family residence and all the homes down there are single family residences with the
exception of the Starfish condominiums which are our neighbor to the south. uh compatibility proposed use. As I said, we're all single family accepted condominium method of sewage disposal.
We're proposing a brand new septic system with a nitrogen reducing component. So, we believe that represents an improvement. Uh we feel there's no impact on traffic flow and safety. effect. If you've I know you've been to the site, Little
Beach Road is a is a dead end at this location due to nature taking over the balance of the road as you move south. We don't believe that any change in noise and litter, all utilities and
other public services are adequate. 11 and 12. Well, 11 is not applicable. Although there is a lateral expansion under under 12, u most of it is in an existing lawn area and the applicant
will be removing an existing retaining wall uh that will increase the previous area of the lot and the proposed dwelling is less than 10% although it's actually less than 8% of the uh proposed lot. So, we think
that the uh this proposal is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and responds we think directly to the concerns previously raised uh by this board. That'll be our presentation. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Mr. Riley. Is there anyone here today or in Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application? If so, please indicate you'd like to join the meeting. I don't see anyone. So, I'll read the correspondence. It's
very limited. We have a note from Judith Giorgio. She's the health agent for the town of Chadam. She writes on 121, "I've reviewed the plan demo and rebuild. The plan proposes a shared septic IIA system for the dwellings which would be this
one and the one that we approved not so long ago. The board of health approved this for the shared system and variances at their meeting on January 12th, 2026. Share systems require covenant documents and financial assurances that the
systems will be maintained by the owners. The dwelling at 53 Little Beach was approved for three bedrooms. Then we have a note from Christine McCarthy. Uh there's an outstanding
>> is it >> real estate tax for 53 and we bring this to the >> I think we can cover the $38. >> We don't care how much. >> I understand >> it's that's right. There are rares. There are rares. Okay. And I think that
takes care of that. And incidentally, it was really 8880. Hud, >> right? So, I have a favor to ask, too, since we've been dealing with this property for quite some time
prior to this owner. The uh instead of just questions, if I can if you could give me your concerns as well so we can try to deal with them, uh I'd really appreciate it. Okay. So now, is there anyone here today
or on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak against this application or has a specific question? If so, please indicate uh that you'd like to join the meeting. Gentleman in the back. For the record, Brian Phillips, 374 Lans Road. Um, my question is is what is the
total lot coverage now? Because that's always a little confusing to me because it says 27 on the >> 1997. >> 1997 >> and is so and that doesn't include the 400 square feet of the enclosed deck.
>> It does include the screen porch >> because there's a roof over the screen porch. >> So that's included in the lot coverage. Um, so it the project seems to be moving in the right direction, but it's still in a flood zone. Um, kind of increasing the imprint, you know, I think is bad.
Um, and something I just would like the uh the owner to to know is that we, you know, we did pass the year- round tax exemptions and uh so the summer residences are going to go up a little bit and then maybe if you would reconsider uh and keep it a historical building, which in my opinion many
people in this town think it is uh because it was built before World War II, uh you might uh save some money and if you like money, maybe you should keep it historic. Thanks. Anyone else like to join the meeting with either an objection or a question?
Uh, seeing none, Mr. Riley, do you want to rebot Mr. Phillips? Well, I don't think the building was built before World War II, but other than that, the um in terms of uh the future, you know, this building
is going to be built in compliance with all the FEMA regulations. That's why it's being elevated. uh our building code uh requires the first floor to be above the flood plane elevation which is elevation
15 in this location. So uh and the purpose of that under FEMA of course is to prevent a damage to the building in a storm event. So the having in mind some of the pictures we've seen from Florida after
the last hurricanes down there, the buildings that were elevated survived without difficulty and the buildings that weren't elevated were destroyed. So I think that um in addition to being an attractive
building, uh it's going to reduce the possibility of storm damage uh for this property. So, we think that uh this is an improvement. So, >> okay. Thank you. We'll now have
questions from the board. And I um I'm I'm a counter clockwise guy today. So, let's start with Steve. >> Um so, we're in questions. >> We are. >> Okay. Uh is there any way of you telling
um how what what the how the finished ridge of this proposal compares to the finished ridge of the house at 47 that's being proposed. >> Well, we had that. >> Yep. >> It's lower.
>> This one's lower than 47. >> No, 47 is lower, I believe. Um, so 47 has a proposed ridge height on what was approved in October of 34.8. >> Okay. And this building is at 35.6.
>> All right. So, it's only about a foot or maybe a foot and a half higher than than the other house that's correct directly abotss it. >> Correct. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. >> Uh Mr. Riley, I don't Somewhere in the narrative I read there were two driveways, but I only see one driveway
on the site plan. Is that Am I looking at something? Not picking up something or maybe two driveways. >> Perhaps they're referring to the driveway for 47. >> Oh, okay. Is that what it was? Okay. >> Correct. Because it's on the property
for 53, but it serves 47. >> That's right. >> Okay. >> Yeah, that's correct. >> Um, can you have a car? It looks like in the I'm not saying they, but the rendering we have here on this on the floor plan, one of the plans has a
rendering of a car. Can you have a car stored in this flood plane area that's supposed to be open to >> Yeah, the in fact that's the typical use uh when you have to elevate a building and there's
people propose putting motor vehicles in there. Presumably they would move them before a storm. >> Okay. But it is allowed. >> But but it is allowed as Jay can confirm. >> Okay.
It is. Okay. All right. Uh, is it Aaron? I'm sorry. Is it Aaron? I have a question. Quick question for you. So, it does look like um you're expanding the house, the 53 closer to the water
and you're expanding the deck closer to the water than what's there today. Am I looking at that correct? Okay. >> All right. Thank you. Yeah, that's that's expanding by four feet. So that's, you know, and down there, no
matter what direction you're going in, you're you're going to get closer to the water. So >> Randy >> Oh, thank you, Mr. Chair. So, um, good afternoon, Mr. Riley. And I'm sorry I forget >> Erin. >> Erin. Okay. >> Erin Erin Leven.
>> Erin Leven. Um so first of all I don't think you you're going to answer yes to this question but I do want to bring to your attention we've been furnished with um a set of goals and objectives from the uh select board to keep in mind all
all the different um uh um groups you know the conservation um HBDC all the committees and commissions have been advised of what to keep in mind when we go through our deliberations. >> It's unfortunate they haven't sent that
around to the applicants so that we could keep it in mind. >> No, no. And that's why I'm bringing to your attention out of fairness. You know, I'm a very fair person. So, um I wanted to bring to your attention the things that we need to keep in mind now because we're being watched. Um environmental con conser uh
conservation, coastal resiliency, and natural resources. We um we are tasked now. We were always tasked, you know, with the rules um of the um you know, the bylaw and of course the purpose and
intent of the bylaw. But we are, you know, specifically um going we're holden now to the objectives and part of the objectives are to be mindful of the conservatory district. And so your
property today is 100% in the conservy district. Correct. >> That's right. The entire >> entire neighborhood. No, I know. I know. I agree. I mean, I I know that. So, um I just wanted you to be mindful that, you know, I am guided by that. So, um I
always was to an extent, but now it's really been in the forefront of my mind for the past few days. So, also, you've talked before about lateral expansion in the flood zone >> and um our bylaw permits some lateral
expansion. What is your understanding of why it permits lateral expansion? >> Well, previously uh and we're talking about a pretty long time ago at this point, the uh
although we would come in and request lateral expansion, it was not explicitly uh mentioned in the bylaw. Uh so during the regime of Deanna Rufer
uh changes were made to the bylaw most of which by the way were terrible but she did make provision for uh lateral expansion. So the u I think in terms of the
concerns expressed by the select board I think the important thing to keep in mind is the fact that we're bring building into compliance with FEMA uh this design actually the earlier design has been approved by the conservation
commission also. So, we think that we're honoring uh the concerns of the select board, but we didn't know about them, but we're honor. >> Where I was going with that, just so you know, just to guide you a little bit in terms of my my question to you is they
allow for the bylaw allows for an amount of lateral expansion because they know that people own properties that are quite valuable and they want you to take it out of the flood zone. And when you're going to go through all that effort and time, you might expand a little laterally. Right.
>> Well, there's also the fact that the um because you can't put your mechanicals down in the basement where we usually put them. >> Yep. >> That uh there's going to be some portion of the living was normally the living area that's going to be taken up with mechanicals,
>> right? >> And so I think that was also part of >> it's kind of a need, >> right? >> Yeah. So, how come on 47 Little Beach Road you only expanded the lateral expansion uh 38 feet and in this one you
want to expand it if I if my math is right. >> 38 square feet. >> Yes, 38 square feet if I have that right. Building coverage was 659 and um now it's going to be 697. Does that sound right to you? It's it's on your paperwork.
>> Y Okay. So on this one you were you are currently at 1379 and you want to go up to 1997. Do I have those numbers right? >> Yes. >> Correct. Okay. >> There is an additional 40 square ft that
belongs to the building at 47 that is on the lot of 53. >> Even when you subtract that you're still at about 600 square ft of lateral expansion. Right. Correct. And that's quite different from only 38 square feet at 47. Why do you need to do that?
>> Well, in the first place, you know, you know, when you ask say why do you need to do that? Well, >> yeah, >> we didn't need to do it, >> right? Good. >> However, we elected to do it because uh the lot at 47,
I think I have the area of it here. So, >> it's a smaller lot. Is that where you're going with that? >> It's a much smaller lot. >> Yeah. But still, >> and so and so the coverage is way over 15% on that lot. Okay. So, naturally, we
expanded to the extent we thought was reasonable on that lot because the lot is very small. So here we have a lot that's 32,600 square f feet and we felt that uh
that this percentage of expansion because we're still significantly less than 10% lot coverage uh was a reasonable request. >> Well, you have zero buildable upland and you're entirely >> the entire neighborhood has zero. >> No, but I'm not talking about the entire
neighborhood. I'm talking about this property. I I see things as they come. Okay. >> So the other thing too is that you know I know you know this but we are tasked also with looking at what's there now not what you brought two three other
times and so in my mind maybe it was somewhat instructive and for some people helpful that you put up this is what we came in last time and this is what we have this time but the law provides that we look at what's there today compared
to what you want to do. So it I find it somewhat confusing and a little disjointed, but I just want to let you know that. >> Okay. Well, I think the the u historically when we uh make a presentation that the
board does not approve uh and we come back with uh another presentation, we want to emphasize the extent to which we listen to the concerns of the board. >> No, no. And I know that I said it was somewhat instructive, but at the same
time, just maybe for the benefit of the listeners and people that are concerned about the environment, we are tasked with looking at what's there today, which is a small cottage compared to a big house that you want to put there. I don't have any other questions. >> Okay. So, I'd like to make a statement then regarding the concerns about the
environment and the size of this building. So, you know, the the environmentally uh this is a significant improvement because we're lifting the building out of the flood plane. And so, one of the
things that uh we talk about a lot is a storm surge. And so, a storm surge is determined by many things, none of which have anything to
do with man-made objects. And so the the um in terms of environmentally this lateral increase will have uh no measurable environmental impact on this
property. The existing space we're covering is already is lawn which is aside from the fact that there's no structure there doesn't contribute in any way to the environmental aspects of the property. You know, in fact, you know, there's less because there's
there's there's less uh storm water going into the ground on a lawn than there is from a roof structure that has downspouts to dry wells because you get 100% recharge. Whereas, if you have a
lawn, you have evaporation, you have uptake in the plants. So we think that environmentally uh there's no significant difference between the existing building and this building.
>> Can I respond to that, Mr. Chair? So I I appreciate the botany lesson or you the um e ecological uh aspects. However, if that were all true, we wouldn't have a provision that said you can't build in the conservancy district. or you or you
have to stay certain amount of feet away from it and there's no buildable upland here so it has to make a difference or the all the laws would be really you know whacked. >> I disagree. >> Okay. Well, you have a right to your opinion.
>> Okay. Uh questions from Paul. >> Uh let me uh let me see if I can uh clarify in my mind uh on the gross floor area. Um what your handout indicates is that uh it's 3,297
square ft without the screens porch. >> That's correct. >> And it's 3,646 uh including the screen porch. >> Right. >> And that's the issue of whether it's within the building envelope. >> Right. >> Correct. >> I I you know I just wanted to point out
that there's another way of looking at the gross floor area. That's all. I I appreciate that. Um and but but you also then provide us with a comparison figures with a number of other houses all in this area. Um and the if you if
you take the even if you use the number that you're using at 3297 um you're in excess of all but one house, are you not? >> Right. and and the I think again the one
thing to keep in mind is that this lot is significantly larger uh than the other lots in the uh in this neighborhood. And most of the lots uh like on Scolop Terrace, Clamshell Drive, and and many of the lots on Little Beach
Road are significantly less than 10,000 square feet in area. But but the lot size really doesn't affect the question of of gross floor area, does it? >> Well, no it doesn't. But it but you know
the reason that those other uh gross floor areas aren't any larger is because the lots are too small. And so you know we have a moderately sized house on a larger lot. And we think that the proposed
size of the structure relative to the size of the lot uh is reasonable, >> but we're looking at it in connection with the compatibility of the size of the proposed structure with neighboring properties, >> right? >> Uh in terms of the compatibility of size
of the proposed structure, once again, the lot size doesn't make any difference. But if you look at the uh >> floor area, you're at the top. >> Well, I would suggest that the one reason why it does is that if you look
at, for instance, Scolop Terrace, the houses are all cheek by jaw with virtually no room between them. And so the the um so they're like clustered together.
So they're like a mass of buildings whereas our our home is on a wide open lot and the the I think that uh gross floor area notwithstanding u
you know we're not significantly larger u than many of the homes and the I think that the uh the fact that we're slightly larger than some of the other buildings
uh is is not a a reason to deny the application. The question for you is is it substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing structure? That's the base question >> and I think that uh so we're we were
somewhat larger which we have acknowledged. uh but is a s is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. So you look at the neighborhood, you've got compact streets
over scolop terrace, um clamshell, seagull, lobster lane, you know, and then you look at 53 Little Beach, which is on a 32,000 foot lot all by itself. And I would suggest that when
considering the proposed design on that lot with the way the other buildings were built, are we substantially more detrimental to that neighborhood than the existing structure? And I would suggest that you could find that it's
not substantially more detrimental. >> Okay, even if it's somewhat bigger. All right, let me look at the uh criteria with respect to u expansion in the uh um cons conservation zone. The category
12 of your uh issues to to address. Um you have the lateral expan expansion as being 578 square feet. Um what's the purpose of that 578 square feet? It provides addition.
>> What does that consist of? >> I'm sorry. What? >> What does it consist of in terms of the building? >> Some of it is a screen porch which the existing house does not have. >> The screen porch is a good portion of it. >> Mhm. >> Okay. Um
as I recall when the issue of this lateral expansion criteria was discussed uh at town meeting and proposed, the issue really was one of uh these areas are requiring um
compliance with FEMA, which in a large number of cases requires uh porches, not not porches so much as stairs an access to the building that did not was not required before that. So that it would
be necessary to add on some front steps, something of that nature to get access in. >> It doesn't seem to contemplate or did not at that time contemplate 578 square feet of additional uh building coverage. >> It it also
>> in this zone >> it also did not prohibit it. >> No, it left it up to us to make a decision as to whether that was appropriate or not. That's correct. >> Okay. Um I don't see uh last time when you were
in along with the I guess it's 46 which is right next door, we had some photographic uh uh presentations showing the perspective of the building from the road >> uh out by Outermost Harbor and so forth.
Um I don't see those same kind of uh projections provided this time around. Is there any significant difference between the what we saw the last time and this time other than the connector between the two buildings? >> Well, the building is significantly smaller.
>> Uh how is it smaller? I I see the uh uh >> the overall width of the building has been reduced by over 14 feet. >> So we have 14 feet there. Uh the height is the same. >> The height's the same
>> same as uh October. Okay, I have no other questions. Ed, >> um, Bill, I I guess my question for you is, um, all of these houses in in this area have zero buildable upland, >> right?
>> So, how in your opinion, why does size of the lot come into play if there's zero buildable upland for all of them? as uh Randy pointed out, you know, there's considerable expense to
elevating a building. And so the fact that u the applicant is spending a significant amount of money to bring the building into compliance with FEMA, which is designed to protect all the buildings around it,
uh that uh wanted One justification for allowing the expansion of the building is to let people have uh what I would call modern living area.
Uh so if you look at this structure, you know, none of the rooms are enormous. There's no I mean it's by the standard of the things we look at here. This is an extremely modest structure
and the the u they are expanding it but you know the cost of building a building like this as you know as a builder is significantly more per square foot uh than they if they just took the
existing structure and increased the some of the living area which so I think that um it's fair for somebody who's spending this amount of money to to bring the
building into compliance with FEMA, which is, you know, the principal reason for the the elevation uh to improve what I would call the quality of life within that structure. you know,
in its in its beginning up until now, you know, this has been basically a summer cottage. And so given the the tax value of the property, the cost of elevating the building,
you know, and in what modern life now brings, the applicant would like to be able to use the building on a year- round basis. And so you when you start making those those kind of changes,
you know, you want to have when you're going to live there year round, you want to have additional room uh because it's not just summertime in the warm weather, you need you need living space uh in the winter time as well. So I would say
that's would be a justification for enlarging the building. >> And the existing building is slab on grade correct placement in the existing building. So it's not >> you're not trying to replace any space
uh there. Um and currently the utilities therefore are also already in the living space per se. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you,
>> Dave. I don't have any questions at the moment, Dave. If something comes up, I'll let you know. Thanks, >> Lee. >> I don't have any questions either. >> Okay. Uh quite a bit of time has gone by. >> I'm sorry. Quite a bit of time has gone by. Are there any additional questions
from those that might have been generated by what Paul and Randy brought up? >> I actually have one question, Mr. Riley, about the floor plan, and I know that we're not a design board, but I did notice that on the first floor, it's
both a living room that's being shown and a family room. And the family room looks pretty walled off. Is there a reason for that kind of redundancy of space? >> I'll let Erin answer that question. >> The family room's a TV room den, so it's
walled off so that there's privacy for sound. And then the living room is the living room adjacent to the dining kitchen. Okay. Thank you. So I would move to close the public hearing and move into deliberations.
>> I'll second the motion and vote yes. We need a vote. Dave. >> Dave. Vitro. Yes. >> Randy. >> Yes. >> Jenny. Yes. >> And a vote. Yes. Okay. Deliberations. >> Let's start with >> I'll start with Paul. Well, uh I
appreciate that there have been some changes made with respect to the proposals. We've had a number of proposals at this property. Um I still think that we have a problem with respect to the question of lateral expansion and uh with respect to the
overall size of the building um it's just larger and expanded larger than I think is required uh and necessary under these circumstances. So I think uh my opinion is still that I
would not approve this application and I I'm not voting. Um if I was voting I I you know I feel it's a somewhat of a modest increase. Um
I I feel that the environmental benefits once the pro project is approved having it raised um having a new septic system there uh that one of my big concerns about the little whole little beach area is when that area floods and you have all these
septic systems that are old and um now covered in water what what that impact actually is to the area. So having a new se septic system that reduces nitrogen in the area um having the flood vents having it
raised um and the improvements conservation is looking for I think sort of mitigates the lateral expansion to some extent. So, um, and I also think the applicant has has
made a a real effort to to design a house that is fitting for the area. So, I I would probably vote if I Yeah. in the affirmative if I was voting. David, >> yeah, I'll pick up on on on what Ed
said, which I agree with. Um, and I in preparation for the meeting just a little while ago and I have u in front of me um thanks to the magic of Google uh I I'm looking actually at an August
2014 um view of this part of the neighborhood, Little Beach Road. And um over the course of that time there have been a number of of structures that have changed
and um the when I look at those as they were in 2014 and as they are now um all of them I think almost all of them had approval from us in order to expand which they
did many of them did and um and I think that the applicants have made a number of efforts in regards to the the thing the concerns that we raised and I think we can find any number of ways to to look at this and
positively or negatively. Um, I appreciate that they've done the work they've done since the last presentation and I think it looks considerably better um in that location and I don't think I I really don't think that it looks um and I and and the the
question of the size of the lot I mean none of it has buildable up than agreed but I think that the the lot size can have some impact in the overall view of the neighborhood with respect effect to
the massing of the buildings and their proximity to each other. And in this case, uh, this building's out there quite a bit further away from many of the other buildings. So, I think that that gives room for it to be enlarged
somewhat without presenting a a jarring visual impact on the neighborhood. And so when I look at some of the things and I and now that I and I have to say I look back at some of the approvals that we've made and when I look at what's there now versus what was there in 2014,
there are a few of them that I would have to say I regret because there's been some significant changes in some of those buildings. But in fairness to these applicants, I don't think this is the place to close
the barn door. So I I I cannot find that this is substantially more detrimental to neighborhood. So I will approve it. Thanks Lee. >> Um well I I as well appreciate um a lot of the
things that the applicants have done. Um the reduction in the building coverage, the reduction of the gross floor area. Um I'm okay with the front um road setback um because it is getting further away from um the water. Um we have been
involved in this neighborhood quite a bit. We've we've approved many um uh and I think what comes into play for me is criteria number five. Um and al although the height is still close to
its max um which would which does contribute to the mass and that's a little bit of a problem for me the mass the height but the I think the traditional design um helps a lot with the um the mass. I
think it's going to blend in very well with the rest of um with the with the surroundings. And um with respect to the the buildable up plan, it's zero. I I understand that. Um but I agree with Mr.
Vch in that it's it's the space that we're dealing with. Um when you look at it, the fact that it's got the space around it, it's got it is far away from the rest of the homes um that we have
approved, say on Scolop or the other roads. Um, so I mean I I I could I am not voting today either, but I could support this. I think the concessions that that the
applicants have made um have been uh have been enough and um I think the space the space is what does it for me in terms of the lot size in that house fitting into the neighborhood. I don't think it's going to be substantially
um more detrimental and as far as the lateral expansion goes. I mean would I'd love to see this house one story. Yes, but in order to make a one-story house with no livable basement space, it would have to be expanded laterally quite a
bit. So, the fact that it's going up is that, you know, give and take situation. So, I I mean, I I could support this Steve. Well, um I guess I was concerned with um
criteria number five as well, and that's why I asked the question that I did is how this was going to look compared to the house that was immediately adjacent to it. And it doesn't sound like it's going to be um that much taller or higher. Um
as far as the size of the lot, that's sort of immaterial to me because it's zero. Um it doesn't matter how big the lot is. Um, but the, you know, and you I don't I
don't even know if if you can delineate where the the ends of the lot is. People wouldn't know if that is the lot is this size because it's just beach and sand. So, you know, the the fact that it's that it's 32,000 square feet is really
sort of immaterial to me because it's not supposed to have anything on it. um the fact that what's there now if there was a storm big enough that would probably all wash out the sea. So the improvements that you're making and making this more FEMA compliant is
probably helping the environment there in the conservation property. So um you know maybe maybe that sort of balances out the improvements that you're making uh is probably balancing out the amount of expansion that you're having. you
know, it is too bad that you can't use that the basement really for much of anything. But, um, I I I don't think this is I don't I I guess I would support this project because of the improvements that they're making to the property. Um, but, you
know, I I struggle a little bit about the fact that there's not supposed to be anything there whatsoever because it is zero buildable. But, um, I guess they have a right to improve their property. Jenny. >> So, I too acknowledge the effort that's
been made to reduce from the previous two hearings. Um, and I recognize that a reduction has been made, but um I'm looking at the existing and that's what as Randy mentioned at the beginning, that's what we're really required to do.
And um I have a problem with a few numbers. one zero square feet of buildable upland 100% in the flood plane and increasing the three sides the east the north and the west to the tune of
578 square feet in a flood plane so I think that for um I I I don't really look at the criteria that some of my colleagues have stated with respect to how does it look at little beach because so much has changed
there and there's they're all much taller and they and they have expanded but I don't know if it's true that they've expanded their footprint to that to that degree. So um I am struggling with criteria four which
is suitability of the site including the impact on the natural environment and it's not about impact on neighboring properties for me as much as it's the natural environment. I don't like the fact that the porch is coming even
closer to the water. Um and again I mentioned it's expanding on three sides. Um so that's criteria four. And then criteria 12, the lateral expansion of a flood plane. The the current footprint
building coverage is uh 1419. And so 578 square feet of additional building coverage with zero upland in a 100% flood plane is the definition in my view of lateral expla expansion in a flood
plane. >> Randy. >> Yep. And in my view, it's the definition of substantially detrimental to the neighborhood. So that's where I'm going with that. I agree with everything Paul said, which I often do. Um not always, but often. I agree with Lee that they
have a right to improve their property. I don't know if Lee said that or Steve said it, but um they do. They have a right to improve their property. But I uh was a little schooled by Paul um explaining that it uh when the when the town meeting voted to allow lateral
expansion um in cases like this that it was really about steps and access to the building. So um I also think it's too tall. And right now when I look over there at those two cottages, I get a little bit of relief because I mean if
Dave V says that he has some regret for that neighborhood, you know that there's regret to be had. Um and when I look around at those other buildings, I wasn't on the board then and I'm glad I wasn't. Um and you know because I would not have been uh approved those
buildings and so I don't I look over at these two little cottages right you know almost you know right on the coast and I I get some relief in my mind I that's probably how it should be there and so if you wanted to just make some moderate changes like you did with the other
property next to it I vote yes but you don't you you're going too far and so I would I don't support it and I could name the criter criteria criteria one and in your own words there's a significant increase in the building
coverage that's your words not mine um so that's criteria number one number four of course suitability of the site it's not suitable for such an increase um and I I like that concept about a
really large lot because the perception it's true you get the perception of you know there's not a lot coverage here compared to how big that lot is. But but that argument fails in the conservancy district. And when people have houses there, you know, they they they have
rights, but their rights are subject to the environmental concerns that we have here in Chattam. So, um I would not support it >> from my perspective, and I was the only one to vote no on the other cottage. Uh
I don't see anything that's changed my opinion there. Um once again I'll go back to this will rise up. I'm standing in the street. I'm at any one of those other cottages all
over looking towards this project and I'm looking at 37 38 ft. That's way too much. Way too much. And I know it's that's not the number that you use. That's 293. But again, I'm down in the
street. You're up another 15, whatever feet. Any of the houses over there that are looking towards the ocean. Oh, wow. Look at that thing. Look at that thing. You know, it's so prominent. It is so prominent, these two houses
that something has to happen to that height. I just can't buy the idea that it's okay. Uh secondly, the lateral um as Paul and Randy and and Jenny have made point
um I'm sorry that's just too much. So at the end of the day uh I'll certainly vote no as and being consistent and I think Mr. Riley you said something about this is the third time here. This is more like the sixth time I think if we go back to previous
owners. I mean it's been quite a bit but >> at any rate >> can I make a comment Mr. Chairman? No, no, I'm not finished yet. Number one, and um I I I don't I don't see how there's an
answer outside of what Lee brought up about making keeping this one story. And um >> it's already two stories >> as far as I'm concerned when I look at it, as far as the height goes. So, I I I
just can't see that it isn't severely substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood, and that's what it is. So, Mr. Riley, you've heard what we've had to say. Would you like to ask for something?
>> Uh, could I have a minute to talk to my client? >> Certainly. When you say a minute, do you mean two minutes? Five minutes, 10 minutes. So, >> we might as well take a I think uh we'll
take a fivem minute break at this time, folks. Bri, Mark, five minute break. Okay. >> Okay, everybody, we're back. So, Mr. Riley, you conferred with your clients and
the uh would you like to a continuous to April 9th uh to do a redesign? Now, the you know, I understand Mr. Nixon's uh objection to that, but I think that uh
based on the comments we received at the last meeting, uh what we came back with today was kind of a fair interpretation of those comments. the now that the clients uh fully understand the concerns about lateral
expansion uh I think that we'll come back with a design that is satisfactory in that respect. Thank you. Okay. So what Mr. Rish referring to uh I personally don't believe that we should give another
continuence. I mean enough's enough. It should be withdrawn and start over again. That's my own feeling. However, uh I I can ask everybody what you think of that. Uh leave just go around. Lee, continuence,
extension, >> continuence or withdraw? >> I'm okay with the continuence. >> I'd say withdraw since we're getting a whole another set of plans. I appreciate that there's some momentum and I believe that they're listening and
I think a continuence might just be helpful to us and to them to hear it while it's all fresh. >> Randy, continuence withdraw. >> Withdrawal. >> Paul, I would go with a continuence if if
requested. >> Ed, I agree. Dave, >> uh continuence. >> Okay. Okay. Well, what I see the vote it would be um three continuants to no on a continuence. Uh and so
therefore it doesn't hit the super majority. So I would I would ask you to ask for a withdrawal. Please Mr. Riley. I >> thought you only need a super majority in the application that all votes are
simple majority. Every vote that we take with the exception of a 40B in the election of officers is a supermajority vote. Everyone. So, do you want me to have an official vote or can you read between the lines?
>> We would need a motion as well. >> Right. >> Are you asking to withdraw or are you asking >> Well, I'm asking him what he want. >> I didn't know what my motion should be. >> Oh, no. Okay. I can ask for a vote on the continuence
if that's what you'd like. >> All right, time's up. Come on. >> I think the U, >> we need to get the Jeopardy music. >> Yeah, I know. the uh
well then what I'd ask for is uh a twoe continuous to decide whether to take a vote or not. The idea is, you know, the the u, you know, the idea is that for my client
to decide whether to appeal or not, he needs more time than just a two-minute conversation in the hall. And so whether we do a re, you know, whether we do a redesign and we understand that if we're going to do a redesign, we're going to have to withdraw.
But we don't want to give up our appeal rights today. So if you give me two weeks, we won't have another full hearing. We just come back and tell you we're going to withdraw or we're going to ask for the vote. >> Well, I don't like that either at all,
but I will we will I will call for a vote on the continuence. Randy, would you please uh make that motion? >> Yeah, I move to uh I'll do it in the affirmative. I move to allow a continuence until >> uh our well our next regularly scheduled meeting.
>> Oh that uh >> just two weeks so we can my client can consider >> is not two weeks that's February 12th what we're going to vote on and there's the continuence request from Mr. Riley to April whatever it was. >> Okay. So >> I'm not requesting a continuence to
April. I'm requesting a continuence to February >> February 12th. 12th. >> I move to uh allow a continuence until February 12th. >> All right, Paul. >> I will second the motion to uh allow a
vote. And how do you vote? I'll vote uh yes. Dave >> Dave each votes yes. >> Randy, >> no. >> Jenny, >> I vote yes. >> I vote no. So that doesn't pass. Would you like a motion made about a
withdrawal? Yes. >> I move to allow a withdrawal of the case. >> I'll second the motion >> and vote. >> And I'll vote yes. >> Dave votes. Yes. >> Yes. For a withdrawal.
>> Jenny votes yes. >> Yes. So that passes unanimously. >> That that withdrawal is without prejudice. >> Yeah, that's correct. Okay, on to the next one. >> On to the next one, which would be um
25-125. And I believe Dave, you said you're going to recuse yourself on this. So, Ed will be voting on this. Okay. Application number 25-125 Capewater Street Trust Care of Paul Moldune 693 Main Street, Chattam, Mass
02633. Owner of property located at 124 Main Street also showed on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 17B, block 1, lot 48. The applicant proposed to change, alter, or expand a non-conforming dwelling in a non-conforming lot via the construction of a partial second floor addition. The
existing dwelling is non-conforming and that it is located 8 feet from Main Street and 9.8 ft from Water Street where a 25 foot setback is required. The proposed addition will be non-conforming and that it will be located 8 ft from Main Street where a 25 ft setback is required. The building coverage will
remain 3,373 ft 29.8% where 15% is the maximum allowed. the law is non-conforming and that it contains two dwellings where only one is allowed and contains 11,36 ft of land area 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 5D B of the bylaw. >> Mr. Chairman, uh I'm on the list for this property and thus I will be recusing on this man. >> Okay, very good. Okay, Paul.
>> Uh, Paul Molden here from SV Design representing our clients here, uh, Susan and Bill Enllo and their project at 124 Main Street. Um, Sarah described the property. We are in an R20 zone with a non-compliant 11, 306 square ft of lot
area. Uh, and we have multiple dwellings on the property. Um, the existing home sits uh 8 feet from Main Street on on the front elevation and 9.8 ft to the southern uh property line. Um, the
second dwelling sits even closer at 6 and8 and.9 off of uh property lines where 15 ft are required. Um, the existing building coverage at 29.8 8 is far beyond the 15% um required. And um a
little bit about the history of of the main structure here in 1997 uh the original historic structure was going under a u substantial renovation and was deemed unsafe and the building commissioner at the time um due to uh
safety concerns um requested the demolition of it completely. So this house was built in about 1998. So, it's only about 30 30 years old and did not require historic review for this particular project. Uh, the proposed project is a second floor addition over
the uh existing um roof area. So, you can see here we have an exposed gable end. We have a one-story structure and then the front gable end and we're infilling that second floor space. Um for this uh it's a modest about 16 by6
addition 258 habitable square feet with no footprint expansion whatsoever. Um so the building building coverage calculation at 29.8 remains at that number. The building height does not change uh remains at 28 foot1.
Uh the proposed addition uh the exterior materials will remain consistent where we'll have painted clapboard uh siding on the front elevation, natural cedar on sides, um painted white trim and asphalt shingles. Um all uh items that can be found through the characteristics of the
neighborhood and in Chadam. And uh the the addition itself, the strategy for the addition, the gable end that we're seeing here that faces north, that rgel line essentially extends over the that um first floor area and then placing a
shed dormer in that front elevation. This is a strategy that's used in in a number of homes uh around the historic district, including uh ones directly across the street at 115 Main Street and the direct to the north at 134 Main Street. Um this along with the modern uh
the modest size of the addition uh we propose that this uh structure is not significantly detrimental to the neighborhood. And with that I'm happy to go into the criteria. >> Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone here today or on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application?
If so, please indicate you'd like to join the discussion. Don't see anyone. So, I'll read the correspondence first. We have a note from Judith Giorgio, Board of Health. She writes on January 20th, I have no concerns regarding the second floor
addition of a large closet access through the bathroom at this project. Then we have a note from Robert Thurber, 144 Water Street, who writes on January 22nd, I've reviewed the application,
have no issues, and recommend approval. And we have a note uh dated um January 22nd. This is from Ronald Sai 114 Main Street. I'm the owner of the budding property. Have received notice.
I support this application and the proposed work. A note from Melinda Beach, 143 and 151 Water Street on January 21st. Hello. I'm writing to express my support. Now we have a note from Carolyn
Phillips, 138 Water Street, January 21st. Please be advised. I am in support of the addition. These are the kind of letters I like to read. On January 19th, we have a note from John Frasier to whom it may
concern. The Frasers, that's John and Susan, fully endorse the proposal. They've been great neighbors. I thank you in advance. And that was 136 Main Street. Then we have uh Melinda Robinson again, I guess. Uh 133 water and January
18th. Uh please take care. Oh, I don't know. I'm not too sure. Uh that's something else about clicking locks. >> I don't think clicking links helps us. Uh anyway, 133. She says, "I'm in support of this
application." All right, that's the end of that. Do we have anyone here today or on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak against this application, has a specific question? Seeing none, go to a question from the board if anybody has one. Ed, do you
have a question on this? >> Uh, no questions. >> No questions. >> No questions. >> No questions. >> The paperwork and the presentation was so clear. I have no questions. You
always have a question. >> Okay. All right, Randy. >> No questions. >> Paul, no questions. >> Well, I don't have one either, so there you go. Okay. Uh, >> do I move to close the public hearing and move into deliberations? >> I'll second that motion and vote yes.
>> Okay, Ed, how do you vote on that? >> Ed votes yes. >> Yes. >> Okay, Randy. >> Jenny, yes. >> Yes. Yes. Okay. Deliberations, I'm sorry. >> Yes. >> Yes. Um, I have no concerns with this project. I think it's a great use of a
dormer and um will look fantastic while it gives them more space. >> Yeah, I think it's a good idea. I was going to ask about the uh CHC or the the um Old Village Association, but you explained that. So, I think it's a good project.
>> Jenny, >> uh yeah, I do too. I think um the you know the excessive building coverage was was offputting at first but when you realize that what was already there um and I think it's an improvement to the property. Um I would approve it. >> Randy,
>> I agree with Jenny. It meets the criteria and um it won't be substantially detrimental to the neighborhood. >> Paul, >> certainly not substantially more detrimental to >> I agree as well. >> And I agree. >> So how about conditions? Do you need the summertime conditions for this, sir? It
will most likely be a fall start uh for construction. >> So, no conditions. >> Yeah, I'm I'm I'm cool with that. Anybody else? >> Yeah. No, I >> construction vehicles will remain on the property though. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, I move to accept the application as presented provided that
all construction vehicles are on the uh property or on neighbors property with their consent. >> Paul, I'll second that motion and vote yes. >> Ed votes yes. >> Yes. Jenny votes yes. And I vote yes. That's a unanimous vote. Thank you, Paul.
>> Thank you for your time. >> Okay. Let's see. Uh 25-127, please. Sarah, 112 Inlet Road. >> Application number 25-127. Robert and Mary Banebridge, Care of
William G. Lichfield, Esquire, 330 Orleans Road, North Chattam, Mass 02650. Owners of property located at 112 Inlet Road, also shown in the town of Chadam's assessor's map 14B, block 23, lot C13. The applicant seeks to enlarge, extend,
or change a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the demolition of the existing garage, reconfiguration of a deck, and the construction of additions. The applicant seeks to modify the special permit number 24-154 granted on February 27th, 2025, which
allowed for the demolition of the garage, reconfiguration of the deck, and construction of additions. They seek to modify the special permit for an alternate design and decrease in building coverage. The approved building coverage was 3,328
ft 9.9% and the proposed building coverage is 3,252 ft 9.7% where 10% is the maximum allowed. The law is non-conforming and that it contains 33,900 ft where 40,000 ft is required in the
R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 sections 6 and 14 and sections 5B and 8D 8D2B of the protective bylaw. >> Mr. Lichfield. >> Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Bill Lichfield here in behalf
of Bob and Mary Banebridge who unfortunately could not be with us today uh in person. But with me remotely is Mike Tardamela of Patrick Hearn Architects, the firm with which a firm with which I know you're all familiar. Uh Bob and Mary Banebridge have a a long
history in Chadam and have owned this house for approximately 20 years. We were as Sarah indicated in the hearing notice before you a year ago uh and received a special permit to make some changes to the house including some dormers uh increased coverage,
elimination of the garage, relocation of the shed. But after further consideration and after lengthy discussions with their architect Mike and and the crew from Patrick Hearn and their builder Doug Whitler, they've decided to go in a somewhat different
direction and we're here now uh thus seeking modification of the prior approval. what's proposed today actually decreases uh coverage from what was approved last year and also uh construction of a conforming addition on
the westerly side of the house. So while the changes uh being sought comply uh with current zoning requirements the lot while large is non-conforming which is why we're here. So if I could Mr. Chairman I'd like Mike to speak to the details of what's proposed then I'll go
into the criteria. Certainly. >> Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Mike Tardamela from Patrick Ahern Architect. Um, so as you heard, we're we're coming back for a modification to a previously approved design. Um, the non-conformities of this structure were not being intensified and and the
additions that are proposed before you today are all uh conforming additions. The reason for the redesign is that uh the clients decided to go back and revisit um a little bit of the layout and accessibility um based on their age and based on their family makeup. And we're looking to kind
of create a little bit more of a lateral expansion along the property versus vertical. Uh so what we've looked to do here is is add the piece that you see on your left in the architectural vocabulary that it was once a carriage house that got attached over time. Uh this will preserve uh the bulk of the
main house and the layout and things that um the homeowners have come to enjoy and also have become accustomed to living in and uh allow us to expand space in a little bit more of a a reasonable and accessible direction for them. >> Thank you, Mike. Uh and Mike will
obviously be be here to answer any questions you might have on the design, but I'll go into the criteria uh as to adequacy of site including building coverage and setbacks. We have a midsize lot for the neighborhood which is certainly adequate for the existing
home. Uh we meet the street and coastal conservancy district setbacks and we're a little bit too close to the northeasterly lot line, but we're not doing anything on that side of the house. I think you can find the site is adequate for conforming additions at the south and westerly sides and the shed
and elimination of the garage and so forth. All of which meet setback uh requirements and are completely compliant as to coverage as to compatibility of size. On the third sheet of the handout, there's a comparison. We have a fairly typical lot
and house uh both of which are relatively modest and compatible for the neighborhood. If you approve the special permit, it will remain compatible. You will note that uh we will remain smaller than several adjacent houses which are
themselves on smaller lots. So this is not a a truly large house by neighborhood standards. And again, we're uh seeking a coverage at 9.7% rather than 9.9% which was previously approved, although
of course the comparisons to what's there now. And what is proposed meets all dimensional requirements. As to the extent of increase and nonconformity, there is none. Uh this is a completely conforming proposal. As the suitability
of site, the site has been developed uh for residential use since the house was built in 1970. And while we are adjacent to the coastal conservancy district, the conservation commission has rem reviewed the proposed changes and issued a negative determination, which is a good
thing. That means they're okay with it. And it's to scale sighting mass views and vistas. What's there now has been there again for 50 years. It's without impact in views and vistas. In fact, the neighbor to the rear has a view easement over to the far left corner of the lot.
Uh but otherwise there's no change in in views and vistas and what we're proposing. Uh we think you can find to be an appropriate uh Patrick Hearn design. Uh the coverage goes down from that previously approved. The southerntherly or street facade I think
is more balanced with a carriage house look on the left. Um there will still be door dormers added to the main structure but uh and it will also preserve the neighbors views because of where it's being constructed. As to compatibility of use, there's no uh no change there.
It'll be a family residential use. We have town water. We are now connected to town sewer which allows for an additional bedroom. Uh inlet road is not exactly high traffic area so the other criteria are not at issue. Uh the
question as you know is whether uh the addition of the cover above the uh existing porch and the dormers along with the construction of the conforming addition on the westerly side which is completely compliant as to zoning uh and without any change in setbacks or
resulting increase in nonconformities whether that is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conforming house on a marginally non-conforming lot and I think that you can find that it's Not the modifications and the additions proposed here are again are in compli
complete compliance with the bylaw. The house I think ultimately will be more in keeping with its surroundings. The changes make it less of sort of a ranch style and much more of a New England traditional h house. U the um team that
they've worked with Patrick Hearn and Doug Wedler to design something I think is appropriate. uh and I think you can find that the changes do not find do not constitute a substantial detriment or even really any detriment at all. So given the criteria and the plans in the
somewhat isolated uh neighborhood of larger homes, I think you can find that modifying the prior special permit to prove these conforming additions and modifications which meet all zoning requirements is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and
warrants the grant of a special permit. Mike and I would both be happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you. Is there anyone here today or on Microsoft Teams who would like to speak in favor of this application? >> Don't see anyone. I'll read the correspondence. First is from Judith
Giorgio, health agent on 121. Reviewed the proposed plans for the addition. The dwelling was originally approved for five bedrooms. At the time the septic system was installed. The property has been ordered to connect to the municipal sewer and an application has been filed
for an existing five- bedroomedroom dwelling. The proposed plan has seven bedrooms plus a study office. The property will not be allowed to have more than six bedrooms in accordance with the water and sewer regulation. The approval and completion of the sewer connection is required as part of this
project. And then we have a note from the cons of the conservation commission on January 5th. Uh the applicant submitted request for determination. Project was heard. The project was issued a negative two determination on October 23rd, 2024 as the project did
not need to be conditioned to meet the performance standards. And that's the extent of the correspondence. Is there anyone here today or on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak either against or has a specific question? If so, please indicate you'd like to enter the
conversation. I see no one. So, we'll go to questions from the board. We'll start with Jenny. >> Mr. Lynchville. This is just for my learning here. Um the wall that is not part of what's here, but that they've
added. It looks like it goes all the way to the property line. Is that that's allowed? Just curious about structures. >> Uh well, the answer is yes, it it would be allowed. And I want to pull out the site plan to make sure we're talking the same wall. I'm talking about in the rear. Yeah. In the rear, the wall to the
rear. Yeah. I mean, it's it's fantastic. >> Yeah. It's a retaining wall in inwardfacing walls. >> Uh or walls can't be more outward facing walls can't be more than three feet, but this is further back from from the property line. It's
28t give or take from the property line behind the shed. And I'm just looking with I've got a scale in my briefcase, but it's maybe 10 8 or 10 ft from the closest point, but it is allowed. It It
is compliant with zoning. >> Okay. I was looking at the top uh northern corner. Um no, I it was just a curiosity. I just uh hadn't ever really noticed something like that before. Um another question, there's a comment in your criteria about improving the views.
Was that required because of the view easement? >> No. The a a neighbor up above has a view easement to from their perspective to the right from our perspective on the westerly side. >> Going uh up a little bit is is going to
improve the homeowners views of Mitchell River, but that's not a major factor. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Randy. >> I don't have any questions. >> Paul, no questions. Ed? Uh, no questions. Dave, no questions.
>> Lee, >> no questions. >> Steve, >> very simple question. I think I see that the I don't think there's any changes being made to the existing ridge of the house. >> I think Mike can confirm that. >> No, there are exist Yeah, the existing
ridge remains where it is, >> right? But I see that the height actually weighing up by about six inches. Is that strictly a topography issue? >> Yeah, it's due to it's due to how >> I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> Sorry. It's due to how uh building heights calculated. This is a quite a sloping lot with a lot of topography. So
with the adjustment to that, that's based on the addition and where you take the points from around the uh existing. >> So there's no changes being made to the physical of the house. Okay. >> No. >> All right. Thank you, >> Randy. >> Oh, I move to close public hearing and move into deliberations.
>> I'll second the motion and vote yes. >> Dro, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. We'll start with Ed. Uh, it's certainly not going to be detrimental to the neighborhood. Uh, meets our criteria, but I would have no
objections, >> Dave. >> Yeah, I agree. >> Lee. >> Um, I I agree as well. >> As do I. >> I agree. >> Randy. >> Yeah. So, I it meets all the criteria. I
just have one question. Um because does the does the date start today for your two-year to get this done or did it start on February 27th of 2025? >> Uh
as a modification I would tend to think it would go from today and Sarah agrees with me. So, the um the two-year to commence the work, it's not to finish the project, to commence the work, actually starts from the date that the decision letter is stamped in at the
town clerk's office. Um so, even though it was approved, I can't see when this is stamped in because it's a little blurry, but um it looks like a March date. So, uh it would be from sometime next week. The two years would commence whenever it is officially stamped in at
the town clerk's office. So, anything from 2025 doesn't count anymore. Um, assuming that we allow this today. >> Well, they would still have until March of 28 um to do the previous project if this
project didn't go forward. >> Yeah. But okay, maybe we all learned something. Okay. So, um as I said, it's not substantially detrimental. It meets the criteria and I would vote yes. >> Paul, I agree with my colleagues and Got me already. I I agree.
>> I agree. >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right, Randy. >> Yep. So, I noticed that no conditions were imposed um on 24-154. So, I assume that we are going to have no conditions today. So, I would move to
um approve the project as uh as presented. >> I'll second the motion and vote yes. Dave Vich votes yes. >> Yes. Cheney votes yes. >> And I vote yes. That's unanimous vote. Thank you, Mr. Litfield. >> Thank you. >> So Sarah 25-128
please. >> Application number 25-128. Miller Baker Family Trust Care of William G. Lichfield, Esquire, 330 Orleans Road, North Chattam, Mass 02650. Owner of property located at 528 Trainingfield Road, also shown on the
town of Chattam's assessor's map 9K, block 6, lot one. The applicant proposes to change, alter, or expand a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the construction of addition an addition. The existing dwelling is non-conforming and that it is located 11.5 ft from the road. The
proposed addition will be non-conforming in that it will be located 11.6 ft from the road where a 40ft setback is required. The existing building coverage is 3,168 ft 8.3% and the proposed building coverage is 3,461
ft 9.1% where 10% is the maximum allowed. the law is non-conforming and that it contains 38,117 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 protected bylaw. >> Mr. Lich, >> thank you. Good afternoon once again. Bill Lichfield here on behalf of David Miller and Ashley Baker who as trustees owned a house at 528 Training Field Road. You may recall that you were out
there two years ago give or take uh for approval to construct a separate studio building which has been completed and I think came out very nicely. Uh David and Ashley uh have decided that they would like to
connect their existing house to the existing garage. We were out there Tuesday morning for the historical commission site visit when it was about I don't know 15 or 18 degrees when we were standing around and we had a
perfect understanding of why they would like to make that connection. Uh so what is proposed is a small less than 300 square ft connection uh from the rear of the existing house to the existing
garage. It's not going to be a bedroom. It's not going to be anything like that. It is however necessarily uh because it's connecting two nonconforming structures. It itself will be non-conforming. It will be within the
street uh sideline setback. uh but it is a small change and I think a reasonable request. So we'll go into the cr I will go into the criteria and >> and I would think you could uh >> be very brief. >> That's correct. >> The uh site is adequate for the 300
square foot addition. The site coverage is well below limit. It's a modest change. Uh there is no increase in nonconformity because we're a an inch or two further away from the street set line side
street itself and the site is suitable for the small addition. It's without impact on streetscapes or or mass and I'd be happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you. Is there anyone here today or in Microsoft Teams that would like to
speak in favor of this application? Don't see anyone. I'll read the correspondence. Uh, the Chad Historical Commission found this home historically significant and the proposed changes did not materially
diminish its significance. So, they did not impose a demo delay. That was a note from Christina Basset on January 22nd. Then we have a note from Judith Giorgio, Board of Health on uh the 20th of
January. I have no concerns regarding this addition. And then we have a note from Jim Young at 1145 Orleans Road, January 15th. Uh no objection to the proposed work.
And lastly, we have a note from Herbert and Charlene Greenhal at 37 Power Lane. They write on January 12th, a letter of support for the proposed addition and no concerns. Is there anyone here today or
on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak against this or has a specific question? If so, please indicate you'd like to join the conversation. I don't see anyone. So, Randy. >> Um, okay. So, >> questions. >> Questions? I do not have any.
>> Oh, no questions. Ed, >> no questions. >> No questions. >> No questions. >> None. >> No questions. >> Okay. >> Do I move to close the public hearing and move into deliberations? >> I'll second the motion. Vote yes. >> Beach votes yes. >> Yes. Jenny votes yes.
>> I vote yes to u deliberations. Um Dave, >> what's not to like here? Uh it's totally uh um certainly not substantially more detrimental in neighborhood. Not detrimental at all. And and uh as Bill
um pointed out, I very much could see a good reason for it. It's traditional actually many respects to the barn garage connected to the house. So u I will enthusiastically support it. >> Le >> I agree. Um, great project that makes a
lot of sense. >> Steve, >> um, I think it's a good project. I'm surprised it wasn't done sooner, but uh, >> well, I'm supportive because, um, it's a historic home, or at least the the main part of it is. Um, it's a large lot.
There's already existing nonconformities. It makes complete sense. They're staying within building coverage. it. So, it meets all of our criteria and I think we should I I like to support um historic homes that sometimes have some cramped spaces and
this is an opportunity for a little more space um connectivity to the garage. Uh so, I would support it. Randy. >> So, I agree with my colleagues and um I did listen to the uh historic meeting and um they they were very uh pleased
with the idea of this and uh that certainly helps. So, um I would support it. >> Paul, I agree with my colleagues. Ed >> Ed does as well. >> I also agree. >> So, I'm thinking that you don't need conditions, but I I often think that.
So, >> I agree. >> Okay. So, I'll move to approve the application as submitted. >> I'll second the motion and vote yes. >> Uh Dave Votes yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Unanimous vote. Thank you, Mr. Litfield. >> And when you're done with that, Sarah
26001, please. >> Application number 26-001. Elizabeth No, care of William G. Lichfield, Esquire, 330 Orleans Road, North China, Mass 02650. owner of property located at 127 Shane Drive,
also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map where you went >> 15G, blocks 76, lot B26. The applicant seeks variances from the provisions of section 8 8B12 C and D of the bylaw to allow for the construction of a guest
house to be occupied by a member of the immediate family without physical connection of the two structures and without requiring 20,000 square feet of additional buildable upland and dimensional variances variances from the required abutter setback and 15% maximum building coverage allowed. The proposed
southeasterly butter setback for the guest house is 10.4 feet where 25 feet is required. The proposed building coverage is 2,685 ft 16.4% where 15% is the maximum allowed. The lot contains 16,43
ft where 40,000 ft is required in the R40 zoning district. Dimensional variances are required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 10 and section 8D2C of the protective bylaw. >> Mr. Bill Litchfield. >> Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Bill Lichfield here in behalf of Betsy Noir,
who is with us virtually. She's recovering from surgery, so she couldn't be here. And I also want to take note of a dedicated neighbor and good friend who was spent two hours sitting here to be in support. He will he will speak of
that. Uh you'll recall, I'm sure, that we were here in December for an ADU, accessory dwelling unit for Bets's mother, which you approved. Uh but prior to and at that hearing, several members of this board suggested that the loss of
a very large and old tree behind Bets's house should, if at all possible, be prevented. We agree, and we agreed from the outset. Uh we however uh were concerned about seeking a
variance. Um and with the encouragement of some people in this room, we had our uh design team relocate the one-bedroom ADU uh tucked back down in the corner uh
where it wouldn't be in anyone's way. Um but we then realized that our bylaw was revised in 2019 to address ADUs um is still not in compliance with state
rules and remarkably and I think inconsistently with those state rules. It says that ADUs are not eligible for for variances for dimensional variances. I mean, there's a there's a there's a temptation
to request that the board grant variance from that provision, but we thought that might be a little bit much. So, instead, we came up with language in our bylaw. It actually has to do with guest houses.
Uh that would allow building this ADU pretty much where everyone thinks it should be, tucked into the rear corner of the lot where no one can see it and thereby preserving the tree. Uh so we had to in order to even to request a
variance we had to sort of shoehorn in this application as a request for a guest house even though it is and will be very frankly an accessory dwelling unit for Betsy's mom. Uh the guest house language interestingly enough doesn't have the restrictions that the ADU
provision has which is why this is the course we've had to follow. Variances as are as you know to be granted sparingly and they require all of three factors that there be uh a finding that owing to
circumstances relating to soil conditions, shape or topography uh especially affecting that land or structures and not affecting generally the R40 zoning district that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the
bylaw would involve hardship. ship, financial or otherwise, and most importantly, that the desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the purpose and intent of the bylaw. Some who've been on this board for any length of time will recall that a
previous long before Jay previous owning agent was a mind of a mind that virtually any relief could be provided uh by a much more readily attainable special permit. That was the way we operated until the DEDRA case in 2014. And I think you may
have seen it in the past, but on the last sheet of the handout I provided. It shows the that in years gone by, uh, there were more variances requested and allowed than in fact special permits. So historically, uh, variance is not a
dirty word. It's granted sparingly, but it is not by itself a bad thing. And there are cases where they are warranted. Uh this is one. So we'll go into the criteria first owing to circumstances relating to
soil, soil condition, shape or topography or structures uh that aren't found throughout the zoning district. Well, the zoning district is R40, but the factors can be combined to meet the requirements. We have a wedge-shaped lot which is much
wider at the back. Uh it is also significantly lower than the adjoining land to the east or to the south. Uh beyond that the structure because of where it is located, it blocks the view of the rear because there's a slope
going up on the well the left hand side of of that site plan. uh which are circumstances not generally found in the R40 district. As to the structure, aside from its location, as is the case with a lot of houses built in the late60s in
this neighborhood, it has a significant porch which increases the coverage. So that's another factor that is not found throughout the zoning district. The statute and our bylaw then goes on to say that you have to demonstrate that a
literal enforcement of the bylaw would provide a degree of hardship. However, as you know, a far lesser showing of hardship is required for a dimensional variance. There's no one factor that determines it. Rather, it's a matter of discretion for this board. The hardship
here has multiple aspects. Certainly, the family circumstances are what warrant the ADU. The loss of the tree is something that could be regrettable is regrettable. But more importantly, our bylaw may actually be in violation of a
state mandate prohibiting requirements that ADUs be attached to or detached from the principal dwelling which is in our bylaw. Uh it ostensibly bars this board from granting dimensional relief and it also has a cap on the number of
units. So as such a guest house is the only option that we could follow. And finally the desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. The relief has no negatives for the neighborhood. The impacted neighbor is
here to speak in support. uh an ADU for the petitioner's mother is certainly not detrimental to those qualities which distinguish Cadam as a desirable community which the bylaw says is its purpose including health, welfare and
quality of life and provision of housing for persons of all income levels. The state requirements took effect a year ago, ADU requirements, but our bylaw has not been revised to reflect those rules, leaving the guest house variance route as the only course to pursue. Now,
nothing you do is precedent. We all understand that. But I do want to make a couple of quick comments on comparable cases in regard to variances. We know that only two weeks ago because of a flaw in our zoning bylaw and the fact
that it doesn't tie into state statute, you granted a variance for house down at Sears Point Lane. You did the right thing because it was the only way to accomplish what everyone agreed was a good idea,
even if our bylaw is flawed flawed. Now, that could be seen as a stretch, but you made the entirely reasonable decision to grant a variance and to allow the project to go forward without further difficulty or delay. And you found correctly that it was without deriggation of the purpose and intent of
the bylaw. There was no detriment to the public good and there will be none here either. Could that decision or if you make it the way I would like you to in this case be over to overturned by a court? Possibly. And many challenged variances are rejected, but that's not
the point. The point is that sometimes doing the right thing is important, particularly when it can be done in conjunction with the law. As for the need for for housing of people of all income levels and circumstances, which is a stated goal of our bylaw,
I couldn't begin to count the number of hours that you've spent on 240B proposals. Now there are many many I won't say countless but many many aspects of our bylaw which are necessarily violated by
those projects and almost all of them would ordinarily require multiple variances. Here we're only talking about a couple of hundred feet of coverage and a rear setback line in an innocuous location, but which will serve a goal
which are bylaw and our town's people generally support, which is ADUs. You've been to here two hours already and you don't want me to go on at great length, so I'll I'll try to bring this to a close. I appreciate the cases that the law says that even when the criteria
are fully met, there's no right to a variance. And we understand that. We understand and be bet that and Betsy's mother can by virtue of a special permit uh granted in December have an ADU, but this is a much better location rather than right where that tree is. It meets
the family's needs. It preserves the tree and it makes sense. There is essentially no reason not to allow the ADU for Betsy's mom to be built in the rear corner of the lot. No good purpose, public or otherwise, is served by strict
enforcement of the rule in this case, even if we have to use the guest house provision until our bylaw is revised to reflect the current requirements of the law for ADUs. So it this variance can be granted without substantial derriagation
the purpose and intent of the bylaw which even in its flawed ADU section speaks to broadening the range of housing opportunities for households of all ages with particular attention to the needs of our older population. I hope you'll grant the variance and I'll be happy to answer any questions.
>> Thank you. Is there anyone here today on Microsoft teams who would like to speak in favor of this appeal? Gentleman in the back. I'm John Huther, 98 Card Lane and the southerntherly neighbor. Um, I have no issues at all. I think it's a wonderful
thing that uh Betsy is going to get her mother closer and be able to take care of her a a family member. So, I hope you all vote in favor of this. Thank you, gentleman in the back.
Ryan Phillips, 374 Leans Road. Uh I support this project because I support uh good neighbors and it's really a beautiful little neighborhood. I've been through it thousands of times in my bicycle and walking, you know, to the Afield. And I think, you know, this is a good compromise to kind of keep this, you know, neighborhood smaller, you
know, and still get some of the needs, uh what they need. But I do have some questions. So next, why don't you ask on that? I can go. Oh. Um I'm just I'm I'm confused. Is it guest house or is it an ADU or is it a guest house ADU? And what rules apply
to each and that type of thing? >> It it you're no more confused than anyone who deals with the town of Chadam zoning bylaw. uh the ADU provision of the bylaw took a
lot of effort to get enacted and there was significant opposition to it. There were some provisions put into the ADU provision of our bylaw which are frankly nonsensical and given what has gone on with housing in the seven or eight years
since that was drafted and the cost of housing I rather think it wouldn't be enacted the same way and I presume without knowing that the planning board is considering revisions to the ADU bylaw >> yes >> in May if not if not thereafter. Short
version is that that this is an ad an uncalized ADU which if approved is being approved under the language in the bylaw which requires it to be considered as a guest house. Is that a fair summary Sarah?
>> That is a very fair summary. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Okay. I mean I'm still confused but um so I here I am. Uh, can you So, before I asked, you know, state law, you can't do summer rentals on like the ADUs. Would
you be able to do summer rentals on or short-term rentals with it's it's a guest house, right? It's not an ad guest house. It it the purpose Well, guest houses can be occupied by family
members or occupants of the principal dwelling or their family or it can be rented. There is no intent whatsoever to rent this. It is for Betsy's mom. It's just that unfortunately we had to go under the guest house provision.
Interestingly, state law differs or the the the regulations that came down in January of 2025 are much less restrictive on ADUs than the town's bylaw.
and that the state regulations prohibit local bylaws from doing some of the things which ours ostensibly does. I think we're going to fix our bylaw, but right now we had to apply for this as a
guest house. Not because we wanted to, just because our AD ADU provision didn't allow us to do otherwise. And I'm sure you're still confused still >> because I am >> I don't think there's anything you're be able to do or say to make me unconfused about a lot of things, but All right. Thank you.
>> Okay. Uh All right. So, I'll read the correspondence. I don't think there's anybody else who wants to speak in favor. And that is Judith Giorgio, health agent on 121. I've re I've 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 confirm the bedroom numbers.
>> If I could just respond very briefly, we are eliminating one of the bedrooms in the main house. The house will have two bedrooms, so there'll be one at the ADU. >> So you end up with three. Okay, that satisfies that. Okay, very good. Okay. Um, is there enough of that? Is there anyone who wishes to speak against this
or has another question? Anybody in Microsoft Teams? Don't see anybody. Okay, Randy. >> So, >> why don't you ask Okay, I should say, does anybody have any questions? You do. >> Well, go ahead.
You may have um addressed this originally in under the first proposal, but why not an addition to the house instead of an ADU or a guest house? We went over that a number of times and
Betsy is here and I don't know whether she would like to respond and I think Ryder and Wilcox who designed this is gone. Um there there were reasons Mr. Dbor and I can't tell you right now off the top of my head this is we started this nine months ago
>> and we've been through so many iterations I can't tell you uh Mr. Chairman, if I could ask Miss Nor to speak. >> Please do. >> Betsy, please join the conversation. >> Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much for the opportunity. So, I trust
me, I've gone around in circles on this, but the main reason of not doing an addition is because the only place to put the addition again would be right over the tree. And so I think that we agreed
that we would be better off, sorry, our dogs are going crazy. Um that it would be better for her to also have her own sort of separate space, but honestly, it's it's been about the tree.
>> Okay. Thank you, Steve. >> Well, okay, I understand. I mean, you could have a separate entrance if you had an addition on the house, but I understand the tree. So, >> any other questions? Any members? Dave? >> Yeah. Um, I don't think this doesn't
really directly bear on this because I a lot of things have changed, but this uh certainly is one of those neighborhoods that was developed under a prior uh less restrictive zoning and that that 25 having to maintain that other 25 foot setback is something that would not have
been the case were we still under the zoning it had been developed under. But the overlay of our 40 in this neighborhood has restricted things further. >> Yeah. All these lot actually we have one of the larger lots. I think it's 16,000
square ft. It give or take. It's on the on there. Yeah. 16,43 feet. The neighborhood was developed with 10,000 foot lots. It was the old R10 zone. >> Randy. >> Yeah. Thank you. So, I'm just as confused as as Brian. um but maybe even
more confused now. Um I I definitely am a big fan of keeping the tree. I always am. Um so I I'm going to support it, but I wondering um in the event her mother doesn't live there anymore for whatever reason. Would it be reasonable for us to
condition it that it wouldn't be used for short-term rentals for under 90 days? And why did I pick that number? Um because if uh the owner at any point in time would like to allow, you know, um somebody that comes to work here for the
summer, that might be like a 90-day gig. Um, so I didn't want to foreclose that, but um, I'm just thinking that the neighbors might not realize that in the event her mother doesn't live there anymore and that day will come and there'll be a day where a different owner might have it and this would be a
great little spot for, you know, uh, an Airbnb and I don't think the neighbors would like that. So, I'm wondering, am I am I off on that or what are your thoughts? the state law. Well, under the current
bylaw, you could do that. I don't know whether that would be consistent with the regulations, the state regulations which frown upon owner occupancy requirements
for ADUs. >> No. And I'm not trying to say Yeah. that would be owner occupied. So, um, the ADU bylaw, state regulations, uh, says the the town can do a no
short-term rental. Since Attorney Litchfield is applying as a guest house, it doesn't fall under either the state ADU regulations, nor does it fall under the town's ADU regulations, which prohibit the grant of a variance for an
ADU. So this you would be looking at it simply as variances from the guest house provisions of our bylaw. Nothing to do with an ADU. Totally separate provision be >> be but because we would have preferred to be here requesting an ADU. We would
have I presume unless Miss Nor tells me otherwise we would have no objection to a prohibition on short-term rental. >> But short term can mean a lot of things. It could mean, you know, 30 days, one a week, um, three months, six months. I
would want to get more specific and and I know that Betsy is going to now say I don't plan on doing that and I understand that. However, you know, this is a property that is going to be here after we're all gone. And so, I would
like to protect the neighborhood from, you know, an Airbnb. I just want to call it that. are, you know, a week in, a week out because that makes the neighborhood very, you know, um, noisy and, you know, I I I just want to be on the lookout about that. She is asking to talk. So,
>> the Jay may be able to help me or Shantel or Sarah, the board of health regulation does define short-term rentals, and I think you could you could sort of reference that. >> Uh, their reference is for not less than
31 days is a short-term rental. So that could be referenced that that there be a restriction that the property because it's technically a guest house not be rented for periods of less than 30 31 days to be consistent. >> And I'm not speaking for anyone else, but that would be something that I would
be looking for. And also um what was the other thing? Um what are you going to do to change, you know, magically wave a wand and get rid of one of your bedrooms in the house? So you you're going to have to take down a portion of the wall >> that that actually has been in the plan
from the start. And we represented that when we were here in December that one of the No, I wouldn't expect you to, but one of one of the three bedrooms in the house will be eliminated by a wall being removed. I forget what Betsy, could you remind me of what we're doing, which
room is becoming which? The bedroom being eliminated. >> Yeah. So the uh back right hand bedroom, there's two bedrooms on the right hand side of the house. The front bedroom will remain, the back one will become a den.
Uh so basically that back that back corner by the deck. And so my builder already is uh you know, we've already discussed how we're going to do that. We will close off uh the door uh the bedroom
door as it sits today and uh put double uh double doors or something whatever I have to do to comply with making it a dent. >> Yeah, the board of health will require a casement. I think it's five foot wide for current construction, six foot wide
for new construction. So it would have to be a five foot casement opening. >> Yeah. And so the board of health is uh sort of in flux right now in many ways. Um and uh in fact part of the arguments have been what is the definition of a bedroom? And I understand that they're
working on that. So you'll get in under whatever today's definition of a bedroom is. I I take it. Um that's changing though. >> It depends on when they file for their building permit. >> Yeah. So just be aware of that. See see all the caveats that I'm pointing out.
>> Y All right. Um, that's it for me for questions. >> Can I just This is Betsy. Sorry. Just one comment on the short-term rental. I'm completely in support of that. Uh, obviously I don't have intention of selling the house, but you know, I may
not I will not be here forever either. Uh, and uh, the intent is to to not do any short-term rentals uh, going forward. So, I'm completely in support of that. >> All right. Thank you, Matthew. Dave,
>> but relative to this, I just like to think this. So, there there isn't currently in the entire neighborhood any kind of um prohibition on short-term rentals, is there? >> There's no prohibition. So regulation,
but >> I don't see I I mean I understand Ry's concerns, but I but I think to single out this structure uh I don't see I mean you know so frequently we find
consequences of of the of the creation of laws and things. So I'm I'm I'm leaning more in favor of why do it why do it with this? I'd rather I'd rather take our chances on what might happen down the road and and and let the board of health or whatever regulations get
developed to deal with short-term rentals rather than us do it on a piece by piece basis. >> Anybody want to weigh in on that, Paul? >> Well, I am reluctant to do it on a piece by piece basis, I guess. Uh so uh I'm not sure that I see the need for this uh
in this particular situation. Um so I I would say let's not try and do it on a piece by piece basis. Let's leave it out. >> Yeah. So the only thing I would say is how many other ADUs or guest house or whatever you want to call it are in this
neighborhood in the first place? Did anybody notice that? I think the answer is zero. So this is a much more attractive opportunity to rent it out short term and the whole nation is frowning on that. Never mind this
neighborhood. >> Well, in my neighborhood there are any number of pre-existing apartments and and things. You know, you walk around and you I mean I don't have a count, but there are a number of them that that existed before zoning was ever
imposed even. So, and and I think that that's that having those things in town has value to us. And the problem with short-term rentals, I would grant is can be a serious problem. But
I don't think that that be that having again I don't think there's a reason to go after these on a case-by case basis. >> Okay. So, yes. Okay. >> Well, I actually had a question after Mr. Phillips spoke as well about just
for clarification and this is before Randy spoke and I just you've answered it since then but I just want to restate this. So because you're requesting a variance under guest house rules because of this unique scenario it can be rented. That's what I that's where I
think I heard you land. >> Under our bylaw it can be although there's absolutely no intent to do so as you know. >> Understood. And and I uh but I that was my question because I had the same thought that Randy did about and because
of this uh I mean I I hear what what Mr. V and and Paul are saying about um you know peacemealing it but this is a very uh unique request here and I I do feel as though um I'm I that we
I don't want to speak for other people but I'll speak for myself. I I'm supportive of of this um request, but but I agree and it sounds like the owner is also in agreement and it doesn't impact the plans at all. It but it does protect the neighborhood going forward.
And I I I I was I guess I'm saying that I had a similar uh concern that Randy had and so I guess I don't agree that it it couldn't be. >> If I could, Mr. Chairman, just very briefly, Mr. Briggs has has talked about this in in the past in sort of a
different context because the guest house provision says that the board can wave the additional land requirement if it's to be occupied by a member of the immediate family. If the family moves away,
Jay doesn't have the time or ability or inclination to go out and see who's living there. So, I mean it the applicant and I will be happy which with which whatever you do about the short-term rental issue provided that we get the variances that's up to the board
as to how you want. Okay. Okay. So, we'll get to that when we get to voting on the application. We'll separately vote on conditions. Okay. Very good. So, let's go back in time here. Uh where
were we? I mean, has everybody spoken on this that wants to? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. All right. So, we should have deliberations. >> Can you >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> Yeah. I'm sorry.
>> I'll second that. >> Okay. >> All votes yes. >> Votes yes. >> Yes. Jenny votes yes. >> Yes. Okay. So, so Randy, we need you to bring forth the application
and then we will >> I need to deliberate. >> That's all we did. No, you want to deliberate? How long you want to deliberate? Okay. >> Okay. All right. Paul, deliberate.
>> Uh, I I still maintain my position. This is I don't think we should do this on a peacemeal basis. So I would move to approve the application as submitted if >> we're going to deliberate >> if that were to be the situation as opposed to placing conditions with respect to red
>> and deliberating. What do you think of the whole deal and then we get into the conditions? >> Uh I I'm in support of the the new location of the uh mom's house. I'll call it that. And um
as far as um restrictions, I I I wouldn't be in favor of any restrictions. I don't I don't feel we need to be the watchdog for something like this, >> Dave. >> Yeah. And and sorry, it seemed like we started deliberations a little early, which got
>> Well, we got we drifted in there. We drifted in there. I I definitely find that um that these requests, the variance requests um meet the criteria in my judgment and for very good reasons and and I know that maybe
saving an old tree isn't one of the specific but I think it falls under those those criteria and uh I'm very much support that I and I and as I've said before I don't I don't think since we don't have restrictions in anywhere else in the neighborhood to apply it to
this building I don't think it's thing. Thanks, >> Lee. >> I agree. I think Attorney Lichfield made a very good case for approving this variance. Um, not only that, but I think this is a question of common sense. It just makes more sense to have it back
there. Um, so I'm not voting, but I would be approving this. >> Dave, >> yeah, I guess I feel the same way. Um, you know, it's serving a good purpose now. Uh, I was a little concerned about what happens to this when the current family isn't there anymore. Uh, and
somebody else is going to have to take over this problem, but the, you know, the building could always be repurposed as something else. So, um, and it's it's helping the family today, so I think it's probably a good idea. Jenny,
>> so I'm reminding myself that uh you already have a special permit to put mom's room or home there. Uh and it require would require eliminating the tree, which everyone I think at the table and everyone who knows about this project would agree is absolutely
stunning and it's worth exploring an alternative, which is why you're here. Um, and and I appreciate that because you could have not been here and the tree would be gone and and and the house the room would be built, the the extra
space. Um, but you are here under these really, you know, kind of convoluted rules around the variance and um and I do commend you, Mr. Lichfield, for being so creative in in this and and Sarah and the support from the town. Um, and as I
mentioned, I'm in support of the variance because I think that you can meet the criteria the way that you've described it. So, it can be a win-win from everyone uh for everyone. But I do, as I mentioned, feel uh as though because we are using that guest house
criteria in a unique way that um and I know it's not the intention to rent that property, but I I think looking forward it is a prudent idea. So, I I would be in favor of that. um ADU restrict or the rental restriction, but I'm in support
of the the project. And I I also want to say, you know, we're called the zoning board of appeals for a reason because we can apply if if it was just putting in this scenario into AI and spitting out a decision. it would be doesn't you know does it or does it not meet the criteria
and so you have a body of contemporaries that are um that are listening to the uniqueness of this and and that's you know I think what's great about our board and why we have the opportunity to look into into this um very carefully and and and allow something like this.
So I just want to you know knit that all together. >> Randy, >> thank you Mr. Chair. So, um, the reason why I would, um, think that you met the, well, I do think that you met the criteria for a variance is not because we're saving the tree. So, I never want
to be confused with, um, somebody that finds a good reason that doesn't um, comport with the law. I I won't do that. I'm not doing that today. I'm happy about the tree. However, I like the argument about the wedge-shaped lot. And we have uh in the past although this is
we we are bound by what we've done in the past but we have looked at the law shapes in the past and that is 100% an argument that is on all fours with the law. So you got that one straight up. Um I forget the name of the case that says
a less showing of hardship is required for a dimensional variance. Which case is that? >> There a number of them. >> A number of them. Okay. Does it actually say a far less showing or does it say lesser showing? Because I think it's lesser showing, but um I just that's my
memory and I I think that's a portion of the law that we we should hearken to. Absolutely. Um so you have that one and almost everyone really gets that. Is it in step with the intent and purpose of the bylaw? That's an easy one. It's almost like a you know it's a a free
shot. And um as a matter of fact, this one is in lock step with the purpose and intent of the bylaw, especially these days. And um so I I I believe that you've met the criteria for variance, and that's why I would vote in favor. Um
however, I also think that current thinking is to be very mindful of um of short-term rentals and because this is a separate building, it's very attractive for that. And when someday Betsy doesn't
live in Chattam anymore and her mother doesn't live there anymore, somebody might buy up this house so that they can short-term rental the house and the and the the other house behind it and there goes the neighborhood, so to speak. Um,
and so I I I am um stubbornly going to insist on that criteria, on that condition for me to approve this even. >> Okay. Thank you. And Paul, you got kind of tripped up on when we were going from
uh into deliberations. Did you want to ask anymore? >> No. No. Okay. So, what we want to do is number one, uh I think Randy, you need to present what the conditions would be, including what you feel should
be in there, and then we will vote on the conditions first. Then we will vote on the variance for the guest house depending on the conditions that we roll in here. >> So the re I I actually I think I spoke
too soon when I said in order for me to approve it I I'll think about that in um so I don't want to be bound to that statement but I that's how important I do think it is. Um, so I would vote to approve the application as presented um
with the we might want to consider the the usual conditions for um all construction activity and vehicles be contained on the site or neighboring property with the permission of the property owner and um I don't know what the board wants to do with June 30th and
Labor Day um uh construction. Um do you want to appine on that? The the reason that uh Ms. Clark was her characteristically cooperative self in scheduling this for today is
because we anticipated a June 30th deadline. If the board does not impose one, that's fine by us. But I don't know how the neighbors would feel about summertime construction. My understanding is that if this is
approved today, it will be effective approximately February 20th, give or take. And my understanding is that we can get it built the exterior within four months. Is that still correct, Miss Nor?
>> Yes, that is correct. >> Thank you. And so and the other condition that that I recommend is that it shouldn't be used for short-term rentals. >> Okay. That would be our second vote on conditions. The first vote would be the
usual ones. So Okay. Okay. I And what you said as far as I'm concerned, you have presented that. Okay. So Paul on the first group of conditions, >> I will second the motion and vote yes. >> Okay. Dit votes yes.
Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> Yes. And I vote yes. >> Okay. So then an additional condition, Randy, >> no short-term rentals. Um and we need to just make sure we put that whatever documents we can. Uh so it's into perpetuity.
>> Paul, >> why don't why don't you define what you mean by short-term rental? >> Yeah. Well, whatever the town defines as short-term rental. Um, >> so, um, would you like the proposed condition to read that the, uh, guest
house shall not be used as a short-term rental, um, uh, as defined under board of health regulations? >> Board of Health or other in case the zoning bylaw ever >> or other applicable regulations.
>> Yes, absolutely. That's what I would say. >> I will second the motion. Vote no. Dave >> Dave each votes no. >> I vote yes. >> Votes yes. >> Well, >> it doesn't make any difference which way I vote because two nos it doesn't doesn't work.
>> So, uh therefore, >> you know, again, because you need >> you don't get that. >> Okay. You need a right. You need a super. You needed >> I needed you couldn't have >> you couldn't have two nose. >> Yeah. >> And that's what happened. >> All right. So, I guess I'll just um let
it go. >> That's right. I think you have to. Okay. So now we need to vote on the variance with the conditions as voted to begin this. >> Okay. So I move that we vote on the
variance um as presented. >> Uh which is to approve. >> Yes. >> Okay. I'll second the motion to approve the variance. >> I vote yes. >> And Dave Votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> And I vote yes. So that would be and
again that's with the usual conditions. >> Thank you very very much. We appreciate your time. >> Okay. Can move to adjourn. >> Okay. >> Would you please Randy
about a journ? >> Yes. Move to adjourn. >> I'll second the motion and vote yes. Votes yes. >> Ed votes yes. >> Randy votes Juny votes yes. >> De votes yes. >> Lee votes yes. >> 4:36 p.m.
>> as you go out the door. So