Heat up here. Yeah. Welcome to December. Welcome to the December 18, 2025 meeting of the Town of Cadam Zoning Board of Appeals.
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. Is anyone recording? All right. Thank you. Pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28, 2025 signing of chapter 2 of the acts of 2025 extending certain COVID 19 measures adopted during the state of emergency
suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law GL chapter 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 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 one 5089454410
conference ID 923 while in uh 923461336 hashtag or join the meeting via uh Microsoft Teams online through the link in the posted agenda. While this is a live broadcast and simal cast on Chattam
TV Xfinity channel 1072, despite our best efforts, we may not be able to provide real time access. 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 or hearing
or business item on the agenda during the meeting when recognized by the chair. Procedurally, we will do a roll call of all board members. We will ask then if any citizens or non board members participating in the call via the phone only for their name and
the last four digits of their phone number for identification purposes. The hearing notice will be read by staff. You or your representative presents the appeal or application. Anyone in favor of the appeal or application may speak with a fivem minute time limit.
Chair may read or summarize all letters received by the board. Anyone against the appeal or application may speak or ask a question. Again, a fivem minute time limit. The applicant may rebut testimony. Board members may question uh
direct questions to anyone present. The board hears any further information and the board then closes the public hearing. The board will then deliberate and will vote on the appeal or application. All votes are taken by roll call
presumably to to uh to presume to uh uh approve an application. It requires a vote of four out of five of the voting members. At the end of the meeting, the meeting will close via verbal confirmation, note the time of the
adjournment, and go from there. Okay. Why don't we uh do we have any minutes that need to be approved? >> Roll call. Oh, let's do a roll call vote first. Uh to do a roll call vote to approve this meeting. >> Yes. Uh David H. Feature and I approve this uh meeting format.
>> David S. Nixon, I approve. >> Lee Hubby, I approve. >> Steven D. Deborne, I approve. >> Virginia Fick, I approve. >> And Paul C. Simple, I approve. >> Okay. Now, let's go on to minutes. Uh we have, I think, minutes from the meeting of November 13th and November 20th. I I
will uh move approval of the um minutes of November 13th. >> All right. Are there any additions or corrections? >> Seeing none, why don't we go ahead with a vote? >> I second that. >> Thank you. >> And I vote yes. >> I vote yes. >> All right.
>> Jenny votes yes. >> Steve votes yes. >> And Paul votes yes. Okay. And November 20th. >> Yes. Uh and I as I will also move approval of the minutes for November 20th um as presented. Second. >> Are there any additions or corrections to the November 20?
>> All right. >> Um, I vote yes. >> I vote yes. >> Steve votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> All votes yes. Thank you. All right. Let's move on to our first application. >> Application number 25-055.
Karen Losoko care of William G. Lichfield Esquire 330 Orleans Road North Chattam Mass 02650. owner of property located at 20 L Street, also shown on the Town of Cadam's assessor's map 10F, Block 15, lot R9. The applicant seeks to construct
an elevated stairway and kayak rack under section 4A3A of the protective bylaw. The lot contains 28,100 square ft in an R20 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General law chapter 48 section 9 and section 8D2B of the protective bylaw. This was
continued from August 14th and October 9th for readvertising. >> Welcome, Mr. Lichfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Bill Lichfield here in behalf of Karen Lako in regard to set of stairs proposed as shown there. We appreciate the board's indulgence in the
continuences for such a simple request. Uh first there were some changes made to accommodate some suggestions of the conservation commission which have been incorporated and thereafter the applicants decided that they would like to have a kayak rack which had had to be
added to the plan which is shown for you now. Uh I know that you've been out there uh and you've seen the site. We currently have some old uh timber dug in steps which we are proposing to replace.
Uh the top of the walkway will be timber stairs but they will be new and the lower portion as shown there on the left down to the bottom the slope will be an elevated stairway which as you know is environmentally preferable. The scakos
have owned this house for 37 years. uh they've always enjoyed White Pond and would like to continue to enjoy White Pond by getting down there having a kayak rack and so forth. So given the length of today's hearing, I think I'll go directly into the criteria as to
adequacy of the site. We have a conforming 28,000 square foot lot which is certainly adequate for the use. We also have 200 ft of frontage on White Pond so it seems an appropriate accessory use. As to suitability of the site, the exact site, the slope is
suitable for not much of anything but a water access use. And replacing the old winter wind wooden timber steps with a safer and more useful structure with stairs and a kayak rack is sensible. As you know, the bylaw provides specifically for these sorts of
structures in the conservancy district. There's nothing no impact on traffic flow and safety, nor is there any impact on neighborhood visual character. We have a large lot. Uh the stairs are proposed to be 40 ft from the closest to butter and below sight lines. Uh no add
no uh sewage disposal or utility issues, no noise issues as the compatibility of the proposed use. Several neighboring homes have stairs. Some have docks uh necessitated by the slope down uh from the old railway railway bed on the north
and from the land on the west of White Pond. As an accessory residential use in a pondfront neighborhood, uh stairs are entirely compatible as to impact the natural environment. Uh the stairs will actually have a positive environmental
impact. uh they are preferable to the existing ingground timber steps especially with the mitigation which will be involved. Conservation as I indicated has reviewed this extensively. So as you are aware the special permit which we are seeking requires a finding
from you that the use will not be detrimental to the established or future character of the neighborhood or of the town and that the use involved is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the bylaw. on these facts and circumstances and in this location I
think you can make that finding. Be happy to answer any questions. >> All right. Thank you. Uh is there anyone here or on Microsoft Teams who would like to speak in favor of this application?
>> All right. Seeing none, um I'll read the correspondence which is uh from the conservation commission indicating that uh um the applicant submitted a notice of intent on April 22, 2025. The project
was heard by the conservation commission on May 7th, 2025 and November 12, 2025. The project is scheduled for an order of conditions on January 14, 2026 when it will be conditioned to meet the performance standards under the wetlands
protection act and the uh town uh local wetlands bylaw. I believe that's all the correspondence we have on this. I'll ask if there is anyone who would like to speak against this or has a specific question.
All right, seeing none, um I'll ask if there are any questions from the board. >> Yes, >> I have one question, Mr. Lichfield. So, um you're rebuilding, you're adding, you're extending um and you're but you're also
removing something, correct? I watched the conservation and they were very happy about that. Could you >> They were indeed >> make a comment about what's being removed. I can't be specific in that regard, Miss Fenwick, because frankly there have been so many iterations of this plan that I can't answer it. Okay.
>> But you are correct that conservation was quite satisfied with the proposal as it now stands. >> I think it was a um there was a storage rack or it was a storage area of boats and things that I think float or something that they were keeping on the
water area, the beach area. And that's going to be >> and the kayak rack will help to alleviate alleviate that. So instead of leaving a kayak down on the shorefront, it'll be somewhat up the the stairs. >> Okay. I I just wanted to clarify that
something was being um was being removed as part of the project which was um very favorable to conservation. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions? Steve? >> Yeah. Can you just um I'm not sure if you addressed this, but can you tell us what becomes of the stuff that's
embedded in the ground now? Is that all being removed or >> Yeah, it is being removed and replaced. >> And as to where it goes, I don't know whether there's any creassote or hazardous issues. Frankly, I don't know. >> I suspect that given the length of time
they've been there, any sort of treatment stuff has leaked out already anyway. >> But all of that's going to be replaced with new. >> Okay. Correct. >> Thank you. That's it. >> Any other questions? >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations.
>> All right. Is there a second? >> I second that. >> We'll take a vote on that. >> Uh V votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> Steve votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes >> and Paul votes yes. All right. Thank you. Okay. Let's go into deliberations. Uh why don't we start with Jenny?
Um well, as I mentioned, I think on the whole they're um all the items they're proposing make complete sense on that property on the water. Um it's a beautiful, beautiful lot. And then um I mentioned that I watched the conservation and Mike Dennis from Blue
Flax did mention that um not only are certain things being um repaired and replaced, but where things are being removed um they're going to replenish it with um you know proper grasses and things like that. So the conservation
was I think a really important hearing and um they were very favorable. So I I lean into them and I saw nothing wrong with it when we did the site visit. So, I I would approve it. >> All right, Steve. >> Yeah, I I feel the same way. It just seems to be safer. I think what's there
um seems to be a little treacherous trying to get down that ramp. Um so, it's a good idea that that's all being replaced. The fact that the Conscom heard the application, it seems to be favorable. Um and they're receptive to to what's being done, I think it's a
good good project. >> All right. Thank you, Lee. >> Yeah, I agree. I think it's a good plan. Um, it meets our criteria. So, if I were voting, I would vote to approve. >> Thank you, >> Dave. >> In no way is this detrimental to the
neighborhood. So, it should be approved. >> Yeah. And a a very large increase in safety. I took one look at the top of those steps and I went dangerous. the existing that was an ambitious project on somebody's part but this is
going to be so far superior for all involved uh that I will enthusiastically support it >> and I agree with the board members okay do I hear a motion to approve >> yeah I will uh move uh for approval of um application number 2555
uh and I don't see any reason to put conditions on so >> all right fine >> I second that and I agree with Mr. Ve on no conditions are necessary. >> Okay, we've got two votes in favor. >> Uh Steve votes in favor. >> Steve votes in favor
>> and I vote in favor >> and Paul votes in favor. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> All right, we'll move on to our next uh hearing which will be uh 25107 I believe. >> Application number 25-107.
Lori and Vincent Sansone, care of William G. Lichfield Esquire 330 Orleans Road North Chattam Mass 02650 owners of property located at 7 Bucks Lane also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 8A block 5 lot S1 the applicant proposes to change alter
expand a non-conforming non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the construction of an addition and the reconstruction of an addition to the second floor. The existing dwelling is non-conforming and it is located 22.5 ft from Bucks Lane and within the coastal conservancy district. The proposed
additions will be non-conforming and that it will be located 22.5 ft from Bucks Lane where a 25 foot setback is required and within the coastal conservancy district where a 50- foot setback is required. The existing building coverage is 1,234 square ft 19.3%
and the proposed building coverage is 1,32 ft 20.4% where 15% is the maximum allowed. The law is non-conforming and that it contains 6,392 square feet of buildable upland where 20,000 square feet is required in the R20 zoning district. A special permit is
required under master law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protected bylaw. >> Mr. Lichfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Bill Lichfield once again. Uh we were advised earlier in the week that there was a flaw in the published legal ad. Uh
and as such uh in consultation with Sarah uh it's been suggested that we request a continuence. Uh the applicant is disappointed and would much rather
January 8 than January 22. But I understand you have a very very heavy workload on workload on January 8. So unless there is any Christmas spirit which uh causes you to continue this to
January 8th, we would ask for January 22nd. >> Well, I think you're I think you're looking at my Grinch cap right now. Uh we have uh I think we have 11 hearings scheduled on the 8th. So uh do I I hear a motion to uh continue to January 22nd?
>> I so move. >> Okay. >> Well, we could make it an even dozen, you know, Mr. Chair. We could >> and do it on the 8th. >> We are starting at 1:00. >> We can just go to the roof too and jump. Huh. But uh
>> um well, I'll listen to any other comments that the board members may want to make. But now we've been suggested at January 22nd by Sarah. >> Um I I I I could I mean I'm I'm not sure. I looked I looked I saw 11 on January. I'm
like whoa. But I if we're at 11, we could make it 12, take an extra break. I mean, I I want to I mean, I'd say based on looking at this, it's fairly straightforward. So, I
I I could go along with that. Sure. >> Okay. And I'd go along with the ETH, too. I think the uh I don't want to penalize the applicant because the um the problem was not at the applicant's door. So, any other comments?
>> Uh, I agree with that. I can make that work. Um, we're starting early. We've already seen the property. We've already done the work. So, um, I I think we could squeeze it in. >> Yeah, I feel the same way. I mean, it wasn't anything that the applicant did or,
you know, I think it's fair to to to uh >> All right. It sounds like my Grinch hat is not going to do any good today. So, >> I apologize for being so eagle-eyed uh when I read the read the uh to January 8th is
>> I Yeah, I would move to uh continue to January 8th uh 2026. >> I second that. >> All right. All those in favor? >> Yes. >> Steve votes yes. >> Dave votes yes >> and Paul votes yes. All right. I want
want to thank the board and there's probably some relevance to the 12 days of Christmas. More importantly, Mr. V indicated that it was a straightforward appeal which means Lichfield shut up on January 8th. So, I appreciate it. Thank you.
>> Very good. Let's move on to uh application 25-110. >> Application number 25-110. Duncan carant sign 125 Samuel Barnett Boulevard New Bedford Mass 02745
Lesie of property located at 1563 Main Street also shown on the Town of Cadam's assessor's map 9 9D block 6 lot 16. The applicant seeks an appeals permit under section 225-9 of the Town of Cadam sign bylaw to allow the placement of a 36 in
x 120in 30 ft wall sign not facing a street frontage. The lot contains 18,114 square feet in the GB3 zoning district. The proposed sign requires an appeals permit under section 225-9 of the Chattam Sign bylaw.
>> Hello, my name is Sean Dunman and I am uh with PON Signs out of New Bedford, Mass. We are the manufacturer and installer of the set sign we're proposing. So, what we have here is uh the location's on a rotary and it's a non-traditional
building. So, there is an existing there are two existing signs that on the property and that just recently underwent a remodel. So, the sign you see on the bottom is the one that faces the rotary and that faces the road. The second sign is on the back of the building as you're exiting. So, if
you're looking over to where you see the lower picture, it would be facing the parking lot in the back. So you could you could argue that it does face the street as you're approaching the rotary, but it is not a street facing sign and it's just kind of unique property in
the sense where it's not a traditional commercial building and there really aren't a lot of options where to put the signs and I believe the Chattam by laws allow for two signs and we weren't we didn't do the signs originally but I think the the thought was at the time I believe it went for a special permit but
where location was never really defined but I'm guessing on that. So, here we are. We're replacing it with that sign in the lower picture where we'd put that in the back of the building facing the street as you approach. Well, not really facing the street, but you would see it as you're approaching the rotary.
>> So, basically, you're making a change from Dunkin Donuts to Duncan. >> Yes. >> Other than that, the Chinese remain the same. >> Yep. Same square footage, everything's the same. >> Okay. Um, I will uh ask if there's anyone here
who would like to speak in favor of this application or on Microsoft Teams. Seeing none, I'll read the uh correspondence we have from the uh historic business district commission. November 5, 2025.
The historic business commission met and rendered the following decision. The commission voted 500 approving the proposed wall sign located at 1563 Main Street. And then we have correspondence from the
uh tax collector's office indicating that uh there is in connection with this property an outstanding uh personal property tax balance uh which is expected that what is due by
December 18th. like to thank us in advance for this mentioning it. It's $162.82, which I assume they're going to take care of. >> My understanding it was probably paid within the hour about an hour ago. >> All right. Thank you. And I believe that
consu concludes the correspondence. Is there anyone here uh who would like to speak against this appeal or has a specific question? Seeing none, I'll ask if there are any questions from the board.
We start with Steve. >> Yeah, I thought well in our packet there was um a letter. It looked like there there was some kind of issue with this when it was originally installed um
several years ago uh 2009 it looks like. So, um, have you been made aware of that at all? Do you know anything at all about that? >> Yeah, it's it's come up. Uh, which we we weren't involved in the location back
then doing the signs and I really can't speak for it. My guess is they thought they were allowed to signs and there wasn't a better place to put it, you know, in theory. I mean, because again, it's a traditional I think it's an old captain's home or something like that. It's just not a traditional commercial building,
>> you know. So here we are now trying to do the remodel and you know make it right. So >> okay >> but yeah we yeah it was just when we approached it was two signs on a building and we're matching like for like following the plans that the architect had had given us. >> Um is there another sign that's um I
guess would be on the westbound side of the building. Is there any >> the westbound? So the westbound let me look at the elevation. So the you have a freestanding sign. I'm trying to get my bearings. So there is the sign that will face the
All right. So that's the proposed west elevation. So that's the existing sign and that one conforms. All right. And that's that's like for like and it's sort of on mounted on a pitched roof. And then on the what I'd say with the front of the building that face the rotary, there's really no place to put a building a front wall sign, but there
was a freestanding monument sign that we just refaced and like for like >> So this is actually a third sign. Well, on the wall it is a third sign, but there are a lot of free >> two on the two on the two wall. >> Yeah. Two on the building, one one freestanding.
>> Okay. Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions? >> Yes. >> So, I I had the same question because in our packet it said three signs, front, rear, and side. So, that clears that up. Yeah. >> Um, but I did have a question about um I
mean I prefer the size of the newer sign, but you said I thought you said they were the same size. The new sign Duncan looks smaller than the Dunkin Donuts. >> Well, the signs that were existing, the signs that are being that are replacing are the same size. That was my that was
my uh point of that of making that comment. So the signs that had been there previously, we replace like for like or proposing replacing like for like in size. The two signs are not the same size >> on the building. >> The two signs are not
>> Yeah. So Yeah. So there's a Yeah. So there's the one on the west elevation. Yep. And then the one on the rear, the south elevation. They're two different sizes. >> No, I'm talking about the one on the um I guess that would be the west side where uh not the back. Can Can you pull it up, Sarah? I just want to see. So,
the Dunkin Donut sign, the current sign. Um, okay. So, yeah, that one. So, see how that I mean that's a photograph. That's not just a rendering. And, um, and that's the old one and that's going to be changing. But, see how it it's longer
and and it really kind of covers the windows, which the new sign doesn't. I mean, the new sign is already up. We we saw that. And the new sign is actually Sarah, can you go to the new sign? And at first I thought the rendering wasn't accurate, but it really is. I mean, it
looks better. >> It is. It is. Yeah, it's it's square. It's the same square footage. And the word Duncan fills the, you know, the negative black, >> but the actual length of the sign is the exact same. >> Exact same. Yeah, >> because it's sitting better than what that original sign was.
>> Well, the other sign too, you had the Duncan inline, then you had the cup icon, I think, in the middle. So that that being said, it probably gave it a better, you know, just filled the negative space better, >> but it is the same size. If you're going >> No, I I'm saying this one looks better.
I think it looks better because you can see the windows. You can see the corbals, which it is a historic building, so I think that's important. And it just looked like a smaller sign. Um, but you're saying it isn't. >> It Yeah, it should should be the exact same size. Okay. Yeah, it >> Well, I like it better. So I I'm I just
was questioning. Yeah, there may, you know, there's a possibility we it may not it may not have needed the total height. >> Okay. >> So, it might be it's I've got a 3ft tall by 16 foot. The existing might have been a little taller possibly. It wasn't needed, but >> Well, you can see in the actual photo
that >> Yeah, that's possible. It's a detail I didn't focus on. >> Well, when we were standing in the street and looking at it looks like that. So, it looked it looked good. Looks better. Anyway, that's um was my question. >> No problem. Okay. Okay. Any other
questions? >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> Second that. >> All right. We'll vote on that. >> Uh Votes yes. >> Yes. Steve votes yes. >> Yes. >> And Paul votes yes. >> Okay. Um
I guess the next issue would be uh are there any other question? There no other questions I take it for the board, >> right? So, >> we're ready to vote. >> We just I just moved up um to move into deliberations. We're we're in deliberations. >> We're doing deliberations. >> I'll get there. >> That's all right. It's okay.
>> All right. Let's start with Dave Dave V for deliberations. >> Um well, um certainly to whatever degree that sign is is smaller on the on the west side of the building, I don't think anybody's complaining about that at all. That's a great that's an improvement. And I agree with Jenny. looks a whole
lot better than what was there previously. And um the other sign uh certainly is not um offensive in any way and I think is is worthy of um um getting a special permit from us and so
um I'll support it. >> Dave, >> I have nothing to add to that. >> Okay. And Jenny, >> well, I just wanted to add that the reason I was kind of asking those questions and making that point was if it was the other way around, I would have had a problem with it. So,
>> understandable. Yeah. >> Yeah. But it was better. But I I just think it's important to mention that we look at those kind of details. So, >> Steve, I Yeah, I think it's a cleaner look. Um uh does appear to be smaller than than what was there, and I think
it's um it's a a better sign. So, >> okay. and okay with it. >> And just to be clear, I think what we're approving is the sign on the rear of the building. So, I'm fine with that. >> That's correct. We are approving the sign on the rear of the building.
>> Okay. And I also agree with my colleagues. It seems to be an improvement, but what's uh what's there? Um Okay. >> So, that said, I I will move uh approval of uh application number 25-110.
And I don't see a need for conditions. >> I don't think there's a need for conditions here at all. No. >> Okay. >> They're already up. >> Exactly. >> Well, no, the one in the rear wasn't up. The one on the back >> the one on the side was up yesterday, but the one in the rear was not. So,
>> okay. And uh Jenny, >> I vote yes. >> I vote to approve. >> And Lee uh Okay. And Paul votes approve. >> And I I don't know if I voted. I did. Did I? Okay, good. Yep.
>> Sort of. Sort of. I'm sending waves out of >> All right. >> Let's move on to the next application. >> Thank you everyone. >> Application number 25-11. Edward and Sharon Feelely, care of
William F. Riley, Esquire, PO Box 707, Chattam, Mass 02633. owners of property located at 172 Barliff Avenue, also showed on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 15G, block 23, lot K1. The applicant seeks to enlarge, extend or change a non-conforming dwelling on a
non-conforming lot via the partial demolition of the dwelling, demolition of the detached garage, and construction of additions. The existing dwelling is non-conforming and it is located 19.4t from Barcliffe Avenue and 24.1 feet from Mousehole Lane. the existing garage is
non-conforming and that it is located 31.4 ft from mouse hole lane. The proposed addition will be non-conforming and that it will be located 23.7 ft from mouse hole lane where a 40ft setback is required. Also proposed is the installation of exterior mechanical
system appliances AC condensers 25.4 ft from household lane where a 40ft setback is required. The existing building coverage is 2,50 ft and the proposed building coverage is 1,693 ft where 3,000 ft is the maximum
allowed. The law is non-conforming and that it contains 27,354 ft 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 in sections 5B and
8D 2B of the protective bylaw. >> Welcome Mr. Riley. Um thank you Bill Riley on behalf of Ed and Sharon Phely and the Felies are here in the audience. The um one small point of contention uh
the setback to mouse all lane is only 25 ft because they do not have a legal right to use all lane. Just ask the neighbors. So that just want to point that out. All right. So
the uh this property as you may recall has been before you a couple of times with other proposals from other owners. Um so the files have learned um you know sort of the sentiment of the board and the sentiment of the neighbors
and they've worked collaboratively with the neighbors to come up with this design. Uh the architect is on uh line here, right? Apparently not.
The uh he was going to explain the changes he made to come up with this shield this for the felies. Anyway, so the the um what the Felies have done is come up with a design that actually reduces the building coverage on the property
because they're reducing they're removing the existing garage. Um and so the so the building coverage is actually being reduced from 250 square ft to 1,693
square ft. the uh and having in mind that the setback to hole lane or to the property line on on the side of Mouse Hole Lane is is 25 ft. Uh right now the existing setback is 24.4 ft and the proposed setback is is
23.7 feet. So it's about a little less than a foot closer to to the sideline. Uh but the the uh but we have uh I think an intelligent
design provides for the needs of the the felies who are going to be living here uh on a permanent basis once the work is completed. The um they're also the Felies are also going to remove the um
hole that was dug for a swimming pool many years ago and sits in the backyard just an empty hole. That's going to be removed as well. The uh if you look at the design, you can see that
what they're doing is adding basically uh you know a master bedroom and uh further living space so that they as I say is they they can live here year round in in the U.
So they're doing work in the basement and I think that the design is a very traditional design uh in terms of its impact on the neighborhood. We have the fact that it's behind the
existing uh antique structure uh which has been approved by the historic commission. Uh so it's as far back from the street really as you can go practically.
Uh the the ridge of the addition it matches the ridge of the existing building. U so I think that uh this is a design that is really compatible with the neighborhood.
The um I'll just run through the criteria quickly here. So adequacy of the size of the site in terms of the size of the proposed use as I pointed out uh we are reducing the building coverage.
The lot contains 27,355 square ft and the uh proposed building coverage is 6.2% a reduction from the existing 7.5%. Compatibility the size of the proposed structure with neighboring properties.
Uh on my third page, we have listed the sizes of most of the the homes in the neighborhood. And you can see that that our proposal is is very consistent and compatible with the uh other properties in the neighborhood.
the extent of the proposed increase in the non-conforming nature or use. We're increasing the the u living area on a in a house that's on a non-conforming lot. That's in considered an intensification of the that
nonconformity. We have uh and we're increasing the side setback nonconformity from 24.4 ft to 23.7 ft. the um 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. As you know from your visit to the site, it's very level property. There are no wetlands in the neighborhood and so there's no concern about storm water runoff
or potential injury to wetlands. uh in terms of impact scale sighting and mass on the neighborhood visual character including views, vistas and streetscapes. The the because the addition is sight at the rear of the property and is of a
very traditional design the applicants feel it'll have no negative impact on the neighborhood visual character or views vistas and streetscapes when considered along with the removal of the garage. The applicant believes that the proposed changes are not
substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing building compatibility the proposed use with neighboring uses. So this is a single family residence uh that will uh in the neighborhood of single family residence and so there will be they are compatible. No change
in the method of sewage disposal. Although because the applicants are moving the driveway to the far side of the building in consideration of the concerns of the neighbors, they are going to have to install a new septic system.
Impact in traffic flow and safety. Uh perhaps the mouse lane residents feel it's an improvement because they'll no longer be using Moshul lane. We don't think there's any significant change in traffic flow and safety and likewise we
don't think there's any change in in the noise or litter and the utilities and other public services are clearly adequate. So that would be our presentation. All right. Thank you. Um I'll ask if there is anyone uh in the audience or on
Microsoft Teams who would like to speak in favor of this application. Yes, there's one. Just approach the microphone and identify yourself, please. >> Good afternoon, members of the board,
Attorney Riley, the Felies, and thank you for this opportunity to speak in favor of the Feelely application. First, I would like to thank the entire board for your commitment to the town of Chadam. The character of our community when it comes
to scrutinizing these ZBA applications, I'm sure involves a lot of hard work over many volunteered hours, lots of research, trips to the site, scarring over plans and documents. Without your hard work and attractive and attent attentiveness, the ch the attractiveness
of the town of Chadam would be far different. A heartfelt thank to all of you. I'd like to also extend my heartfelt thanks to the Felies for their very thoughtful submission for their new home. Charlene and I are very excited to welcome the Felies into the neighborhood and can't wait for the day that they
move into their new Chattam home. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this application or is on Microsoft Teams? He was didn't identify himself.
>> The gentleman that just spoke didn't identify himself. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Uh, the person that just spoke, uh, your name, I don't think you identified yourself at the microphone. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Robert Wiggley. >> Robert.
>> Robert Wiggley. Thank you. >> All right. Now, moving on to our correspondents. We have from Judith Giorgio, the health agent. I have reviewed the proposed plans for the addition to this property. The dwelling was originally approved for five bedrooms at the time the septic system
was installed in 2007. A new septic permit has been submitted for a proposal for four a fourbedroom dwelling with a five- bedroomedroom septic system. The board of health regulations require that the septic system be sized to match the
proposed dwelling. Therefore, the system the system must be designed for four bedrooms. If an additional accessory dwelling or fifth bedroom is proposed in the future, plans for the proposed structure will be acquired for review and approval.
And then we have from the uh historical commission um attach please signs request for comment. Well, the CHC reaffirmed this home to be historically significant, but the changes do not
materially diminish its historic significance, so they did not impose a demo delay. And then we have correspondents from Eileen and Steven Carlson, uh, zoning board of appeals. Thank you
for your prompt notice of the pending application for 172 Barkliffe and special thanks to Sarah Clark for her assistance in providing the proposed plans. We are butters to the project owning the home at 184 Barkliffe immediately across mouse hole lane. We
are happy that the felies are moving forward with renovating the property and do not object to the proposed addition or new driveway location. These appears to have been done thoughtfully and should be significant improvements. We do have one objection. The current plans
call for placing the air conditioning units along the west side of the front building. These would be located directly across from our primary bedroom, living room, and patio area. They would also be very visible from both Mousehold Lane and Barkliff A. We
would prefer that they be located at the back of the house either along the northwest or northeast rear wall or in a separate area with some landscaping around them. Thank you for your consideration. I believe that's all the correspondence
we have. Do you have any address to that issue? Uh Mr. >> Yes. U couple of things. First of all, the as you know the setback for mechanical devices like air conditionings is 25 ft in this area and we meet that setback. The Carlson
property is on the other side of Mousehole Lane and based on our site plan appears to be more than 25 ft away from Mhole Lane. So we think there's really a substantial setback. Uh the
felies intend to plant a hedge uh between mouse lane and the air conditioning unit so they will not be visible. Uh and they don't believe that the you know noise from the units will be a factor uh for the residents that far away. So they prefer to leave things
as they are. >> All right. >> Building commission. >> Yes, Mr. Briggs. With the change to the bylaw back at town meeting, um exterior mechanicals now need to meet all setbacks. So it needs to meet the road setback and the abutter setback. So it
doesn't appear that the front AC units do meet the 40 foot road setback that can be alleviated only by special permit. >> So um are are we clear then? Are you requesting that Mr. Riley? >> Uh yes, I will request that. I mean, my
engineer didn't put that dimension on the plan. So, I'll trust Jay's uh and we would ask a special permit for that first unit from Barliff Avenue. >> Well, uh that has not been advertised,
has it? So, I don't think we're in a position to grant that application at this point. Would you rather continue this uh so that you can make an amendment to your
application? >> The uh I think it might be easier to move the unit back so it sits complies with the setback. Um see the
uh is the builder here? Can I have a minute? Yes. >> Wouldn't they still have access? >> Yeah. >> We're going to reboot that computer. Okay. Okay. Yeah. out of the four units, two of them
don't meet the 40 foot setback. >> So, right now we are frozen on Microsoft Teams. Um, Cadam TV is just rebooting and we'll be back up and running on Teams in just a moment. Got to have
a voice. So we we they would if it was readvertised they could come back and seek the special permit. >> Yeah. >> Correct. >> It's just that it's not part of the advertising. Mr. Riley,
>> we're not going to have four units. So, we will be meeting the setback from the street. >> Are you saying that you're going to amend your plans? >> Yes, we'll we'll file an amended plan. But it, you know, you can't grant the
permission. So, I don't know that we have to file an amended plan. It's just you're granting only what we seek. I mean, we will file an amended plan if if if you know, if that's what the board wants, but
>> Well, I think at this point it's fairly confusing. It seems to me it makes sense to uh withdraw and uh or seek a continuence and amend your filings. >> See, I don't think that's necessary. In other words, we have to comply with
the zoning bylaw. All right. We didn't seek relief from the street setback for the air conditioning units. So, that means we can't locate them there. You can't give us permission to put them there. So, if you want us if
you prefer to have us file an amended plan after your vote, we'll be happy to do that. But to continue the matter delays the entire project because then we'd be
number 14 on on the 8th or the 22nd in January. It bumps our whole project back two months. So, we'd really appreciate getting a vote today on what we've asked for.
And if you want to put a note on it that you know that the units shown here don't comply with the street setback, that's fine. And we'll file an amended plan with the building department when the time comes showing that they all meet the setback.
Well, I'm I'm inclined to think that we need to see a plan that complies with what the request is for um and uh that we should see it before we're voting. But um I'll defer to the board in general if they prefer to go forward. David,
>> I I think my sense, Paul, in this is as Bill is asking, I mean, if we make a note in our approval that that on the plan that's shown that the two southernmost air conditioning units which don't meet the currently meet the
setback to Bark have are not part of what we're approving. um just in order to keep this because and another possibility for them would be if in the process they decide to then seek a special permit from us to allow those to
be in place, they could do that under either an amended or separate application because they don't. So that sounds to me like the way to go would be to try to approve it considering if we are going to approve the rest of the plan that we go ahead with that
with a note that it does not in that there there is a discrepancy with this with with um Clark Engineering's plan. I mean we just cross them out on the plan and when we sign it or something like that. I I would feel
better about doing it that way honestly. What about the other board members? Any feeling one way or another? >> Um, I'm okay with that. I'm I might defer to Jay and Sarah and see what their thoughts are since they are the
logistics people. >> I I wouldn't issue a building permit for the AC condensers in that location. Your approval would strictly be conforming location for exterior mechanicals. So, like Dave said, if they wanted to put them in a non-compliant location, they'd
have to come back for a special permit just for that. But I don't see this holding up the application tonight. >> Very well. >> Yes. >> Yeah. I think to make that decision now is premature that we should go through the deliberations and hear concerns
about the whole thing. And then at the end, if this is the only issue, then I would agree with Dave. But I think let's go through hearing everybody and I mean there might be something else that that we need to be concerned about. >> All right. Well, that makes some sense.
It seems to me. >> Yeah, I agree with that. That that's makes sense. So, the best approach I think >> it's always nice when things make sense. >> Uh >> so in Thank you. U Okay. Well, we've heard from people who are in favor and
we've heard the correspondence. I think we've heard have we heard everybody who is objecting at this point with respect to this property or has a specific question. All right, I see none others. Uh let's go on with board deliberation.
>> I think we >> question. >> Yeah, questions. >> Questions? I'm sorry. Questions. >> Okay, why don't we start with questions? Dave Dave V. >> Um I don't think I I don't uh I don't I don't have any questions. Well, thank
you. Not at this time anyway. >> Dave Nixon. >> Yeah. The uh I know the existing garage is going to be removed. How about all that paved area in front of it? Is that going to be left or is that going to be removed also? >> That's going to be removed also. >> That will be
>> Yes. >> Okay. And so, and the pool is going to be totally filled in or whatever happen. >> Well, it's going to be removed. >> Okay. Yeah. It's kind of whenever I see it, I think of it as the size of a municipal pool. So, >> well, you know, and the thing's been
sitting there for like 10 years. It's crazy. So, yeah, they're going to remove it. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. Those are my questions. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh Jenny, do you have some questions? >> So, Mr. Riley, the height of the new addition is 238 and a half, and that's
the height of the current house. >> That's correct. It's um >> so the ridge lines are going to match. >> Yeah. And historic um so the home is historic the current home and they approved this renovation with no
>> add no changes. >> Right. the I think the um the conversation we had with the historic commission members uh was the fact that because uh the addition is so far >> back
>> back behind the original structure >> I mean in the ridge line for the addition is you know in the middle of the addition so it's >> it's about 60 feet back from the street from the front of the building and so the historic commission raised no issues about it at
because because it was set so far back. >> Well, that was my that's what I said in the hearing and hopefully that's why they did it, but they could have done it because despite the fact what Riley says, we're going to do that anyway. So, >> but it was that was a point I was making and they seem to agree with it.
>> Okay. Um I was a little um confused by I thought when you came back from the the discussion you had with the applicant about the AC units, you said we're going to remove two. Did you say that or or is it all? >> Yeah, we're going to remove the two that are closest to the street. >> Okay. >> We borrowed a ruler from the helpful
staff, >> but but there are four AC. >> I know, but the the two rearmost units comply with the setback from the street. >> They do. They're they're lined the what I'm looking at on the site plan. They're lined up. One, two, three, four. >> I know, but what what Mr. Briggs said is
that two of the units or the units don't comply with the street back street setback from Barliff. In other words, mousehole lane is is a way that over which we have no right to use. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. So, we don't have to meet a street setback from Mouso Lane. We have to meet a street setback from Barkliff. >> Okay. I didn't think that's what Jay said. I thought he said they had to be uh it to me it just looks like they're all about
they're all in line with each other and they're not meeting the setback from Mouse Lane. >> They they are meeting the setback from Mouse Lane. The setback from Mouse Lane, a way over which they have no right, no no needed right >> uh is 25 ft.
>> Okay. All right. So that was my >> if they had a right to use the way then they would have to meet the street set back. >> Okay. So, the first two in that line don't meet the Barcliffe Road setback. >> That's correct. >> That That's what Okay. I'm sorry. I thought it was mouse holding. Uh, okay.
That's um That's Well, actually, can I just ask you these are these window wells that are showing on the site plan? Bird's eye view down those little squares. Those are on the left hand side. Window wells. >> Yeah. If you look in the if you look on
the floor plan of the house >> basement floor >> they have uh they're going to use that space in the basement and they so they need some natural light. >> Okay. >> Also perhaps access uh safety access as well.
>> Okay. All right. So that's what those are. Okay. That's all I have. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, Steve. >> Um just a simple question um or an observation. the driveway. Was there ever any consideration for some sort of turnaround or something there or is or
are the cars going to attempt to back out on the bar clip? >> We haven't done a driveway design yet other than something to just show you how they're going to access in. >> Okay. So, you might >> whether they whether they do something in the future, uh that remains to be
seen, but right now we just simple in and out. >> Okay. because they might want to consider something like that because it might be difficult to get out on the bark backing out the way it's designed there. >> Yeah, but they're kind of up against the the Abutters property on the right hand side. You see, they're accommodating the
mouse lane folks by moving it. So, >> they're constricting themselves to some degree. So, whether this is the final driveway design or not, >> okay, >> we just wanted to show something. >> Okay, good. Thank you. >> And Lee, >> um, no questions. Thanks. Okay, I have
no further questions. >> Uh, I we'll move to um close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> Is there a second? >> Did you Dave, do your questions? >> Yeah, actually. >> Oh, do you have Okay, go right. Go right ahead.
>> Mr. Riley, the streetscape um because it's not 3D, it's very confusing to look at. you know, when you when you look at it and I'm I had trouble
with my depth perception uh of seeing then I went to you know the layout and all that but um I simply wanted to mention this is an excellent case where uh some sort of a 3D rendering from a drone or whatever would have been really
really helpful to me. I mean it's got nothing to do with the way I'm going to vote. just a simple suggestion and a statement because >> I can appreciate that. I had the I have the same problem. >> Yeah. look at it. But the the uh
uh I didn't have uh I thought the architect was going to be here to help describe things and that probably would have helped you a little bit, but >> Right. >> the uh you know, it's it is tough when the
>> I'm actually here. I'm actually here, Bill. I was having some trouble dialing uh getting unmuted. >> Oh, okay. All right. So, >> give us give us your name first.
>> Matthew Ryder with Niche Architecture and Interiors. And um and I'd be happy to share some 3D renderings with with the board um afterwards as well. But uh yeah, the the new addition is set back far from the from the front elevation. And that was important to us to one let
the historic front elevation shine and have the addition of the back be secondary which was also why the the ridges are aligned and we didn't want to create any hierarchy um issues with the addition. >> Okay, I guess that answers that question. >> Well, we we'll keep your suggestion in
mind, Mr. Nixon. >> Thank you very much. >> Actually, now that I can I ask a question? >> Yes, go right ahead. >> Okay. for the for the architect. So, um yeah, I had the same I had the same visual um I I I can tell by the bird's
eye view that the addition is set far back, but um this on on the rendering on A200, the proposed south elevation is very um difficult to really look at. And so my
question to the um Mr. I think you said Martin. Was that >> Ryder? >> You you mentioned that the back is going to be uh at the same ridge height, which was important for um but usually in
addition to an historic home is the the addition part is subordinate a even a little bit to the original house. Was that ever a consideration or did could you not meet what you need for the second story uh to make it subordinate to the
original home? >> We review that and um unfortunately with the existing ridge height and the the top plates that we we had to work with and um ideal roof pitches for roof shingles uh the math just worked out uh
in the manner to have them aligned. Well, you also we wanted to keep the form simple um with this with this T configuration. And if the addition ridge dropped below the main house ridge, there would have made for an odd like cheek wall view from the back and from
hole lane where the main house ridge popped up above a cross uh dishing ridge. So, aesthetically and then also functionally uh it made sense for us to keep the ridges aligned. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank You're welcome.
>> Any other questions? No questions. >> Okay. >> Okay. I'll uh I will um move to close the hearing. Move into deliberate deliberations. >> I second that. Vote yes. >> Votes yes. >> Steve votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes.
>> And Paul votes yes. Okay. Uh let's move on to deliberation center. >> Want to start with you? >> You're looking at me. Okay. I guess I guess I'll start. Well, um first of all, I'd like to say um that I even though I
I might have been um uh okay with not necessarily at least uh the previous iterations that some of them that came before us. this I find this to be um a vast improvement over
what we've seen before and uh especially uh the demo of the garage and the pool and the the site work and the moving of the driveway and all the issues that had come up with the neighbors and things. I I looked at this I said, "Wow, this this was all really worthwhile um and and
kind of worth the wait." So, I think it's um a quite an improvement and it is it and and it works uh with the existing house and and the work that's been done on that house. I think it fits in well. It fits in much better than anything
that was proposed before. Um and uh it's certainly not substantially more detrimental to neighborhood. It meets our criteria and I'm I'd be happy to support it. >> Okay, Mr. Nixon. Yeah, the things that Dave just said are
are correct. Uh, you know, I I don't believe when we look at our criteria that it's particularly uh compatible with the neighborhood because of what I just mentioned about the way it looks from the streetscape. But that's not a
reason uh to vote no. So, um uh is it Is it substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood? No, it is not. So, I will be voting yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh Jenny,
>> so I don't like the um how big of a box it is behind the historic house. However, I I do agree that it's not substantially detrimental and it is historic's purview. Um and they looked at it and they they liked it. So I I you
know listen to them. Uh I just wanted to say I I I just think that it and I I think it's because it's so hard to look at this flat picture probably set far back like it is but uh typically I think an addition a substantial addition to a
historic home is subordinate to the primary home which this is not. Um but I don't think that it's substantially more detrimental. So I I could support it. >> All right Steve. Well, yeah. I would like to to um to say that I appreciate
um the the yard being cleaned up, the garage being removed, the pool being removed, and probably uh this is going to be uh I'm sure there's going to be other amenities added to make this yard uh much neater and nicer than it is
currently. Um the issue that I have and I and I know that we're really not design review but the the addition it was just said that it was um made in such a way to be secondary to the the
primary house and to me it's not um I think it dominates um the original house. It it looks like it's trying to swallow it up. Um, so I'm not crazy about the design, but the fact that it
it uh was approved by the historic commission. Um, who has more to say about this? Um, you know, that I guess that goes a long way, but I'm not crazy about the design of this and and and I think it's harming
the original antique house. >> All right. Thank you. And Lee. >> Yeah. Well, um, we all know this house really well. We've been I drive by it every day. Um I think that um what's throwing a lot of us off is the flat
drawing because this is a you know it's a it's a long house and then you have the addition in back. I think that it's really hard to see it on a flat piece of paper and I agree with Mr. Nixon having had if we had had a 3D rendering I think it would have made all the difference in
the world. Um I like what they have done. Um, I think it's going to be um a good addition to the neighborhood and um, you know, I hope they take advantage of the backyard a little bit more too. I mean, they are losing a garage so we'll
see. >> Very good. U, I agree with my colleagues. I think that uh, uh, the comments made with respect to the addition and the fact that it should be more subordinate are correct. Uh the thing that really saves this is the
prior proposals that have been made for this property which are dramatically different from this and really harmful. There's been a lot of thought given to the comments made by the board with respect to the prior proposals. Uh and I
think that's helpful. Uh so I agree that uh it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. But can we have a motion? >> Yes. Uh I will uh move for um approval for um um
application number 25-11. Uh I think that this is a location where our our standard conditions um would should apply I would think. Um and I don't know if anyone have the thoughts on that or uh you want me to read it?
>> I think that sounds correct. >> Okay. So the um condition so and so and then further going back to what what the way Jay said, I don't think we need to make a special note about the plan given that he that that he can't issue a building permit with for those units
that are shown on this plan anyway. Um I don't know if you agree on that. We can also put >> I think I do. Yep. >> Okay. So the conditions then would be um all construction activity in vehicles be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the
property owner between June 30th and Labor Day. No exterior construction will be allowed. No work shall be permitted on the weekends. Construction activity between 8 a.m. and 5:00 pm only. >> Is there a second?
>> Yes. with the addition of of the four ACs listed. Uh when the plans are approved by members of the board tomorrow, uh we will X out the first two ACs that are closest to Barliffe,
>> leaving just the two in the rear. >> That's fine. >> Y very good. Uh and I vote yes. >> All right, David. Yes. >> Uh Jenny and Steve. >> And Jenny votes yes. >> And Paul votes yes. All right. Thank you
very much. >> That way they're gone and you know that's that. >> Sorry. We got to do something to get >> application number 25-112 Peabody Ter Partners 2 LLC care Robert
Bath 94A Commerce Park South South Chattam Mass 02659 owner of property located at 56 Billings Road also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 7A block 13 lot S50 the applicant seeks to enlarge extend or
chain a change a conforming dwelling in a non-conforming lot via the construction of a second floor addition. The proposed addition will comply with all bulk and dimensional requirements of the bylaw, but is considered a substantial alteration and under the second accept clause of section 6 of
Mass General Law Chapter 48, such substantial alteration requires the grant of a special permit. The existing building coverage will remain 1,98 ft, 15.3% where 15% is the maximum allowed. the law is non-conforming and that it
contains 12,500 square feet where 20,000 square feet is required in the R20 zoning district. A special permit is required under under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw. >> Mr. Lichfield. >> Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Bill Lichfield here on behalf
of Bob Vath who was in the rear. Uh Bob was aware that my Bucks Lane uh hearing in the neighborhood would not be going forward and he wanted me to speak about the neighborhood nonetheless. So here I am. Uh we are here for a very simple
proposal uh which is to add approximately 180 square ft uh to the second floor over the existing roofed area as shown there. There is no change whatsoever in uh coverage or
nonconformity. It is a very small expansion. So uh Bob can certainly answer any questions you have about the plans uh or otherwise. But if it's acceptable to you, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to go straight into the criteria. >> Please do. >> Uh as to adequacy of site, all the
neighborhood lots are non-conforming. Uh we have a relatively small house compared to others. Aside from the lot size, the sole nonconformity is on the sideline setback on the left or west side. The site remains adequate for this
180 square foot expansion uh over the existing roof area which meets all dimensional requirements without increasing coverage. This is a so-called Yorkland hearing and frankly it's not much of an intensification which is the uh guideline that has to be followed as
to compatibility of size. The third page of the handout, you will note that the existing house is compatible with its surroundings, lower coverage than several in a footprint of 1900 square feet. There's a minimal change in size proposed. Again, 180 square ft of living
area, but it will remain compatible as to gross floor area, uh, living area and coverage. Thank you. As Sarah has put up there, uh, the addition is at the rear far from the lot lines. As to the extent of increase and nonconformity, there is
none. whatsoever uh is the suitability of the site. Uh like many on billings, we are partially within the jurisdiction of the conservation commission. Uh but the conservation commission has already reviewed that they approved it under administrative review which is a
shortcircuiting of the process otherwise because they found it to be such a negligible negligibly small change as to scale citing mass views and vistas. Like many of the houses in the neighborhood, the house has been modified since the original structure, but it remains compatible as to mass and scale with
others in the surrounding neighborhood. And this modest change on the uh to the rear of the second floor will have no impact on the scale or mass. There's no change in sighting or streetscape. Uh the other factors are not really relevant to residential use. There's no
change in the number of bedrooms. What is uh at issue as you know is whether the proposed addition of approximately 180 square feet above the existing roof structure at the rear of the house excuse me with a marginal increase in
living area but no change whatsoever in coverage or nonconformities is substantially more detrimental than neighborhood. The proposed change meets all dimensional requirements of the bylaw and is is of a size or I think the word substantial is sort of inapp uh as
is for that matter intensification. When I first went out there after Bob asked me to get involved I felt a little bit like Admiral Stockdale and that I knew who I was but I didn't really know why I would be here today because it is such a small change. It's at the rear of the
lot, easily meeting the east and west sideline setback and some 50 feet from the rear butter. So, I think you can find based on the criteria in the plans in this location that the pro proposed change is not substantially detrimental. Bob and I would both be happy to answer
any questions. >> All right. Thank you. I'll ask if there's anyone here or on Microsoft Teams who would like to speak in favor of this application. Seeing none, um I'll read the uh correspondence
we have from uh Judith Giorgio uh health agent. I have no concerns regarding the addition and renovation at this existing three-bedroom dwelling. And then we have from the concomm.
Oh, the applicant has submitted an administrative review on February 18th, 2025, and the administrative review was approved and was conditioned to meet the performance standards under the Wetlands Perfection Act and the local bylaw.
So, we're set there. All right. Uh, I'll ask if there is anyone who would like to speak against this application or has a specific question. Seeing none, let's go on to questions from the board. Uh, we start with Lee.
>> I have no questions. >> Okay. >> Steve has no questions. >> Steve has none. Jenny, >> quick question. Mr. Lichfield, three bedrooms or four? The card says four. Oh, okay. Three. Thank you. >> Dave Beach. >> I have no questions.
>> And Dave Nixon? >> No questions. >> And I have no questions. I will move to um close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> I second that. Vote yes. >> And each vote yes. >> Uh Jenny >> Jenny votes yes. >> Steve vote yes.
>> And Paul vote yes. Okay. Um let's go in with our deliberations. Why don't we go back to Lee and see what Lee says. >> I think this looks like a great project. Um, it meets our criteria and
in in no way substantially detrimental to the neighborhood. >> Steve, >> yeah, I feel the same way. I don't believe that this is detrimental to anybody, that the setbacks aren't changing. It's not affecting anything else. I think it's a good project. >> Okay. And Jenny,
>> um, I agree it meets our criteria. And I wanted to comment that I do appreciate that the um request was not to increase the building coverage because they are already over. And um I thought that was good. >> Good Dave H.
>> Yeah, I agree with my colleagues and and I would like to this in in this example I very much appreciated uh the page uh that showed the perspective uh view um from four different angles. It was very helpful in visualizing this and uh so I
want to call that out. Um nice looking project certainly not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood meets our criteria. >> Dave Nixon >> I agree >> and I agree also. Okay. Do I hear a motion? >> Yes. Uh so I will move for approval of
application number 25-112. Uh I think this is a neighborhood where our standard conditions uh would be helpful >> and unless we hear >> could I inquire uh Mr. and you can't speak from there but tell me can you get
this done by June 30th? >> Yes. So no no objection to the conditions. So, uh, with that said, uh, the conditions being all construction activity in vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neighboring property with permission of the property owner
between June June 30th and Labor Day. No exterior construction be allowed. No work shall be permitted on the weekends. Construction activity between 8 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. only. >> All right. >> I second that and vote yes.
>> Okay. Uh, Jenny, >> I vote yes. Steve votes yes >> and >> V vote yes >> and I vote yes. >> Thank you very much. >> All right. >> Our next application 25-113 >> application number 25-113
Farad care of William G. Lichfield, Esquire, 330 Orleans Road, North Chattam, Mass 02650. Lesie of property located at 470 Main Street, also showed on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 15D, block 48, lot 89. The applicant proposes to
establish and operate a formula business clothing store under section 3C4 C of the protective bylaw. The applicant is and proposes to do business as a retail establishment which utilizes a standard array of merchandise logo and trademark utilized by 10 or more other businesses
worldwide. The unit contains approximately 969 square feet and is located in the GB2 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law Chapter 4A section 9 and sections 3C 4C and 8D2B of the protective bylaw.
>> Uh Mr. chairman. Uh I am on the abuters list for this project. So I will be recusing on this. >> Very good. Thank you. And we'll have voting in place of uh Mr. Beach um Lee Hubby. Okay. Uh Mr. Lichfield.
>> Good afternoon. Bill Lichfield here on behalf of Fairy uh which is a clothing store with approximately 82 or 83 stores nationwide. Uh they have two others in Massachusetts, one in at least that I'm
aware of, one in Edgartown and one in Nantucket. And they have uh they desire to open a clothing store in Chadam at the angled uh unit in the brick block. the old Rexall drugstore from many many
years ago. Uh Fairity uh is uh proposing no exterior changes whatsoever. Uh as you know, our formula business bylaw gives the town uh authority on appearance among other things of uh
formula businesses. Uh there is a lack of would I suspect be a lack of enthusiasm for McDonald's with traditional golden arches or things like that. This is about as far from that as could be. Uh as I said, there are no
exterior changes and the planning board has already reviewed this. It is a reproposed retail use in our downtown retail zone. We only arguably meet the definition of uh the criteria which
define a formula business. We have more than 10 locations and we have a somewhat standardized uh array of merchandise clothing but it varies from store to store. And as Sarah will show you, we brought along photographs of several
other stores and there is a variety of different merchandise. Some of their West Coast stores have surfboards. Uh those in Greenwich, Connecticut, probably have bow ties. Uh for Chadam's purposes, they might be selling Hawaiian
shirts. Uh we know that that goes over well with some members of the zoning board of appeals. But as you've seen from what sh Sarah is showing you, there is really no nothing particularly identifiable about a fairity location which would make one think of it as a
quote chain store close quote. It is a that's you know the west coast that's not Chadam and and they're not going to make any exterior changes. The signage is being reviewed by the HBDC. So as you know this is a what we'll call a straight special permit. Not a question
of substantial detriment, but somewhat similar criteria. Starting with adequacy of the site in terms of the size of the proposed use. Again, there are no changes, but we've already been approved of the site. We've already been approved by the planning board. A retail use of
this location has existed for decades actually because it was a Rexall drugstore in the 1950s. It's one of our original formula business sites. Parking is on the street in the municipal lot and there are on-site spaces at the rear. Uh Mr. Briggs and I have had
conversations with the property owner. Parking area in the in the rear is going to be cleaned up. Uh the property owner, again, it's not before you is also going to be finishing some repairs to the exterior of the building. That just for your own information rather than
relevant to this proposal as the suitability of the site. the site was created for and built um is completely suitable for retail use that it's a formula quote unquote has little if any bearing on the suitability and again the formulaic aspects are really marginal uh
as to impact on traffic flow and safety we are at the confluence of some sidewalks uh the formula aspects will have no impact on main street traffic as to the neighborhood visual character again no no exterior changes is relocated in the
century old brick block uh with signage to be reviewed by HBDC. The visual character of downtown is certainly not going to be negatively impacted by a 969 square ft uh shop uh that is connected with a national company particularly one
again with location specific uh merchandise and local touches. We have town water and sewer. There's no change there. All utilities are there. clothing stairs stores are not notably noisy. As the compatibility of the proposed use, the utail uh the use the retail use is
entirely compatible. Uh the decor, the merchandise, the interior layout are really not formulaic and they will in no way be incompatible with other downtown general business retail uses. No impact the natural environment. And as to the
final criteria which is relevant here uh as to whether there is an impact the neighborhood and the town from the visual character of this formula business there will be have there will be none uh there will be no changes to the exterior of the building. The signage is being reviewed by the HBDC
and the logo or name. My client may not be thrilled but frankly I'd never heard of them uh until uh I was asked to be involved. This this is not I was going to say Dunkin Donuts. It's no longer Dunkin Donuts. It's just Duncan apparently. Uh but this is the sort of
formula business which I think is innocuous. Uh and I think will be actually something very good for the town. Uh again, the formula business bylaw enacted in 2009 was I think intended to address a hypothetical fast
food business. It's been successfully employed by the town in guiding the design of the uh Cumberland Farms at the Rotary and of CVS down at Crawl Road to prevent cookie cutter appearance. But this business falls within the ambit of
the bylaw, which is perfectly fine as do for that matter some of our banks. Well, we used to have several. We're down to one, but that's a separate issue. And many real estate offices are technically formula business. But the formula aspects that will be seeable or visible
rather maybe the line the logo or the sign and somewhat standardized merchandise. But again that's common to other retail clothing stores. The use does not differ in its impact the neighborhood by dent of its association with a company which has more than 10
stores. Uh the neighborhood is the heart of the GB GB district and as you know the bylaw has as a goal the encouragement of commerce and protection of rights to earn a living. So this special permit as you'll recall requires a finding by you that the use will not
be detrimental to the established future character of the neighborhood or of the town and that the use involved be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the bylaw. I think that you can find that that is the case. Be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Um, all right. I will ask if there's anyone
here or on Microsoft Teams who would like to speak in favor of this application. Seeing none, I'll read the uh correspondence uh from the planning board. We have the planning board heard a change of use application for this property at their
12825 meeting and approved it without conditions. A copy of the approval letter is attached here, too. And we have a letter from >> Mitchell Rogers, owner of Buffy's Ice Cream.
Uh, I am writing in support of the special permit request submitted by Mr. Al Chang, whose property is adjacent to Buffy's Ice Cream at 456 Main Street. I'd like to offer some perspective based on my experience as a neighborhood neighboring business owner.
Mr. Chang has been an amenable and collaborative neighbor. His property provides open public seating which contributes to a more inviting and functional tree streetscape downtown. I also appreciate his efforts in helping maintain safe and orderly parking along
the way behind our properties a shared area where correspond cooperation is important. Regarding the topic of a prospective formula business tenant, I can speak indirectly based on experience. The current and past tenants of Mr. Chang's
building, including fat-faced and soft as a grape, have consistently been cons responsive, considerate, and easy to work with. Mr. Chang appears to set expectations for his tenants that promote a respectful, and collaborative environment among neighboring
businesses. I have no reason to believe any prospective tenant would be any different under his management. My support for this special permit request is grounded in the practical ways that Mr. Chang's property use has had a positive impact on the immediate area as
well as his demonstrated approach to selecting and managing tenants. On that basis, I would encourage the board to give his thought his application thoughtful consideration. All right. I'll ask if there is anyone who would like to speak against this
appeal or has a specific question. Seeing none, I'll ask if the board members have any questions. Start with Mr. Nixon. Well, my only question would be this location seems to be kind of snake
bit. you know, we've, let's say, we had Fat Face, we had Clare Murray Rugs, uh, Rexol drug, uh, and any number of other things. I, um, I'm amazed
that someone would take the chance on a retail store like this, which I presume, and I'm I had never heard of it, as you had not, Mr. Lichfield, but I presume this is high-end stuff. It isn't, you know,
things for 25 bucks and so forth. So, I'm just uh amazed somebody else would take another chance. I hope they don't take a long long lease. That's all. >> No. Thank you. How about Lee?
>> Are we questions or are we deliberations? No, I have no questions. >> All right. Any questions from Steve? >> I have no questions. and Jenny. >> No questions. >> All right. I have no questions. All right. Let's move into deliberations. So, let's close the hearing.
>> Do I hear a motion? >> I move that we go into deliberations. And I vote yes. >> All right. Move that to close the hearing and move into deliberations. Is there a second to that? >> Uh, I'll second that. >> Okay. And how do you vote? >> I vote yes. >> Steve votes yes.
>> I vote yes. >> And David votes yes. And I vote yes. Okay. So, we're in deliberations. Why don't we start with Steve? >> Um, well, I, you know, I can appreciate and I'm glad that someone's taking the
effort to clean up that property, um, and restore it the best they can. And I'm glad to see there's a um, you know, an upper scale business moving into that property. And I think they'll they'll uh, take good care of that corner. It's a very prominent and historic uh, corner
in town. and uh uh you know I I hope that they do well. >> All right, Jenny. >> Yeah, I agree with Steve's comments. Um it is an upper scale business. Um I did a little history read a little bit of history of the twin brothers. Their
story is very impressive. Um I welcome them to Chadam and I wish them success. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. And Lee. >> Yeah, I I agree with my colleagues. I think it's going to be great. Okay. Uh, and I think we've already heard apart from Mr. Nixon, I would say also, I had
not heard of Fat Face, I have never heard of Favoritities, but I'm sure they'll do very well. I'm sure. I hope that's the case. They certainly have exposure there. Okay. Do I hear a motion to approve the application? >> I move that we approve the application as submitted and there's no reason to
have any conditions. >> All right. Is there a second? >> I will second that. >> Okay. And how would you like to vote? >> I'll vote yes. Steve votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> Yes. He votes yes and I vote yes. Thank you very much. Application number 25-114
Jason and Katherine Olirri care of William F. Riley, Esquire, PO Box 707 Chattam, Mass 02633. Owners of property located at 121 Stage Island Road, also shown on the town of Cadam's assessor's map 14A1, block 9,
lot D40. The applicant seeks to enlarge extender change conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the construction of a partial second story addition. The proposed addition will comply with all bulk and dimensional requirements of the bylaw, but is considered a substantial alteration and under the second accept
clause of section 6 of master law chapter 48, such substantial alteration requires the grant of a special permit. The building coverage will remain 3,266 ft 9.4% where 10% is the maximum allowed. The law is non-conforming and
that it contains 34,72 square feet where 40,000 square feet is required in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General law chapter 4A section 6 and section 5B of the protected bylaw. >> Mr. Riley,
>> uh, good afternoon. This is one of those kind of applications where Mr. Nixon would challenge me to be done in two minutes. So the uh you've all been to the site. This is going to be an addition over uh a section in the rear of the building.
So it'll only be visible from the side street. It doesn't increase the um building coverage at all. And the design is very consistent uh with the existing structure. Uh
basically they're mod, you know, they're adding it so they can have another master bedroom on the second level. They're not increasing the number of bedrooms. It's the same number. So, it's a four bedroomedroom house today. It's going to remain a fourbedroom house.
I'll just run through the criteria, >> please. >> Uh, so adequacy of the size of the site, we're not increasing the footprint at all. So, the the existing coverage is 9.4 and it will remain 9.4. before. So, the site is adequate
compatibility, the size of the proposed structure with neighboring properties. Well, we're a little on the small side out there, but we are very much compatible. I think we have we, as we always do, we have the numbers on a
third sheet, but as you can see, uh this is uh not exactly a homeless encampment out there. So, increasing the non-conforming nature. It's just an increase in living space on
a non-conforming lot. Uh this our 40 zone, so we're a little short on 40,000 square feet and suitability of the site. We're not doing any excavation. So we believe the site is suitable.
Impact of scale sighting and mass on the neighborhood visual character. I think you know this is rarely going to be visible. uh just a side shot from people who drive around uh on Stage Island Road. So we think that uh it is
not substantially more detrimental uh than the existing structure. We think it's compatible with uh adjacent uses because it's single family residence. No change in method of sewage disposal.
Public utilities are adequate and noise and litter not a problem. No impact on traffic flow and safety and 11 and 12 are not applicable. So that'll be our presentation. >> All right. Thank you. Um I'll ask if
there's anyone uh in the audience or on Microsoft Teams who would like to speak in favor of this application. Seeing none, I'll read the correspondence. Uh we have uh from Judith Giorgio. This
property was approved for four bedrooms, a system installed in 2019 to install a fourth bedroom as proposed. No issues with the proposed plan. And we have from the tax collector that
there is currently an outstanding uh FY26 personal property tax balance uh which uh indicates uh property tax due for December 4th of approximately 86 uh dollars. Is that correct, Mr.
>> Sorry, what? >> Right. >> $86. >> I can't I can't hear you, Paul. $8628 76 78. Pardon me. >> I think they're okay. >> Has it been paid? >> Um,
you paid too much. >> Oh, it looks like Looks like you actually paid too much. by $86.28. >> Most of my clients are very generous like that. >> Ah, very good. Very good. Well, we're not going to hold that against you.
Okay. Uh, thank you. Uh, I'll ask if uh if there is anyone uh on Microsoft Teams or in the audience who would like to speak against this application or has a specific question.
Seeing now none. I'll go to the board and see if we have any uh questions from the board. Why don't we start with Mr. Dixon's familiar with this neighborhood? >> I don't think I have any questions. I you know, the neighborhood being a cottage colony, I think it's going to fit in very nicely.
>> Very good. All right. Are there any other questions from board members? >> Seeing none, do I hear a motion? Uh, I move to close the hearing, move into deliberations, and vote yes. >> Yes. >> Steve votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes
>> and Paul votes yes. Okay. Deliberations. Why don't we start with Dave Vich? >> Uh, well, as the uh occupant of a building that really truly once was a cottage. I I don't know about this cottage colony on Stage Island Road, but
um the this is a a a pretty straightforward proposal. Um it actually um is easy to uh understand by looking at the elevations as in this case. Um
and um certainly is not a proposal that's substantially more detrimental to the cottage colony neighborhood. uh and it uh meets our applicable criteria and I will support it. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Nixon.
>> I would also support it. >> Okay, Lee, >> if I were voting, I would support it, too. >> And Steve, >> I have no issues. I would support it. >> And Jenny, >> yeah, it's a beautiful home, large lot, uh complies with all the dimensional requirements, meets our criteria, and I
would support it. >> They certainly agree. It certainly is center stage, as it says on the house. itself. Um, okay. Do I hear a motion to uh >> I Yeah, I will move approval of application 25-114.
Um, I I guess a question would be about conditions. I'm inclined to think that we don't >> need the state. >> I don't think I don't think we need conditions on this one. Well, other than I I mean I think always the the activity in vehicles be
contained on site or property neighboring properties should go but but the um and also the timing of summer uh so I guess so I would propose this as as conditions. all construction activity in vehicles shall be contained on site or
on a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner and that uh between June 30th and Labor Day, no work should be permitted on weekends and construction activity be allowed 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. only. >> Yeah, acceptable. Clearly acceptable.
>> All right, there a second to that. >> I second that. >> Okay, let's take a vote. >> I vote yes. >> And Dave, >> yes. >> Jenny, >> yes. Steve and Paul Oas. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you.
>> Application number 25-116. John and Linda Kabinski, care of George Avery, PO Box 1016, Orleans, Mass 02653. owners of property located at 49 Cochel Drive. Also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 5D block 10 law
SMI4. The applicant seeks to enlarge extender change conforming dwelling in a non-conforming lot via the construction of an addition and deck. The proposed addition and deck will comply with all bulk dimensional requirements of the bylaw but is considered substantial alteration and under the second accept
clause of section six of Mass General Law chapter 4A requires the grant of a special permit. The existing building coverage is 942 square feet, 9.7% and the proposed building coverage is 1,251
square feet, 12.9% where 15% is the maximum allowed. The law is non-conforming in that it contains 9,714 ft where 20,000 ft is required in the R20 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter
4A section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw. Okay, if you would identify yourself, please. >> Yes, my name is George Avery. I'm the contractor for John and Linda Kimchinsky. >> Okay, thank you. >> Um, we wanted to in addition along with
the deck, uh, he has already spoken with Mr. Briggs and I'm here now. >> Okay. Do you want to address the uh conditions for u your project?
>> Um the only thing I see that's uh basically for the special permit is the deck. The deck seems to be closer uh to the setback than should be. Uh I have approximately 23 feet to the line
from the house and then 15.6 to uh the line from the proposed deck. That is I think that is why we're here. Are you are you familiar with the uh
conditions that we have for special permits? Pardon me. >> Criteria. >> Criteria. Yes. Do you familiar with the criteria that we have for a special permit? >> Thank you. >> What I'm going to ask you to do is just
address each of those criteria briefly with respect to the project. Um, we're within our size of the lot because it's already a non-conforming the proposed structure
um is within the neighborhood there. So, this house is approximately 25 ft above the road. There's nobody, you know, there there's a house to the the right of it uh that has nothing
um that's in our way or we're not screwing them up. >> Just read everything. Uh the sewer the sewer will be fine. That's still cuz we're not adding. We're taking off part of the house and
then we're putting on approximately 300 square ft more. And right now it's like a 930 foot house. We're taking off part of the porch and we're adding to make it a,200 square foot. So, you know, we're
we're deducting 300 but we're adding. >> Okay. I understand the general concept. if you can just uh read the criteria and then say how you comply with it. >> Yeah, I don't I don't see any >> read it out loud.
>> One to 12. >> Well, the first the first five or six of them >> adequacy of the size of the site including but not limited to maximum lot or building coverage and setbacks. >> Yes. Is the lot adequately sized for this project?
>> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Next criteria. >> Compatibility of the size of the proposed structure with neighboring properties. Um I believe this is smaller than neighboring properties. There's a house like right around the corner that's it's large, but it still fits.
>> Okay. And the next criteria >> proposed to increase the non-conforming nature of the structure or use. Um, it's still going to be, like I said, it's going to be adding on 300 square feet. We're still going to use it as a residential uh
livable space. >> And are you increasing any of the nonconformities? Are you >> um I I think only in the deck area >> and how is that being how is that affecting the nonconformities?
um by being uh five feet over or whatever you call um closer to the line to the setback on the side. >> Okay. >> Suitability suitability of the site including but not limited to impact on
neighboring properties or on the natural environment including slopes. None of this none of this building or what we're doing is going to do any of the vegetation. We're going to add bushes
and we're going to do hay around it so that nothing is running off down the hill. >> All right. So, it'll be compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. >> Correct. >> All right. Uh there there is a retaining wall there now that due to the excavation we need to take it out but it
will be placed back. >> All right. So you'll replace the retaining wall. >> Yes sir. >> Okay. >> Impact of scale sighting and mass on neighborhood visual character including views, vistas and street streetcapes. None of this is being impacted. If
anything they'll have a better view from their deck. >> All right. And in general, the neighborhood will have a better view in looking at the product. >> Correct. There um you know how you got people reply. There was a a a reply to
this permit stating they think it would make the neighborhood look better. >> Good. All right. Keep going. >> One more. >> What's that? >> One more. >> One more. Compatibility of the proposed use with neighboring uses. Yeah, it's all the same. They all live there.
>> They're all the same residential neighborhood. Residential. >> Correct. And from what I understand, John and Linda Kamchinsky are planning to uh they're not going to live. They're not retire. Never mind. They're not retiring
there. >> Okay. >> All right. Got it. They may have wanted to retire there, but they're not going to do it quite yet. >> Correct. >> All right. I got it. Thank you. Um, let me ask if there is anybody who would
like to speak uh in favor of this application uh on Microsoft Teams or in the pre in the audience. Seeing none, um I'll read the correspondence uh we have from Judith Georgio, the health agent. I have no
concerns regarding the addition to this existing three-bedroom dwelling to remain three bedrooms. And we have a note from uh Roger and Carol Nale of 227 Cole Cove Road.
Um we received in a butter letter asking for comments on application 25116 John and Linda Campensky's uh house on Cole Drive. We have no problems with their plans. The house, the new house looks quite nice.
All right. I'll ask if there is anyone who would like to speak against this appeal or has a specific question. Seeing none, I'll ask if there are any questions from the board. Why don't we start with Dave Vich? >> Um,
no, I don't have any questions at this point. Thanks, >> Dave. Nixon, >> I have no questions. >> Jenny, >> no questions. >> Steve, >> Steve has no questions. >> And Lee, >> no questions. And I have no questions. >> I will move to close the hearing and move into deliberations.
>> I second that and vote yes. >> And Vich votes yes. >> Genie votes yes. >> Votes yes >> and Paul votes yes. Okay. Um let's go into deliberations. Why don't we start with Steve? Um well I think this is a nice project.
It's it's giving them a little bit more living space. It looks like a a dining room. you're adding in a in a family room. >> Correct. >> A little bit more comfortable living has no impact on uh the neighbors. I think it's a good project. >> Okay. Thank you. And Judy. >> Yeah. I just wanted to summarize. You're
adding a portico small addition. >> Yes. >> Uh expanding the deck, adding a bulkhead and a run station. All those um meet our setbacks as you mentioned uh meets our building coverage uh appropriate for the lot size >> um and meets all of our criteria in my
view. and I would support it. >> All right. Thank you, Lee. >> Yeah, I agree with my colleagues. Um, I think it's a great project. It's very modest. Um, and if I were voting, I would be supporting it, too. >> Okay, Dave.
>> I agree with all previous. >> Yeah. In no way is this substantially detrimental to the neighborhood. >> And I agree with my colleagues as well. We haven't been out that road for quite a while, but as I remember, we take a right and go back a real turn.
>> Right past one that we did not too long ago. All right. Uh do I hear a motion? >> So, yes, I will move uh for approval of application number 25-116. Uh the only the question I might have of
Mr. Avery is are generally um in a tight location like this um we are inclined to we have a certain set of conditions and one of those that we will frequently put on is no um exterior construction between June 30th
and Labor Day. Is that something that can work for you? >> Um yes. >> Okay. Okay. So I will put so the the standard conditions are uh that um all construction activity in vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neighboring
property with permission of property owner and that between June 30th and Labor Day uh no exterior construction will be allowed. No work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. only. Thank you.
>> I have a question on that. Sure. Go ahead. If we're doing interior construction, am I allowed to cut outside? >> Yes. Well, I I don't know. No one's asked that question. Uh I I mean, I think uh
I Well, as a as a carpenter, I would be inclined to say yes, but I can only speak for myself. So, okay. Jay, what >> interior interior work only. They couldn't be doing anything No cut, no sawing outside. Just >> no clanking the ladders to paint the
house or any of that stuff. >> No. Did >> you hear that? Did you hear that, Mr. Avery? >> What was that? >> No exterior construction of any kind during that time frame from June 30th to Labor Day. >> So, no cutting outside. >> Correct. >> Correct. Okay. >> All right.
>> He's the boss. >> Yes, he is. >> All right. >> Okay. So, uh where are we? I lost myself. >> You made that and >> Oh, yeah. So, I made the I had the motion. >> Yes. >> I second and vote yes. >> Okay. >> And I vote yes. >> And Jenny
>> Jenny votes yes. >> And Steve votes yes. >> And Paul votes yes. Any questions? Just ask Mr. Riggs. Okay. >> Application number 25-117. William W. Daly and Barbara M. Dailyy. Care of William G. Lichfield, Esquire,
330 Orleans Road, North Chattam, Mass 02650. Owners of property located at 18 East Road. Also shown in the town of Chadam's assessor's map 2B, block 12, block K43. The applicant seeks to enlarge, extend, or change a non-conforming dwelling in a
non-conforming lot via the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a new dwelling. The proposed dwelling will comply with all bulk and dimensional requirements of the bylaw, but is considered a substantial alteration and under the second except clause of section 6 of Mass General Law
Chapter 4A requires the grant of a special permit. The existing building coverage is 1,492 ft 13.4% and the proposed building coverage is 1,662 ft 14.9% where 15% is the maximum
allowed. The law is non-conforming and that it contains 11,137 square feet where 20,000 square feet is required in the R20 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law, chapter 48, section 6 and section 5B of the protected bylaw.
>> Mr. Lichfield. >> Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Bill Lichfield here in behalf of the Daily family and Chris Daly is in the rear under the clock. Also with us is a very dedicated and patient Karen Kempton uh who can talk about the
details of the plans. The Daily family has owned this property for quite some time and uh as families change and generations change, they would like to make some changes to it. I know you've been out there on your site visit. Uh would it be best to ask Miss Kempton to
speak about the specific plans first? >> Please do. >> Karen. Uh, hi. I'm Karen Kempton, uh, designer for the Daily family. Um, Sarah, if you could pull up the existing plans of the house. Uh, so the goal of the project
was to have a more open uh, floor plan uh, for more room with for family gatherings. Do we have Yeah, there you go. Nope. Next one. Do you have the existing plans? >> So the um
there you go. Yep. First floor is on the right hand side and the second floor is on the left hand side. Um, so, uh, the existing house was built in the early 80s and has a living and dining room spaces that are only 11 ft wide. Uh, so the family has been using the existing
firstf floor bedroom as additional seating area. There is a onecar garage uh, attached to the house by a covered breezeway. There are two 11t wide upstairs bedrooms sharing a small bath. So knowing that we needed to increase
the living space, it was important to the dailies to keep the house visually modest in size and appropriate for the neighborhood. If we can go to the site plan now, by locating the house on the west side of the property and tucking the garage into the corner here, the um
the lot has opened up at the bend of the road so that uh instead of seeing the existing garage that's there now um you just see open open area. Um the garage
tucked into the corner is not visible. Um as you come around the corner then you would see it. The main house is a modest half cape with two doghouse dormers. If we can go to the f the front elevation. Yep.
Um and in a one-story singlecar garage that adds charm to the front elevation. The additive piece to the left is back 8 ft from the front of the house to keep the half cape front as the primary piece. The proposed ridge is 24T 6 in above the
top of foundation and that gives us uh 8 in of buffer for construction. Um and it is 4'5 in below the allowed ridge height. Brother and sister Chris and Mary Ellen Daly who share the house wanted separate
primary bedrooms, one on the first floor and one on the second floor. Uh both are located behind the garage so not visible from the street. We have kept the first and second floor um to a modest size of 2375 square ft. The
additional gross floor area in the basement is completely below grade and does not affect the visual size of the house. We hope that you agree that this would be an attractive addition to the neighborhood and is modest in scale while giving the daily family some much
needed living space for this next generation. And I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you Karen. Thank you Karen. And with that, I'll go into the criteria as to accuracy of site. Nearly every lot in the neighborhood, pardon me, is is
non-conforming. The existing house is relatively small and comparatively low at 13.4% in coverage. We are minimally non-conforming as of the street setback. I think the site remains adequate for the new home. Uh the dailies have owned
this house since 1990 and as Karen has indicated they'd like some changes and some more open uh floor plan. Uh the proposal meets all current requirements of the bylaw uh street sideline and coverage and at 1662
square ft it's very appropriate for the uh for the lot. As to compatibility of size again on the third page there is a comparison. The existing house is smaller than most in the neighborhood. Living area of 1,700 square ft on a
footprint of less than 1500 square ft. Coverage will remain uh compatible. Living area will as well as Karen explained much of the change in gross floor areas because of the full basement, but it remains a fairly modest change from what exists now and will be
comparable. As to the extent of increase and nonconformity, that's easy. There is none. and the sole dimensional nonconformity uh that to the street that setback will be eliminated. As the suitability of the site, it's typical residential neighborhood without any
environmental issues. The site has certainly been suitable for a house for the last 45 years or 42 years and will be if you approve the special permit. Uh scale sighting masses and vistas. It's a half cape. Now, there's a typo in front of you. A halfcape with a wing is
proposed appropriates for surroundings. While again slightly larger, what Karen has designed is of an appropriate scale with uh very little change in sighting uh except for the elimination of the sort of protruding garage. Uh there is
also neighborhood support for the proposal. The chair will read letters to that in that regard. Uh the compatibility of use is unchanged. It's purely residential and we have a title five for three bedrooms. there's no change in the number of bedrooms. Uh as
you are aware, uh the question for you to determine is whether the proposed completely conforming house with greater and more open but consistent living area uh and a far greater usefulness to the family is substantially more detrimental
to the neighborhood and on on a non-conforming lot. Again, what is proposed meets all design all dimensional requirements. Karen has done her usual good job of a traditional Cape design. The added living area will provide the family with
space that they need but still meets all zoning requirements. So, uh we if if the board would consider it, uh assuming you approve the special permit, uh we would like you to consider not imposing a
summertime restriction. And perhaps Chris Dailyaly, my client, can speak to that. But as to the basic uh proposal, I think that based on the criteria and the plans in this location, you can find that the proposed house is not substantially more detrimental to the
neighborhood. I think given that what Karen has designed is actually a very nice improvement. We'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. All right. I'll ask if there's anyone in the audience or on Microsoft Teams who would like to speak in favor of this application.
Seeing none, I'll read the correspondence. Uh, we have from Judith Giorgio, the health agent. Please be advised that the board of health has issued a septic permit for a new three-bedroom dwelling at this property and has no concerns at this time about
the proposal before you. Then we have a letter from Barbara Fel Fel. Uh, good morning, Mr. Briggs. Uh, hope you are well. I'm unable to attend a zoning meeting to be held December
18th to reference the above. The dailies have been in touch with me as our property abuts theirs. I have no problem with their demolishing and rebuilding as long as they don't violate setbacks. I do not however do not support however their intention to build during the
summer months. I was prohibited doing an interior renovation because of a non-conforming lot. I don't think it's fair that they be given permission to build during the June through September when the neighborhood is so busy, especially with little children around.
It was a noisy time last summer having to endure Kana building into the evening. These are my thoughts. Many thanks. Regards, Barbara FA and um then we have a note from Chris
Messerith. Dear members of the board, I own the property at 22 Longs Lane and I am writing in support of the application of my neighbors, the Daily family, to build a new home at 18 East Road. Chris Daly has explained the project to me and
as an a better, I am fully in support of this request, which will have no negative consequences on our neighborhood. I'm also aware that you're a board that often imposes limits on construction during the summer. And while I appreciate the intent behind that, I think it would be ultimately be
less disruptive to our neighborhood if work were allowed to continue during the summer. We might otherwise have to deal with an incomplete project for several months, which wouldn't be good for us and certainly not for the dailies. I urge the board of approval of appeals to
approve the special permit. Sincerely, Chip Messersmith. Uh, then we have a letter from Joanne Low, Lre. I am uh I own the property at 6 East
Road. I am writing in support of the application of my neighbors, the Daily family, to build a home, a new home at 18 East Road. Chris Daly has explained the project to me and as it better I fully support this request which will have no negative consequences for our
neighborhood. I am also aware the board uh often imposes limits on construction during the summer and while I appreciate the intent behind that. This sounds familiar. I think it might ultimately be less disruptive for our neighborhood if work were allowed to continue during the
summer. we might otherwise have to deal with an incomplete project for several months which wouldn't be good for us and certainly not for the dailies. Okay, that's the end of our >> Is there an address on that first letter? >> Uh the first the first uh letter came
from uh Barbara Fael. Uh >> and she does not give an address on that one, but I can see. >> All right. If I could, Mr. Chairman, one property owned by the lady is at 26
Longs Lane and the other is at 34 Longs Lane. She owns two adjacent parcels. >> Oh, yeah. >> Does that answer your question? >> Okay. Uh, so that's the end of correspondence.
Is there anyone here who would like to speak against this project or has a specific question? Seeing none, I'll go to the board and see if we have any questions. Why don't we start with uh Steve? Why don't we start with you?
>> Um I don't uh No, I don't think I have any questions. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh Lee, >> no questions. >> And Jenny, >> um Mr. Maybe this is a question for Karen. Um the rear elevation that's uh
shown in the image A1 Karen on your plans it's showing um windows like three levels of windows but the property now there was snow on the ground when we went so but I don't remember there being like a sloping backyard so I'm having a
hard time visualizing it because it's not at all what the height is calculated it differs a little bit from what's in the advertisement. 251. Your site plan says 256, but that's a short that's not a tall house. So, can you help me
understand where that that how how that reading is three stories in the back or two and a half stories? >> Those three windows are in area ways like basement um below grade area way. You can see on the site plan retaining
walls, the two retaining walls at the rear of the house, the rectangles. So those windows are below grade. They're they're you don't see them. >> Okay. All right. >> They're dug out. >> Okay. Okay. I can see that now on the site. >> It was more for the board's benefit. So
the board would get the complete feel of the house even though it because as car Karen said they are in an area way and not be visible. >> Okay. So it Yeah. It wasn't sloping as I recall. And so what was the reason for um I think Mr. Mr. Lfield, you said it
in your narrative, but this is a complete reorientation of this um house. I mean, it's pretty substantial moving over to the neighbor quite quite a bit. Um and and what was the reason again for for that? >> I Well, guaranteed the design, but for I
think one reason is having the garage sort of sticking out by itself was unusual and this would allow more open space and a feeling of of openness to the lot. Uh the neighbor to whom we're getting closer uh is the owner of six
who wrote in favor of the proposal and suggested that we continue through the summer. >> Yeah. Okay. Okay. And so the um the driveway it looked when we went for the site visit like the driveway was going all the way down that side, but it's not. That's the parking path.
>> Yeah. The as shown on the site plan, the the house is the end of the driveway, >> right? Okay. Um Okay. That's that's um and ca well Karen you you you can confirm that the height is 256
>> 246 256 from the grade plane calculation but in reality it's 24t 6 in from the top of foundation. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay.
>> Um well I guess the only question I would have is is it seems that maybe Bill you said something Mr. Daily might have something to say about when we we're going to be discussing the um timing of summer construction issues. So is there something >> chairman if I could ask Mr. Dailyy to
come forward? You can't speak from there. So I think one of the reasons is you know timing of construction and getting builders and so forth, but I'll I'll let Chris speak to that as to the summertime restrictions. >> Yeah, sure. >> Yeah. No, it we're >> identify yourself.
>> I'm Chris Dailyaly. Hi. um and and appreciate your consideration. Um the my only thought is well we're we're kind of chopping at the bit at at getting this going and getting it done as as soon as possible. So if if the board were so inclined to wave the the restriction,
we'd we'd appreciate that. Completely understand the the intent behind it. Um so yeah, I I don't have any other magic uh uh words. Um I I do have a question
though. The standard restriction the the weekends is it oil weekends that even excluding the summer like anytime? >> No, no, no. It's the the um we we're we are specific about it. It's during the
summer months. So that work isn't going on till 7 at nightur summer months. That's why we So but that's from June 30th to Labor Day with the standard conditions. Got it. >> So that's spec. Yeah. So the rest of the
year we don't have a say in that basically. >> Okay. >> Okay. So appreciate your consideration. >> Yeah. Well, I I mean it seems like there's been some correspondence about all that. That's so I want to just clarify and get it clarified. Thanks. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Nixon.
Yeah, I I'm concerned about the change in the setbacks to the property lines. And let's see, I guess this is south and west.
Yeah, south and west. that it goes from being boy 37 ft on one side down to 15 154 and in the back
there's a lot of the new house that is put where the old house wasn't and again the setback to and here I'm presuming the South is going to be 154
where before it must have been boy I don't know 17 >> 15.8 to the existing deck and 19.2 to the existing house. So that whole section of the house seems to me to be uh and while there was
no complaints from the neighbors, that's just jamming it too close to put this in within 15 ft. And when I look at the whole site plan, there's a lot of room. There's a lot of room. I love the
house, the current design, but I just boy, I'd like to see it turned and moved. Now, you can still keep it out of the septic system and all that. I I just I I don't understand why it has to be forced into that corner.
>> May be able to respond the the uh setback on the west side or left side, we exceed the minimum required. And as you know on the rear side or south side there is currently a stockade fence. So
and and we're we're we're again 15.4 to both of those sides. >> So having you know meeting what the the bylaw deems as required and particularly with the support of the
neighbor on the left or west side. I'm frankly unconcerned. Karen, if you want to talk about sighting and design, I'll certainly defer to you. >> Sure. >> Um, yes. So, when we were walking around the existing house, that side on the right hand side or the west side is
really underutilized. It's it's fenced in, but uh it's not it wasn't used. So, the idea was to place the garage tucked into the corner on on that side of the house. They did want to keep patio uh space on the south side. So where we
have proposed the patio is in the similar area of where the existing patio is. Um and then on the east side there's an existing deck which we wanted to keep in pretty much the same um the same
area. Um so uh the deck is really the setback on that side. We wanted to maintain the 24 25 ft from the sideline and again use the um the area on the west side of the existing house which is
really underutilized um by the family uh for the garage addition um on that side so that we could open up more of the lot as you're coming down the street so you don't see see the house directly as you're coming
around the bend. Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions from board members? All right. I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> A second. A vote yes. >> And Votes yes. And
>> Jenny votes yes. >> And Steve votes yes. >> And Paul votes yes. Okay. Um let's go on to deliberations. Why don't we start with Steve? Um well, I don't really have a problem with this uh application. I think the
living area is in line with um most of the other houses in the area except for a few. Um it is within setbacks. Although, you know, although it's close, it's still within the setback and it does open up the entire front yard uh
for other activities. Um, in all I think it's adding about 170 square ft or so over the existing house, but you're right up on that 15% coverage. So, you know, just be careful.
>> The board is becoming less sympathetic by the day uh for mistakes. So, be careful. >> All right. >> But other than that, I think it's I I I don't really have an issue with it. There's not much I can say. All right,
Jenny. >> Um, yeah, I um it meets the setbacks. It's a good height. It's it's a beautiful barefoot. Um, but you know, it just it looks like it's
such a larger house, I guess, in the rendering. And I was concerned driving around the neighborhood. I think I counted two homes that were um twotory. Everything was either one story or a story and a half. Um
and I mean this is a twotory does. So I I think that you're you're meeting really the numbers which a lot of times what sort of drives my analysis is is that but it just looked like quite a big change visav what's in the neighborhood. So, I was struggling with five, criteria
five, which is mass in the in the neighborhood of smaller homes. But I I want to hear what the rest of my colleagues say because um I'm I'm really not seeing mass um in the numbers, you know, on the site plan. Um but that was
a concern visually of mine in that neighborhood. >> All right, Lee. Um, well, first of all, another beautiful design by Karen. Um, I think it's so attractive and I know this
neighborhood pretty well as well. And it is tight. It is definitely tight back there, but I think that's what people are used to. They're I think they're used to having their neighbors fairly close. Um, this one I think is also subject to the fact that it's a flat
drawing >> and I think what will stand out is the center portion of the house. If you look at the floor plan, it's really not a big house. Um, so I think it's going to fit in really nicely. I like the reorientation. I like
opening up the yard. Uh, I I I think it's going to be I think it's going to be a nice addition. It's a beautiful house. Um, and if I were voting, I would I would definitely support this. >> All right, Dave H.
>> Yeah, I um I'm in favor of it, Jenny. I I think what I would say is that um I I don't read this as a two-story um building. I mean, I think you would it'd be considered a maybe a one and a
half to one and 3/4 story. I mean, generally a two-story you're really seeing a lot more than dormers and things on on the second floor. Uh, so I don't and and I agree with Lee. I think um, you know, it looks
on on the on the elevations, it looks perhaps bigger than I think it would appear if you if we were looking at a um, a rendering of it or you know, a view of it. And you know, I keep coming back to that it meets the all of the um
dimensional requirements of the bylaw. And so even though it might be somewhat larger than other homes in the neighborhood, I I think it's it's it's justified by the fact that it it it doesn't it meets
the requirements of setback law coverage, etc. And who's to say that down the road other other neighbors might seek to to make changes to their homes and that would make them larger. So I I think this is this is this is
it's a very nice looking design as we all um agree. I think and and I think it will fit in well and be a nice example of of a of a of a tear down and replace in that neighborhood. It's not I don't see it I I can't see it as being
substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood because of the concerns that that we're that we're thinking about. I don't agree about that part. So I I I will support it. I I think it meets uh I mean meets the requirements of the bylaw for sure and I don't think
that it's going to uh stand out in any way that that's not going to be uh an improvement. All right. Dave Nixon. >> Well, as I stated earlier, I'm not wild about u when looking at the site plan where
the home is going to go. It just to me it's it's yes, it's within the correct number of feet, but that doesn't mean it's right for the neighborhood, but um
everything else about it I I like very much. Certainly, I understand why. And um uh so is it substantially more detrimental? No, it's detrimental, but not
substantially more detrimental. So I will vote for it. All right. Uh I think the uh the orientation changing the orientation and making better use of the lot makes sense. Uh, and I I think the
uh site the the the placing it on the curve there uh really means that the the house is hidden until you're almost on top of it. Mhm. >> Um and the benefit will be to the
neighbors going on past uh on East Road there who will have a presentation of a nice home at the end of the road to them before they hang a right and then go out towards Pleasant Street and Long Lane.
So, it seems to me it will be an improvement to the neighborhood um and certainly not substantially more detrimental. Um let's have a little discussion if you think it's necessary about the question of conditions here. Um
we obviously have uh we have a couple of neighbors who have have indicated that they have no objection to continuing with uh construction and getting it done. uh with one person indicating that she has an objection to that.
Well, it's the two-sided >> thing that we we we periodically should examine, you know, because it's the um you're delaying the length of a if we put the the the condition on, it delays
the time frame for the project to be completed or can depending on how on timing of everything else. Um and um and for projects that don't
need to come before us, there is no those this this condition is generally there's no one to impose it. It's not it can't be part of the um building permit process or anything. So
I'm I given that they've sort of anticipated this and we have a couple of the neighbors of the one immediately budding and the close well they're all the most immediate butters the the ones that have weighed in.
I'm inclined to um to do the to not do the exterior construction part of the of the um conditions the other conditions the timing the week no weekend work the timing of work during the summer and the
um um construction activity to I think all those make sense but in this case I I I can see clear to um allowing them to do exterior construction during summer. >> And the only other further thing I would
say about that is that and I do say this and I said the landscaping activity that takes place in my neighborhood on a regular basis all summer long is far noisier than construction. So
>> anybody disagree with that analysis? I'll put it that way first and see if anybody has questions. Yes. Well, I I'm not voting, but I'm always in favor of the summer conditions. I just This is a tight neighborhood. >> There's a lot of uh renters that rent in
this neighborhood as well. So, that's just my two cents, but I'm not voting today. >> Uh Steve, >> yeah, I think we should uh to use our our standard conditions. There's a lot of houses around here, front, sides, and back, and I think it would be irritating
to have um construction going on during the summertime. >> All right. And Judy, >> well, I have kind of an interesting perspective, actually. Um I lived across the street from a construction project that lasted for over two years, and I
wanted them to get it finished. So, I I was, you know, not in favor of this summer delay when when I was the recipient of of that. and just finish it. And then just recently, my own home was in was board the board and I in a
very similar uh timing sequence and had the summer restrictions imposed on us, which I totally understand. So, um I and I would have preferred to have been able to start right away, too. So, I I I get the request, but I think that 99.9% of
the time when we have a tight neighborhood with a tear down, this isn't just like a renovation of a side part portion, um, we impose these. And I just think it would be unfair to not, um, impose them in this scenario, unfortunately. >> Okay. All right. Well, we've got some
general views then. Uh I think that maybe part of the reason why one uh uh letter came in in objection made reference to the Kana u construction which I think may relate to uh around
the corner on Long's Lane uh on the corner of Saltspray uh where there was some uh difficulty with the construction that took place there. was before our board here and uh that could be part of the reason why there was an objection
there because I think that was very disruptive uh as it turned out but um it sounds as if the general consensus would be for the standard conditions um uh do you want to pro it on that basis David?
>> Yeah I I I'll proceed that basis um um because I do I mean I and I would say I agree with what Lee had to say as well. I mean, I've seen I've lived next to construction projects for many years and and um and seen the effect it has on on
um renters and that can be difficult too. So anyway, so I will I will offer uh I that um move approval of um application number 25-117 uh with all of our standard conduct
conditions. Um all construction activity in our vehicles contained on site or at a neighboring property permission of the property owner. No exterior construction will be allowed. No work between between June 30th and Labor Day. No exterior construction will be allowed. No work
shall be permitted on the weekends. Construction activity between 8 am and 5:00 pm only. >> All right. >> I second that and vote yes. >> All right. Dave votes. >> I I vote yes. >> Jenny, >> I vote yes. >> Steve votes yes. >> Okay. And I'll vote yes.
>> Thank you very Thank you very much. Wish you all a merry Christmas. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Okay. We have some elections to take care of too. >> I would like to nominate as chairman
starting January 1st of 2026 David Nixon and as vice chairman Randy Potach. >> I'll hear if there is a clerk. >> Pardon me. >> Clerk >> and clerk I'm sorry clerk Virginia
Fenwick. Um uh so I'll move those nominations. Is there a second? >> Uh Dave V seconds. Uh and um votes yes. >> All right. Dave Nixon. >> I vote yes. >> Jenny, >> I vote yes. >> And
>> Steve approves the slate. >> All right. And uh I'll ask Lee as well. >> Yes. I vote yes. >> And Paul votes yes. Thank you. Um do we have anything else? I think that's it. I'd like to I had uh I requested Dave to
speak a little bit about the staff and case load that we had. >> Yes. Uh at this time of the year, particularly with what the year we've just had, it's important that we
recognize the input to us and the sacrifice sometimes that the staff makes. Uh dealing with the eight of us is I know a total pleasure, but it can be a real pain. So it's we shouldn't forget
that. Um, I'd like to start with our producer, Brianna. Are you out there, Brianna? And our executive producer, Mark. Uh, I I don't know how the two of you do it. I have trouble just pausing a
movie and then going back to it and wait a minute, I hit stop. Why am I back to the beginning of this thing? So, uh, it's a mystery what goes on about Outback, but you do a fantastic job. Thank you very much. Thank you very
much. Uh Shantel, how you how do you in your mind separate all the gab that goes on here and all all the talk that we've had? I don't know how you whittle it down into a few words, meaning several
hundred that what goes on. It's it's a marvelous thing. So, thank you, Jay. There's no better building commissioner or we can
>> no anyway no because all those other commissioners they believe in the word dimminimus and I know you don't look it's right or it's wrong it's a foot or it's not it's this or that but no your ability to
answer questions take care of the clientele that you have. It's super. So, thank you. And Miss Sarah, I know you hate to have me say anything kind about you, but
you are the best. Period. You are. I I don't know how you do it. I don't know how you've balanced all that's been thrown at you this year, but it's it marvels me. It really does. And thank you. Thank you. and to all my cohorts.
This has been a challenging challenging year and we're all sort of still smiling and at the end of the year I mean and that's a good thing and that's a good thing. So I look forward to next year and maybe maybe the workload will be a
little bit reduced although I don't see it and I was the one that said well what's another let's make it 12 on the eth. What am I crazy? I must be crazy. Anyway, so thank you all very much. >> Thank you, Dave. Um, I'll ask before we
adjourn if there's any public uh comment that would like to be made. >> Nothing. Okay. Uh, do I hear a motion to adjourn? >> I so move. >> Second. >> All right. I'll take a roll call vote. Jenny. >> Jenny votes yes. >> Steve votes yes.
>> Lee votes yes. >> Lee votes yes. Beach votes yes. >> I vote yes. And Paul Simple, I also vote yes. And it is for time >> 4:37 p.m. >> 4:37 p.m. Good night, Chadam. Thank you.
>> Pretty good.