Don't heat. Good afternoon everyone. This is the October 9th, 2025 meeting of the Cadam Zoning Board of Appeals pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28, 2025 signing of the of chapter 2 of the acts of 2020
25 extending certain COVID measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law until June 30th, 2027. This meeting of the Cadam Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted in person and via remote participation. Every
effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided far in the order. A reminder, persons who'd like to listen to this meeting while in progress may do so by calling 508945
44410 conference ID 745130517 pound or join the meeting via the link on Microsoft Teams uh on the posted agenda. This is a live broadcast and simoc cast on Chattam TV, but 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, hearing, or business item on the agenda during the
meeting when recognized by the chair. We start all um meetings with a roll call of all board members acknowledging that they um approve of this type of uh meeting structure and we ask that everybody shut off all cell phones and
um any noise gadgets that you have that make a noise. Take off your hats if you would. It's a policy of this board um that we respect our public forums and if you have any conversations that are going to be more than uh trivial just
please take them out into the um corridor. All right. So starting with a oh actually um the rest of the meeting goes as follows. Um anybody um participating on the call please provide
uh enough information so we know who you are. The hearing notice is read by staff o'clock on my right. You or your representative will present your your appeal or application. Anyone in favor will have up to five minutes to speak
and there'll be a clock up on the board uh reminding you of your time limit. Anyone in favor um of the application may speak for up to five minutes. Um I'll read and or summarize all the letters received by the board. Anyone
against or who has a question can also come up to the microphone and speak for up to five minutes. Applicant may rebut any testimony or anything that was read in the letters. Um members of the board will ask questions to anyone present,
hear further information, close the public hearing, deliberate and vote on the application. All votes are taken by roll call and at the end of the meeting we will close via verbal confirmation and note the time of adjournment. So
starting with roll call. Um so tonight we are missing a couple of people but we do have more than five. Um so we have enough people that can vote. Um and also just as a reminder it takes four out of five votes to uh prevail on your
application. a supermajority on regular meetings of the of the uh ZBA. Okay. So, Ed Actton, I approve this meeting format. David S. Nixon, I approve. Paul C simple, I approve. Lee Harvey, I approve. Virginia Fenwick, I approve.
And Randy Podash, I approve as well. Um, see, minutes first. Yep. All right. I think we have the minutes of the meeting of September 4, 2025. I'll move to approve those minutes as published. Uh, Ed Actton, I second that.
There you go. And how do you vote? And I vote yes. And before actually we go through the vote, does anyone have any changes on September 4th? Yes, please. Um, only that I probably can't vote on them since I was not present. Okay. Um, go ahead then. You vote yes.
Uh, Ed votes yes. David, yes. Paul votes yes. Jenny votes yes. As do I. Okay. September 11th. I move to approve uh uh that we adopt the minutes of uh September 11, 2025 as published.
Uh Ed Actton, I second and approve. Uh Paul Paul also approves. Um Jenny approves and as do I. Okay, we got that done. And now uh application, we're going to start with one that we believe is going to ask
for a continuence. Um that is uh 20 L Street application 25-055. Um whenever Sarah is ready she will read 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 under section 4 A3A of the
protective bylaw. The lot contains 28,100 square ft in the R20 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 9 and section 8D2B of the Chattam Protective bylaw. This was continued from August 14th, 2025.
Welcome, Attorney Lichfield. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. I would respectfully request that this matter be continued further to December 18, a date suggested by Sarah. Uh the delay results in problems with
getting the engineered plans uh in a final form which are acceptable to the conservation commission, the applicant and you. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened yet, but December 18th either they will be or I'll not be involved thereafter.
Okay, then Paul, I'll move to approve the requested continuence to December 18, 2025. Uh, I second and approve. And I Paul votes yes. I vote yes. Jenny votes yes. As do I. Thank you.
Okay. And just incidentally, voting today is going to be um associate member Ed Actton, um Paul Simple, Associate Member Lee Hy, Jenny Fenwick, and myself, uh Davis here. He will be deliberating, but he won't be voting
today. Okay. So, um go ahead Sarah. Application number 25-089, John and Alyssa Bell Antonio, care of Timothy Kelly, 20 Buckwood Drive, South Yarmouth, Mass. 02664 owners of property located at 20 Taylor
Lane, also shown in the town of Chadam's assessor's map 13C, block 12A, lot T1. The applicant proposes to install an exterior mechanical system appliance pool equipment 20.6 ft from the seller Leia Butter where a 25 ft setback is
required. The property contains 23,68 ft in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 9 and section 8D2B of the protective bylaw. Welcome. Timothy Kelly, I presume. Yes, ma'am.
So, if you just want to say your name for the record and tell us what you'd like to do. Uh Tim Kelly. I'm the owner of Precision Pools and Patios. Uh we built a pool for the Bellantonios and um we're just looking for a special permit to uh locate the uh equipment pad behind their
shed. It's actually pre-existing now. So, we're just trying to uh it's proactive. So, um asking for forgiveness instead of permission, is it? Okay. Um have you seen the special permit criteria that you're supposed to sort of go through or I can help you with it if you haven't
seen it? Um just to show that you're you're uh have a legitimate application that follows our bylaw. Yeah, I thought I did when I when I looked at when I did the uh the application. Um it's just part of the hearing here. Okay. Um I can go through it with you.
Okay. Um so do you think you have enough uh space there? Um adequ adequacy of the size of the site including but not limit to maximum lot building coverage and setbacks. Get enough room for this? Yes. Yep. Uh compat compatibility of the size
of the proposed structure with neighboring properties. Is it essentially your run-of-the-mill? Yes. Okay. Good. Um, so it's not non-conforming. Um, right. No, actually,
oh, I'm sorry. That criteria. Okay, there we go. Um, do you have any impact on traffic flow and safety? No. And, uh, visual character. Does it look all right? You can't see it from from any roads. It's not bright orange with purple stripes or anything like that. No.
Um, and uh, does it affect sewage disposal, water, or drainage? No. No. Very good. Um, and you have enough utilities for it in public services. No noise and litter essentially. Okay. Very good. Um, all right. Sounds
like you have a situation that's uh before us legitimately. So, um, does anyone have any question? Oh, no. Let me do this right. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application? Please let make it known if you want to speak in
favor. Seeing none, we have one note from a health agent and that was received on October 7th, 2025 attached. Hold on.
Oh, it's so short I couldn't even find it. No concerns. Thanks, Judy. I've never seen one that short. All right. Very good. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak against this application or has a
question? Seeing none. Any questions from the board? No. I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. Uh I second that. And vote and vote yes. Paul vote Paul votes yes.
I vote yes. Jenny votes yes. As do I. Okay. Deliberations. Jenny, why don't we just go right down the roll? Any deliberations that you'd like to share? No concerns. Thanks, Jenny. Uh, no concerns either. I think it's it
meets our criteria. Well, I'll go with the flow. No concerns. Okay, Ed. Um, works for me. And Dave, anything? Nope. That was a no. Um, and I don't have any either. So Paul, um I'll uh I'll move to approve the
application as submitted. I'll second that. And Ed votes yes. Paul votes yes. I vote yes. Jenny votes yes. And and as do I. No conditions. So as you were. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Have a great day. Okay. All right. Whenever Sarah's ready,
we'll go to the next application in a moment. Application number 25-080 James and Anne Azinaro care of William G. Lichfield Esquire 330 Orleans Road North Chattam Mass 02650 owners of property located at 227
Vineyard Avenue also shown in the town of Chadam's assessor's map 11C block 11 lot D131. The applicant seeks to construct atgrade steps under section 4 A3A of the protective bylaw. The lot contains 11,90 square feet in the R20
zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 4A section 9 and section 8D2B of the protective bylaw. Welcome back, Attorney Lichfield. Thank you. Good afternoon. Bill Lichfield here on behalf of Jim and Annara who are in the rear. Uh we are
here for a standard special permit um not a non-conforming one. And we recognize that it can sometimes be difficult uh for you in your site visits to envision what a project will ultimately look like. As an accommodation, we
constructed the steps for which we are asking your approval to make your life easier. Uh I I don't mean to make light of the situation. Uh those of you who have been on the board for any length of time may recall that back in 2021 uh I
represented the eyes and arrows and obtaining a special permit for some changes to the house. The changes were done uh and their uh landscape architect or builder whoever it was put in the steps. uh they are in essence we think
innocuous uh but they do need approval because they are within the conservancy district. So uh of course the chair went through the criteria for a special permit brilliantly last time but I will go through them myself as I suspect she would prefer as to adequacy of the site
in terms of the uh size for the proposed use. We have a 12,000q ft lot which is typical for the neighborhood and is adequate for those yellow highlighted atgrade steps as the suitability the site is suitable for the steps made
necessary really by the topography in order to access the lower portion of the lot. The bylaw as you know requires your review for this sort of a structure in the conservancy district. There's no effect on traffic flow and safety. No impact on neighborhood visual character.
They are below sight lines at the rear of the lot. Uh and without impact on neighborhood visual character, no water and sewer uh issues or utility issues. No noise and litter as an accessory accessory residential use. They are
compatible, pardon me. And as to impact the natural environment, the steps are preferable to the potential for erosion and for that matter even an unpaved path in the coastal conservancy just requires a special permit. There have been multiple
discussions since uh this issue arose with the conservation a Mr. Whiteitman and he indicates that the commission awaits only a field change uh request subject to your approval for the commission to finalize their review. That's the essence of my presentation.
As you know, a special permit requires a finding that the use will not be detrimental to the neighborhood uh to its established or future character or the town and that the use involved is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the bylaw. I think that it is
I think you can find these facts and circumstance senses that the grant of a special permit is warranted. Be happy to answer any questions. All right. Thank you. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wish to speak in favor of this application? If so, raise your hand.
Seeing none, I will read the one correspondence and it was from the conservation commission received on September 18th, 2025. And the proposed steers will require a field change request to the order uh that they have
already made as as uh council indicated. Okay. Anybody here on Microsoft Teams wish to speak against this application or has a specific question? No. All right. Questions from the board?
Anybody? No. Well, I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. Ed actton seconds. Paul sample votes yes. I vote yes. Jenny votes yes. As do I. Okay. Deliberations. Let's try
this again. Judy um atgrade steps are um you know access to the water is a common thing that we see um and it was something that was a wasn't approved before because it didn't
come up before but I would have approved it if it had come up. So are you good? I I agree with um with Jenny. I think um they're useful they look nice and they meet our criteria. Yep. and Paul, they certainly will not be detrimental
to the established or future character of the neighborhood and town and the use will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the bylaw. Ed, very well said, Paul. And uh no noise and litter and uh impact
on neighborhood or town visual character. We won't see that either. Just to round that out. And um I'd like to have a house that required stairs. So um very nice. Very nice. Uh Paul, I'll move to approve the application as submitted.
Ed seconds and votes yes. All votes yes. I vote yes. Jenny votes yes. As do I. It's unanimous. Congratulations. And see where we going next. Looks like we're going to uh waste a
pawn furong application number 25-084 the Eva Jack Trust care of Matthew Barowski 126 Plum Street West Barnstone Ma Mass Mass 02668 owner of property
located at 67 Oyster Pond Furlong also showed on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 13E block 27A lot R27 the applicant proposes to change, alter, or expand a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the construction of an addition. The existing dwelling is
non-conforming and then in that it is located 23.2 ft from Oy Oyster Pond Furlong to the north, 28.1 ft from Oyster Pond Furlong to the west, 28.4t from Tabitha Terrace, and 22.4 ft from the southerntherly leutter. The proposed
addition will be non-conforming and that it will be located 28.4 4 feet from Oyster Pond Furlong to the west where a 40 foot setback is required and 22.5 ft from the southerntherly leutter where a 25 ft setback is required. The existing building coverage is 1,608
ft 15.8% and the proposed building coverage is 1,758 ft 17.3% where 15% is the maximum allowed. the law is non-conforming and that it contains 10,160 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 protective bylaw. Welcome. Hello there. Uh my name is Matt Barowski, agent for the property owner. Um we're proposing a basically a 10 by
15 addition off the front right corner of the house. Um, it uh we're uh I'm not sure where you need me to go from here. I need you to look at the special perma
criteria, the one that has 12, but you don't have to do the last. Got it. All right. So, adequacy. Um, again, it's non-performing. It's already reached over some of the setbacks, and that's why we're here with you today. The addition we propose is not going to
protrude any further than the existing structure. There still be a slight setback on the addition from the main house front elevation. Um compatibility uh it's we're not changing the style or the look. Still using the
same finished materials. Uh and it seems to be within the same scope of the rest of the neighborhood. Extend the Um, again, we're here for the non-conforming issue. Does it impact neighboring properties or
the environment? Nope, not at all. Uh, including slopes, vegetation, wetlands, groundwater, water bodies, storm runoff. It's not going to change the grades at all. All right. Very good. How about the impact of scale, sighting, and mass on N neighborhood visual character? That's
important. including views, vistas, and streetscapes. How's it going to look? So, it's gonna it's going to look pretty much the same. We're just extending the shed roof design um off off that front corner. So, uh we're not making it any bigger or wider than the original
structure. Um so, I don't think it's going to impact the neighborhood or the hook of the neighborhood. Okay. And traffic flow and safety any not just in the summertime, there's probably going to be some conditions that we're going to talk about later. Um that's a an area that's pretty sure
Sure. Yeah. Uh and you have enough utilities, public services. Yep. No change to the utilities. And uh Okay, sounds good. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams who wish to speak in favor of this application? Please make it known.
No. Is it okay? The one letter from our health agent. Let's see if she can go even shorter this time. Uh no. No. Okay. Judith Giorgio tells us on October 7th, 2025, no concerns existing dwelling on
sewer. Very good. Lucky them. Um, is there anybody here in Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak against or has a specific question? Sir, I see your hand up. Plus, I can tell by your body language that you're walking towards the
microphone. Uh, for the record, Brian Phillips, 374 Leans Road. Um, it's already over the lot coverage. Um, and it's, you know, and then we're expanding even further into the lot coverage. Um, we're up, you know, that's pretty high. Was it 17.8%. So, that was my only concern. Thanks.
Yep. That's definitely a factor. Um, okay. Anybody else has a question or would like to speak against? No, I already read the Okay, questions from the board. Let's start with Jenny again.
Uh, a quick question for you, Mr. Borski. Um, it looks in the floor plan like the So, what you're really doing is squaring off that corner. We're creating more of a dining area. So, and is it re is it inset at all? Um, it looks like on the floor plan it's a
slight inset from like it's it's not it doesn't line up completely with the front of the house. That's right. We we did set it back about a foot. We're trying to create a flow through from the living room to to the dining area. Yeah. Yeah, because the setback is actually the step back is a is u is
attractive. Uh but I do and I also want to make sure I um am interpreting this drawing right. The chimney right now you see the whole chimney the bottom and now it's going to be inset into the um it'll be it'll be surrounded by the structure and now you'll just
into the roof. Yeah. Okay. Um that's all I had. Thank you. Do you have any questions, Lee? Paul, do you have any questions? No questions. Ed, uh, one question for the applicant or or for Sarah is I'm just wondering how you
got to the 15.8% lot coverage over the 15%. I don't know. Um, the house was built in 1964. Um, I believe at that time it was probably since it's only a 10,000 square
foot lot, it was probably done under the original R10 zoning. Okay. Um, so the setbacks and coverage would have been a different allowable amount at that time. So it wasn't something that was approved by the board earlier or No. Okay, that's it. Thank you.
David Nixon, do you have any questions? No. Neither do I. Paul, I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. Ed. Edens and votes yes. Paul votes yes. I vote yes. Cheney votes yes. As do I. Okay. Deliberations. Ed.
Um I don't see any issue with it. It it seems to to make sense. Certainly not going to be uh detrimental to the neighborhood and uh um I would support it. And David Nixon.
Yeah. In relation to Mr. Phillip's comment. Uh, usually when it's over and somebody wants to go over that, it's a real concern to the board and it was to me, but I took a look at it from the
side. This would have been from the neighbor's driveway. And I thought it blended in well enough that for me to rule that it was really detrimental to the neighborhood would
not be true. So good. Thank you. Uh, Jenny, well, I I had the same concern as well when I was reading it, but um the pre-existing uh zoning is a is makes sense. That's
why it's 158. And also the reason it's such a small addition. It's 139 square feet. Um the and and the reason that that ma makes the building coverage jump so much is because the lot size is so small. So
um I want to assure the Mr. Phelps also who who made the comment and and anyone else who's who's watching that we do look at that and we are concerned when building coverage goes over but it it seems um very plausible and um I I think
the project is meets all of our criteria so I I would support it and Lee yeah I agree with my colleagues um it's it's very modest um it makes sense um even though the building coverage has gone up um as as Jenny said the lot is
so small. So, um I will support it as well. And Paul, yes, I think the building coverage concept is flexible enough to deal with this issue. So, uh I will support it as well. And uh it it does fit in with the neighborhood. That's a a great street
and um you know, there's a lot of larger houses than that there. Um and then I would say that we always have to be mindful, you know, of if it's substantially detrimental to the neighborhood. And it's hard to say that this could ever be substantially detrimental. Some things are in our
opinion, but not this. So Paul, I'll move to approve the application as submitted. I think given the location, um I would suggest the normal conditions that uh all construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the
permission of the property owner between June 30th and Labor Day. No exterior construction will be allowed. No work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8 am and 5 pm only. That'll be on your order, just so you know. Um, uh, Ed vote Ed seconds and votes yes.
Paul votes yes. I vote yes. Jenny votes yes and as do I. It's unanimous. Congratulations and good luck. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right, we are moving right along to uh 76 Marsh View Road. Sarah
application number 25-083 Mary Hope Helestein and Robert N hein care of William G. Lichfield, Esquire, 330 Orleans Road, North Chattam, Mass 02650. Owners of property located at 67
76 Marshbby Road, also shown in the town of Chadam's assessor's map 8C, block 11, lot S72. The applicant proposes to change, alter, or expand a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot be the demolition of the existing deck and the construction of an addition. The existing dwelling is
non-conforming and that it is located.9 ft from the Coastal Conservancy District. the proposed addition will be non-conforming and that it will be located 3 feet from the coastal conservancy district where a 50-foot setback is required. The existing building coverage is 1,62 ft 15.5% and
the proposed building coverage is 1,238 square ft 18.1% where 15% is the maximum allowed. the lot is non-conforming and that it contains 14,528 square feet of land area and 6,856
square feet of buildable upland area where 20 thou 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 protective bylaw. Welcome council. Thank you very much. Good afternoon.
Bill Lichfield here on behalf of Mary Hope Helenstein and Bob Henstein who are over to your left. Uh the Henstein family has owned this property. If I'm not mistaken, Hope, it's it's been in your family for a very long time, about
60 years. Uh and they would like to make some additional use of the property. I know you've been out to the Hardings Beach Hills neighborhood fairly often in recent months. Uh this is however a very modest expansion on the rear of the
existing home. Uh maybe Sarah could bring up the revised elevation which I think is an improvement as you know from the time that we filed the petition back in August. Uh we subsequently submitted
uh a revised elevation which I think is a more attractive roof line although it will really only be seen uh from the the marsh to the north of the house. I don't think anybody over in Young's Farm Road is going to pay much attention to it. But I think it is a a preferable uh
elevation preferable visage for to those to the degree that it can be seen. So, what we're proposing to do is basically uh replace part of the existing deck on the north side of the house and to make the existing seasonal sun room living
area. The house itself has uh right now living area of less than 900 square ft a very small home and Hope and Bob would like some additional room, no additional bedrooms, and they decided not to go up.
They didn't want to do that. They simply wanted to convert part of the deck uh to living area and to do the same with the conversion of the sun room. So we'll go into the criteria all as to adequacy of site including building coverage and
setbacks. All of the neighborhood lots are non-conforming. Our lot has about 14,528 square feet coverage of just under or just over a thousand square feet at 1062 square feet which is at the lower end of
the neighboring properties and we have like everybody on that side of the street uh typical proximity to the coastal conservancy district but the site is adequate for residential use and it has been since the house was built back in 1961.
If you approve the special permit, you can do so based on a finding that the site is adequate for the additional living space at the rear. It's to be built, as I indicated, on the existing deck and by conversion of the seasonal sunroom coverage increases, but only by
176 square ft. And the 18.1% number is a mis bit misleading as I'll get into. As the compatibility of size of the neighborhood, we have a typical Harding Beach Hills lot with a footprint uh of,62
square ft, living area of 888 square ft. uh if you approve the special permit while the uh proposed addition increases coverage from 15.5% to 18.1% of buildable that seems kind of like a high number
but I would ask that you look at the third page of the handout because the Henstein own the lot next door a vacant lot which is going to stay vacant and in fact the assessors have recently merged the two lots for assessing purposes so
we don't have 14,000 square ft, we have 26,000 square ft in terms of our lot or the available land which can be attributed to this property. So the uh using the 26,000 square foot number our actual coverage and because we don't
have buildable upland for all the lots as you know I ordinarily use the total lot size our existing coverage is going from 4.1 to 4.8% 8% a very very small number. That vacant lot that you see on the right hand side before you get to
the Henstein property is owned by them and it's not going to it's never going to be built on. So I think our our coverage number the 18.1% is somewhat misleading. Uh so the the special permit if you approve it will
result in the size of the home being consistent with the neighborhood. Obviously, the gross floor area and the living area increased, but it is still lower than all but one other house in the neighborhood on that chart. Even without using the additional lot, the
actual hard number is still very small as to the extent of increase and nonconformity. As Sarah read, we are non-conforming as to lot size as to buildable and proximity to the coastal conservancy district. But there is no increase in nonconformity. We are set
back further from the coastal conservancy district than is the existing house as the suitability of a site. The site is suitable for what's there now. Notwithstanding the setback for the top of the bank, which again is found throughout a neighborhood built
under prior zoning before the FEMA maps and let alone the current FEMA maps which raise the Sulfur Springs uh elevation or the the line from the Sulfur Springs wetland raised are considerably higher. But I think you can
find the site is suitable for the addition at the rear. Conservation has already re reviewed this and finds it to be a minimal change. They are waiting for your review before they will finalize there. As the scale citing mass views and vistas, what is there now? The
existing house is a cape typical of the neighborhood. It's set back from the road meets the sideline and street setback requirements. It's really without any negative impact on views and vistas. And approving the special permit won't change that. Sighting and the
facade or streetscape will be unchanged. The added living area is at the rear. Uh the scale remains in keeping with surrounding properties or no impact on views and vistas either individual or neighborhood. As the compatibility of use, we have uh residential use which
will continue. Water and sewer. The health agent has written another lengthy commentary saying that she has no concerns no traffic flow and safety, noise, litter or utility issues. So the question is whether you know as you know
whether this proposed addition at the rear providing some necessary living space in a house which has been in the petitioner's family for more than 60 years is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current structure on a non-conforming lot. The additional space again will be built
largely on what's there now on the deck and through conversion of the sun room. It's set back further from the uh marsh than is the existing house and conservation has reviewed it. The alternative is to go up uh for the additional living space but that would
have increased mass and had a greater impact the neighbor neighborhood visual character and the streetscape. Here the Henstein have proposed something that is sensitive to the neighborhood but which also accomplishes their goal which I think is an understandable one with an
882 square ft house or a living area of 882 square ft. So in light of the criteria and the plans in this location I think you can find the proposed changes are not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Is there anybody here on
Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor of the application? Seeing none, I'll read the one correspondence that we do have from Judith Giorgio October 7th, 2025. No concerns for addition and deck to
existing three-bedroom dwelling. We we don't have a letter from conservation yet, but we're going I believe if everybody's okay with it, we'll just take your word for it. Um we know where to find you. We we as as the board knows uh permission from all relevant boards
is necessary. So if they didn't like it, it wouldn't happen. Right. Absolutely. Okay. So um is anybody here in Microsoft Teams that has a question or wishes to speak against? Yes, sir. You know what to do and way to go.
Brian Phillips, 374 Orleans Road. I just want to keep it consistent. So Mr. O'Reilly uh doesn't think I just pick on him. Um I think it's not, you know, good to build within the conservancy uh districts or, you know, the proper setbacks and then um the lot coverage,
but they have owned the house for 60 years. And Mr. Lichfield did make a good point when you put the two lots together, it doesn't, you know, go over. But um that's all I have to say. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else want to ask a question or speak against?
No questions from the board. Ed? Um, no. I I don't have any. Well, I guess one question. Is it I assume it's going to be built on peers or Yeah, it is. Okay. The uh I believe that is shown on the
plan, but but that is my understanding as well. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Mr. Nixon, any questions? No. Uh Paul, questions? Just one question. Is there a merger of the lots here? What's What's happening? Interesting question. They're land court lots. Uh so to get land court to do
anything takes a court action. Uh the assessors have decided that it makes more sense for their purposes to merge them. Legally they will always remain two court two lots absent an es petition to land court which is not worth
anyone's trouble. So when you say it's not buildable uh is that just because these people don't plan to build on the other lot? I had the insufficient build of Balopland. Okay. On the other lot. And if I could, Mr. Actton on the first page of the of the
plans. Yes. On Pierce. I have no other questions. Lee, no questions. And Jenny, uh, the the Paul's questions. I I was confused by the that that lot is not buildable. And it's um it's funny when
we pulled into the to do the site uh visit I I said to the Lee and Dave that I was with I'm like I wonder who owns that lot. Um so now we know. Um no I don't have any additional questions. Thank I was wondering when you said impossible
that strikes my interest. So you said it's impossible. Is it really? Is there nothing that you put on there? Highly unlikely. Okay. Thank you very much for that. If you it I don't think you want to dwell on it, but if you look at the site plan, there is only a small portion of
it which under current FEMA regs is buildable upland. Okay. Uh Sarah just showed the area in question. It's just interesting. We have a little extra time today, so we might as well irritate you, but okay.
Um all right, Paul, I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. Ed seconds and votes yes. All votes yes. I vote yes. Jenny votes yes. As do I. Okay. Deliberations. Ed. Um
the adjoining or the merging of the two lots certainly makes it much more palable. There's no increase. Um uh certainly not substantially detrimental to the neighborhood. I I don't think anybody's going to really notice it except perhaps across the
marsh as you said. So, um, I would support it, Mr. Nixon. Yeah, it would be very difficult to find that this was substantially more adapteral to the neighborhood. Indeed, Paul, I agree with my colleagues.
Lee, I I agree with my colleagues as well. And I think that um the difference is is that there was the deck there, which doesn't count as building coverage, and now they've got a room with a roof over it, which I think looks really nice. and
I will support it. Yep. And in in addition to what my colleagues have said, they're pulling the deck back a couple feet from um from conservation, which is better and looks better, too. But even before I knew about the extra
lot, I um it's it's very similar in my mind to the one that we just heard where they're already over 155. Um and they were again very small addition, very modest 176 um additional gross floor area um
and um in build building coverage uh 176 square feet increase in building coverage. So, it's a small amount. And again, the reason the number goes up to 18, which gets your attention, and we don't like to see that, the lot size of 6,800 square feet is is making the math
do that. So, I was actually um before I even knew about that, comfortable with it. So, I'm comfortable with it. That's a good sign. I if if I could just very briefly to to put a because you have all the time in the world. Put a gloss on that
coverage I think deals with mass and size. The change in the flood zone line doesn't change the size of the lot. This lot has got 14,000 square feet. It probably had eight or
10,000 square feet of buildable upland under the 2014 under the old flood zone maps. The line moved to the landward which reduced the buildable upland to 6,800 or square feet or whatever it is,
but the addition doesn't have any impact related to the the coverage number. So it it's sort of an illusory number. I understand why we have to use it, but you know, there have been cases where the board has appropriately
um allowed coverage of 200% of buildable upland because the lot had very very little buildable upland, but it's had a house on it since 1950. That sort of example. So, I appreciate you having mentioned that, Miss Fenwick, because it's it's very true.
Yeah. that uh and it's 1961 so it had the similar R10 I'm I'm assuming that the other one had which was yeah 1964 so um no thank you for that additional information okay so um I have nothing to add and uh Paul
I'll move to approve the application as submitted with the conditions I think standard conditions here that all construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner between June 30 and Labor A nose exterior construction which shall
be allowed. No work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. only. That work for you? Okay. Ed Ed uh seconds and votes yes. All votes yes. I vote yes. And he votes yes. As do I. It's unanimous.
Congratulations. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. Now we're on to our second to the last penultimate as I like to say. Uh 25-086 PayMe LLC Sarah
application number 25-086 Payme LLC care of John Cassell PO Box 254 East Sandwich Mass 02537 owner of property located at 202 Commerce Park North unit 1 also shown on the town of Chattam's assessor's map 5E
block 11A lot X1 the applicant seeks a dimensional variance from the required setback for a roof overhang which was constructed 0.1 ft from the Westerly abutter where a 5- foot setback is required. The property contains 22,300 square feet within the industrial zoning
district. A dimensional variance is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 10 and section 8D2C of the protective bylaw. Welcome. Just your name if you would and then uh tell us what what's going on. My name is John Cassell from Wickham Building and
Remodeling and I also have Matthew Witam of Wickham Building and Remodeling with me. Good afternoon. Very good. So, previously we were in front of the board where a variance was granted for the roof overhang lean to um we
constructed it exactly as we applied. Um posts are in the proper location. However, we're all done and the roof is up and the overhang's there and now we have an issue with the roof overhang
overhanging the posts which we didn't believe was um considered uh since it's not on the ground. So, we're here before you um to get the dimensional variance for the one inch from the property line
for that overhang the rafter tails as it protrudes. um for all the reasons as previously stated in our prior application. Okay. And um so as you know because you've been here before, there's three
variance criteria. Um do you feel Let's go over them. Okay. We'll do it together. owing to circumstances relating to soil conditions shape or topography of the land or structures and especially affecting land or structures
but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it's located. Um and then the second one is a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance or bylaw would involve a substantial hardship financial or otherwise to the petitioner and that
desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially dergating from the intent of the purpose of the bylaw. A variance is an extraordinary zoning remedy and no one
is entitled to it and we can only grant that if we find all three of those requirements listed below are true. So do you want to go through them at all if you would? I can speak to those as I did before. Yeah. So the uh owing to circumstances
really any soil conditions, shape, topography. Um there was no there was no uh change to the structure made as was approved by the zoning. Um the structure is exactly how it was proposed and uh how we
constructed it. I think the issue is that the eve overhang with all the uh finishes of drip edges and drip overhangs and stuff like that really uh you know aid into some of the setback. So I think that that that meets that
criteria. The literal enforcement of provisions of ordinance need bylaw involve substantial hardship financial otherwise and the petitioner. So, the hardship I believe was um the gentleman who owns the property owns a shellfish
processing plant and he was told by the health department that he needed some sort of coverage back there to be able to process or not not even necessarily process but to store equipment, totes, uh pales, stuff like that that he was using to process without um being
contaminated. Right. But what's the hardship for the fact that you made it wrong? Um well it ended up being wrong due to the fact of how you have to follow the building code building the structure. You have to add all of these building uh
uh mechanics to the overhang. You need the rafter tails. Um and it also has to look appropriate for the area. So we don't feel it would be detrimental uh definitely not to soil conditions because it's up in the air. The roof overhang that is
right. But okay. Um, I know it's difficult. It's confusing, you know. I I get that. Um, but we're we're trying to ask you about how it's a hardship for you to go ahead and fix this so that it meets the building code. And
so, if we were to go and fix this to meet the existing variance to be in line with the posts, yes, we would have to cut the rafter tails off and then it would look odd. Would it still serve the purpose that you're trying to have with the coverage?
Well, the the overhang um excuse me, the roof overhang coming out from the building. Yes. But I'm not sure how we would finish it. Um it you can't just cut the rafter tails off. There's there's asphalt roofing. There's drip edge. There's there's
things that you need to keep it weathertight. So, in order to it would be difficult. It would be difficult. It would be difficult. It will cost money and time and energy, right? Yes. And it would also look odd. It wouldn't match any of the
building aesthetics. Yeah. Okay. We were trying to achieve. Okay. And um you don't think that the way it is now that it's not, you know, it doesn't conform to the law? you you're basically saying that um it it
doesn't really affect public good substantially considering where it is on the left side of the building. I don't know if it's north or south, but left side of the building almost to the rear of the building. Uh no, I I don't believe it does. Yeah. Okay, fair enough. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that
wishes to um speak in favor of this variant? In favor? Yes, sir. Brian Phillips, 374s Road. It's tough because I kind of have questions, too, but it helps out the business, right? Of course. Absolutely. So, I mean, if we're helping out like a local um you know, business, especially
fishermanmen, you know, maybe we can overlook that. Thanks. Okay. Uh anybody else? No. Uh okay. Letters from anybody at all? No. No letters?
Um, is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that has a question or wishes to speak against? Seeing none questions from the board. Lee. Yeah, I don't really have a question.
I I tried to warm them up a little bit for you, Jenny. Questions? The rafter tails. Are those the two sides that Yes. go down that are uh I don't know. 12 feet. I mean 12 inches from 13 inches.
It's that projection. Yes. Okay. And they um you're you're so n 8 and a half inches or something. Is that what you're n of a foot? And you can't cut that rafter tail off. It's the whole eve.
It's all of them beam. So there's like a fascia board. So, John, there should be a pointer up there. You have to stay at the microphone. You have to You have to say the microphone when you talk or you'll get knocked. It's not necessarily that trim right there. It's the trim that wraps straight
across the front of that hole. It goes all the way the whole length of the structure. Each each it there's that much. Yeah. Uh is there another drawing? That's all you gave us for the building permit and you hadn't submitted anything with your application?
Three, four. How How long? It's about 34 ft long. So 34 feet, there's that much in 34 feet, 16 16 inches on center. All of that would have to be cut off. Okay. It isn't it isn't just those two pieces on the end. No, ma'am.
Okay. Um is there any way I noticed that the um what do you call the the pier? It's um is that able to be moved? Would that help? I guess that wouldn't really help. So, so the diamond pier was cut into the existing concrete patio uh
slabs and the reason the diamond pier is there at the previous meeting was they wanted to get as much space as possible to wheel um what are those called? Oh, it became a issue with how he his loading dock the existing loading dock
that was there. If we move those peers any closer to the existing loaded dock, it would have been a hazard to liability. Unload the trucks to be able to maneuver his um dolly around there. He didn't want
something to obstruct him in that sense. So um I mean we're talking eight inches before you you were had four feet you needed. Right. So, how about the the part that connects to the wall of the existing building? How is
that affixed? Can that be cut off and it moved in? Because you can move those pilings, right? Because they're It ties in underneath the eve, directly underneath the eve. So, we wouldn't have to we wouldn't be able to elevate it to be able to move everything in. We would
have to It would be easier to move the post. I mean, not that it's easy, but it would be easier to leave that attached temporarily support the whole structure, remove the post and beam, move everything back. Mhm. And then, you know,
you can't you can't move the post back because of the loading dock. You can't move it 8 inches. It becomes a little bit about moving the post. Well, whatever. We're we're hoping not to move the post because then it becomes
hard harder to maneuver in there. But correct. But not like before where it was 4 feet you needed. Now you're 8 in. Um Okay. It sounds like you can do it. It's just complicated. Costly. Huge. Hugely costly.
It's hugely costly. And it does affect their business because if there was ever a potential injury, it would affect them largely. All right. So, can you just explain again how you are um meeting criteria
two, which is if we literally enforce this um the the hardship is a financial one. Is that last time? Well, I don't want to get into last time because last time's variance is is separate that there's not a modification to a variance. It's there's a whole new
variance. Um, safety was a big part of your argument the the previous time the hardship was around safety, wasn't this time you're saying it's financial? Well, I think it meets a lot of criteria. I think it meets the financial criteria and I think it meets the safety
criteria and I think it meets the the coverage criteria that the health department is asking him for. Uh he's had um state health administrators back there telling him that he needs to have a certain amount of coverage for his storage totes and stuff like that that
he uses to process his um fish as it comes in. And that's true for 8 in. I mean all the area that he can get is true for sure. I mean he's a he's a bustling business. Not that he's like making a pile of money but he's definitely bringing in enough stock where 8 in could make the difference. So
yesterday was when I did the site visit and it was pouring down rain and the rain is now going over into your butter which is they didn't write in but that that's you know there's there's an impact beyond to
you. Um all right I don't have any more questions. Thank you Paul. Do you have questions? I guess my only question would be if we turn to the building commissioner, were the was this uh constructed in accordance with the plans
that were submitted? No. If it were, it would meet the 9/10en of a foot setback that the variance was granted for. The asbill came in at 0.1 ft, which is an inch and a quarter. So, that's the difference. That's why they're here today.
I haven't seen it myself, but my inspector's been out there. Okay. Um, I have no other questions. David Nixon, questions? Nope. And Ed Actton, questions? Yeah, one question. The the how much of
the overhang is beyond the posts? Eight inches. Eight inches. And And how much o uh And how far off are you from the plans? 8 in 8 in. So it was
10.8 in 10. Oh, I believe the approval was 10.8 inches before and now they're an inch and a quarter. So the difference between 108 and one and a quarter. So Oh, okay.
So you'd have to basically just cut the rafters back to be flush with the uh your supporting post. Correct. Okay. Okay. So, so just for our listening audience in in the event there is
anybody out there that's so confused. Um when we saw you last time, we were very compassionate about the fact that we didn't want shellfish to bake in the sun. Right. That's my memory. I did not go back and watch it. I admit it. I often do. But that was my memory. We
don't want shellfish to bake in the sun. Put your roof on. But you were supposed to stay a certain amount away from your butter. What was that? Who who remembers that? Sarah. Uh 0.9 inches, which is 10 and or 0.9 ft, which is 10 and 3/4 in.
So we said, "Okay, but stay 10 3 inches from your neighbor." No. 10.9 in or nt, which equals 10 and 3/4 in. Okay. So we said stay away from your
neighbor to that extent. And then you had building plans and you did it, but you didn't follow what you were supposed to follow, right? And now you're awfully close to the point where your runoff is going on your neighbor. Does that sum it up? Sounds like it. Yes.
Yeah. You your runoff is going on the neighbor. And have they told you that they don't like that? No. Nothing. Nothing. Have they told you, Mr. Building Commissioner, that they don't like that? I'm not aware of that. No. Okay. But um anyway,
that so we just for anybody listening and and even Mr. Phillips, we were very compassionate to the bu to the builder and we we gave them a variance and we found that they fit. You know, we did that. And so now they didn't follow along and they put us in a very
difficult position. So I just want you to understand that we're not, you know, I'm not Judge Judy, just so you know. And uh and we're and we're not that we're not that group of people that are trying to be vindictive or uncompassionate, are we? Do you think we are?
Not at all. We don't believe that at all. No. No. Okay. So, um that's the end of my questions. Paul, I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. Ed seconds and votes yes. Paul votes yes. I vote yes.
Jenny votes yes. As do I. Okay. Now, we're going to do deliberations. and we're looking at the three criteria for a variance as we must do. Ed, you're voting. Um
I I don't see how it beats our criteria quite honestly. Um and I don't think the fix is u necessarily that difficult. I think we, you know, a saw and, uh, you know, it's
not like you're in a historic district. You know, you're in a commercial area. It may not look great. I agree, but I think there's an easy fix there. And, um, it does not meet the criteria for a variance. Mr. Nixon.
Yeah. If I were voting, u I would find that um criteria number one, there's nothing special about the It really isn't. Number two, uh the
hardship doesn't work for you folks. It's self-generated. You can't have a self-generated hardship. And I'm afraid I would have to vote no if I was voting.
And uh Jenny, I'm a compassionate person, too. Um I I don't believe they that you meet the criteria. I'm sorry. Um but you you
Yeah. For the reasons Mr. Nixon said, it's a self-generated hardship. And I I just I don't think that um that you meet any of the three. I'm sorry. And you have to meet all three. Uh yes, I I I agree with my colleagues as well regarding meeting the criteria.
And I think I spoke last time, granted it was a separate hearing, but um always in support of the local businesses, especially the shellfish and fishing industries. Always. Um, but I I hope that you guys can fix this because um I
don't think you're going to get the variance. And Paul, do you Well, they've put this in a difficult situation. It's unfortunate. U clearly unfortunate. Um,
I'm wondering if uh if they were to request a continuence whether they could come up with a solution that might make this uh work in some way. Uh perhaps if they had some outside consulting. Um it might might take it out of the
category of a real problem. Well, I'm open-minded to that. Are you folks? I think we're just going to go ahead and fix what we need to and I think we're going to just move the post that way we get a little bit of an architectural as much as it it will be of a cost to
us. We want to do that for Jesse Rose cuz he's a good friend of mine. I went grew up and I went to school with him and I Sure. Yeah. Okay. want to provide him a service and not make his building look even worse than it already does. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. We feel it has to match the upper the upper overhang and the lower overhang.
We we just feel aesthetically it's, you know, even though it's way far back, we just we're going to know about it. So, you're going, you know, understandable. So, you're not going to ask us to vote. You're just going to withdraw. You want us to vote? You can you can vote. Um,
so do you want the denial or do you want to withdraw it? However you guys want to vote. We're willing to accept whatever you guys want. Why don't we withdraw Why don't we withdraw the application, please? That That's nice. Very good. So Paul, I'll move to to grant the requested
withdrawal u without prejudice. Edens it and votes yes. Paul Paul votes yes. I vote yes. Jenny votes yes. As do I. It's unanimous. Thank you so much and good luck. Okay. Thank you. Yep. Thank you.
All right. Now we're going to go all the way over to 158 Woo Trail. Janet Yoner 2014 revocable trust care of Christopher Cannon. Sarah application number 25-088.
Janet M. Yoner 2014 revocable trust care of Christopher Canon. PO Box 2011 Chattam Mass 02633. Owner of property located at 158 Woo Trail. Also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 13A2, block 11,
lot N1 173. The applicant proposes to change, alter, expand a non-conforming dwelling on a conforming lot be the construction of a partial second floor addition. The existing dwelling is non-conforming and that it is located 25 ft from the Westerly Butter and 20 ft from the coastal conservancy district.
The proposed addition will be non-conforming and that it will be located 25 ft from the Westerly Butter where a 40ft setback is required and within the 50-foot setback to the Coastal Conservancy District. The existing building coverage will remain 3,650
ft, 9.1% where 10% is the maximum allowed. The lot contains 40,300 ft of buildable upland in the R4A zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law Chapter 4A section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw. Welcome.
Thank you. Uh good afternoon. I'm Chris Cannon uh representing uh Bill and Janet Yoner. And uh this is pretty much what uh she's just said. It's just a second floor addition 201t to uh put two on suite bathrooms to two bedrooms that
already exist. It's all entirely over uh first floor uh structure. Both uh pieces of the first floor have uh full or have crawl spaces or slab beneath them. So um there's already foundation there to do
this. um does fall uh within the um the setbacks um and um you know it's but it is where it is. It's not adding any uh new nonconformity or increasing any nonconformity. So uh as to the adequacy of the site uh
well we're you know it's it is what's there and and uh it's a big lot. Uh it's just that they're all 40,000 square feet of of uh upland in that neighborhood. uh even though they're all fairly large parcels, uh compat compatibility to the
size of the proposed structure. Uh all the houses down that way are about the same size. They're really pretty big houses. U so I don't think anybody will ever uh see much and they're all spaced out. So I don't think you you'll feel this extent of the proposed increase in
non-conforming nature. Um again, we're not increasing the nonconformity. Uh suitability of the site, I think it's pretty suitable. We're not changing the bedroom count or putting on any additions other than just going up a little bit. We're also uh well below the uh the height of the existing house and
what the bridge u impact of scale sighting and mass. Again, I really don't think there's any impact because there's nobody out there. They're all so spaced. Um and uh compatibility of proposed use with neighboring uses. Uh it's always
going to be residential and there's no change. Uh adequacy of Methodist sewage disposal. Well, we are adding two two bathrooms, but bedrooms are the criteria that really we have to go with there. We're not adding bedrooms. Um adequacy
uh impact of traffic flow and safety. Have you been down there? There's no traffic whatsoever other than maybe a few landscape trucks. Um noise and litter. Uh right now uh the house is undergoing its uh 50,000 milei
checkup and we're reshingling it and there are bins down there to put all the uh the litter and noise is it's just an somewhat of a non-issue down there. Um, so this is just part of an ongoing uh
process that's happening all winter to upgrade all the finishes of the house, including windows and roof and trim and whatnot. Uh, adequacy of utilities, no change, and that's pretty much it. We're not in the uh flood plane. We're at the edge of
it. All right. Very good. Is there anybody? It looks like there's no one here and no one online. So, I'm not going to ask the silly question of do you want to speak in favor because uh that would be impossible speaking of the
word impossible. Um I will read the one correspondence from Juth Giorgio, our health agent. No concerns from the second floor dorma editions with bathrooms. And that was from October 7th, 2025.
Is there anybody here, obviously not, that wants to speak against or has a question. So, we'll skip that. And can I also just add, I'm sorry that uh we did have an administrative review done by conservation and it was approved.
Okay. Yeah, we're a little behind on that paperwork today, but that's okay. We'll we'll take your word for that as well. Um today, um any questions from the board? Let's start with Jenny. No questions. And Lee,
no questions. Paul, no questions. Uh, no questions. And Dave, no. And just because we had extra time, we've already been through. Does anyone have any questions or does he want to speak against any of that? No. And I I really wave the rule
on that, just so you know. I never do that. Um, okay. Paul, I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. Uh, Edens and votes yes. Paul votes yes. I vote yes. Jenny votes yes. As do I. Okay. Deliberations. Ed,
putting you to work today. Um I I think it's a a nice thoughtful addition to the property. Certainly not detrimental to the neighborhood. Um I I think uh after everything weathers, it's it's going to look like it was always
there. Yeah. And Paul, yeah, I was uh interested to see all the work that's already being done there. Uh it's quite a bit of work and uh as he says, it's a 50,000 milei checkup. I could probably use one of those myself.
Um so I I certainly don't see it as being detrimental to the neighborhood in any way. Lee, I agree. I think it meets our criteria and I think it's going to look like it's always been there. Yeah. And Jenny, uh, no change to building coverage,
modest, um, increase in floor area. Really nice what you've um, your rendering here of the proposed. It looks nicer than it did before. And I uh, meets all of our criteria. I would approve it. Yep. And as I agree, there's a lot going
on up there. Um, they actually had a drone that was taking pictures. Maybe it was for your advertisement. I don't know. Somebody's advertisement. on me. They're online uh Facebook or whatever it is. So, um Okay. So, Paul, do we need any conditions?
I guess my question would be, are you just going to continue the con the construction that's going on right now? Yeah. And when do you expect all of that to be finished? Uh it'll be finished by next summer, you know, by probably in May at some point, I would imagine. So, do you think we should be imposing
any of the normal conditions here? I mean, it's pretty isolated area. Yeah, it's very isolated. Um, they're eager to get going with the the uh addition piece. So, and I I don't imagine this addition uh in framing is is going to and finishing the outside is
going to take longer than a month and a half to two months. And I noticed that most all all the construction uh activity and and vehicles and so forth were on site. So, that would be continuing. Yep. Okay. I'll move to approve the application as submitted. Ed. Edens and votes yes.
Paul votes yes. I vote yes. Jenny votes yes. As do I. It's unanimous. Congratulations. Thanks so much. And we'll see you next time. All right. So, we need a motion to adjurnn and acknowledge what time it is. I'll move to adjourn.
Edens and votes yes. I vote yes. Wall votes yes. I vote yes. Jane votes yes. As do I. And what time is it? 3:15 p.m. All right. Good evening, Chadam.