Okay, the light's going to come on in a moment. [Music] Heat. Heat.
[Music] [Music]
Good afternoon everyone. It's 2 PM and it's April 24th, 2025. This is the meeting of the zoning board of appeals in the town of Chattam, Massachusetts. Pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28th, 2025 signing of the chapter of chapter two of the acts of 2025
extending certain co measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law. 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 assa access 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 1508-945-4410 conference ID 8245436 pound or join the meeting online
via the link in the posted agenda for Microsoft Teams. This is a live broadcast and simo cast on Chattam TV Xfinity channel 1072, but despite our best efforts, we may not be able to provide real time access. We will post a recording of this
meeting on the town's website as soon as possible. In accordance with town policy, the public can speak to any issue or business item on the agenda when recognized by the chair. And just so you know, you will have up to five minutes to do that. Um, and there will
be a clock on the screen um for any um comments for or against applications. First, we do a roll call of all board members. Then we ask if anybody participating uh via the phone will make their names known. Um, and
we'll also see the last four digits of your phone number. The notice is read by staff. Zack on my right. You or your representative will present your application. Anyone in favor of the application may speak for up to five
minutes. I will read all letters received by the board. Anyone against the appeal or application will have time to um express that and if there's any questions at that same period of time for up to five minutes. Then uh the
applicant can rebut any testimony that they've heard that they disagree with. We will then ask questions to anyone present. Um then we hear further information and then we close the public hearing. Once the public hearing is closed, there'll be no further um input
from anybody else. It'll just be about the board deliberating. After that, we will vote on the application or appeal usually but not always. Uh votes are taken by roll call. Applicants need four votes of uh
in the affirmative, a super majority in order to prevail. We have uh eight members of this board. Um seven of us are here today. Voting will be Virginia Fenwick, um Paul Simple, David Nixon, David Vch, and myself, Randy Podash, but
for um at least one of the applications, Ed Actton will be voting instead of Paul Simple. Okay, let's see. At the end of the meeting, we will close via verbal confirmation and note the time of adjournment. So, first we're going to
have a roll call members of all board member roll call vote to um to say that they um approve of this uh form of meeting starting with Virginia Frenick. Virginia Fenwick, I approve. Steve Dbor, I approve. Paul C. Simple, I approve.
David S. Nixon, I approve. Uh Ed Actton, I approve. Uh, David H. Beach, I approve. And Randy Pardash, I approve as well. Uh, let's see if we have any meeting minutes. Paul, April 10th, 2025. Uh, we have minutes from the meeting of
March Oh, I'm sorry. March 27th. I was looking at the wrong agenda. 2025. Uh, I'll move to approve those minutes as published. Uh, Dave seconds and votes yes. Let's just make sure. Is there are there any changes that No. Okay. You voted yes. Uh, yeah. Yes. And I vote
yes. All votes yes. Jenny votes yes. Okay. Now we can move on with the first application. Sorry. Now we can move on with the first application which is Chattam Productions LLC care of Greg Greg Clark uh
24-148. Sarah will read the uh advertisement and then we will have that application. Application number 24-148. Chattam Productions LLC care of Greg Clark 1234 Chestnut Street sweet 211 Newton Mass
02464 owner of property located at 10 Annabel Lane also shown on the town of Chattam's assessor's map 14E block 37 lot 2 on remand from the land court the applicant seeks approval of special permit number 22-085 denied by the board on October
27th 2022 which sought approval to construct a single family dwelling in a GB B2 zone which requires the grant of a special permit. The proposed lot coverage is 5,515 ft
44.5% where 70% is the maximum allowed. The lot is conforming with 12,394 square ft where 7,000 ft is required in a GB2 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law Chapter 48 section 9 and
section 3C 4C 26 and 8D2B of the protective bylaw. This was continued from February 13th, 2025. Okay. The applicant. Welcome, Mr. Clark. Good afternoon, chair and board members.
I'm here representing Chattam Productions. You just state your name for the record because Gregory Clark. Thank you. I'm here representing Chattam Productions in this seeking a special permit to build a home on 10 Annabel
Lane. So Chattam Productions pro proposes to construct a three three-bedroom single family home at 10 Annabel Lane. It's in the GB2 zoning district. The property contains 12,590 square ft of lot area and 12,390 ft of
buildable upland. The proposed dwelling will have 3,514 ft of finished space. The unfinished basement and garage will have an additional 1768 square ft, making the total gross floor area 5,282 ft. Pursuant to the definition of
building coverage in the bylaw in section 2B21, building coverage means the buildable upland portion of a lot which is covered by buildings, including porches, but excluding parking areas, pools, decks, and any other permanent structures which do not have roofs. The
proposed dwelling building coverage is 1,855 square ft or 15.0%. where there is no restriction pursuant to the definition of the lot coverage in the bylaws in section 2B65 which defines lot coverage as a buildable upland portion of a lot
covered by buildings, driveways, parking areas, pools, tennis courts, decks, and any other permanent structures. The proposed buildings dwellings lot coverage is 5515 feet or 44.5% where 70% is allowed.
The criteria for the special permit include several different items. The first is the adequacy of the site in terms of the size for the proposed use. The proposed use is a single family residential use. The minimum required lot size in a GB2 for that use is 7,000
square of buildable upland. The size of 10 Annabel Lane is 12,394t of build 3,00 12,394 square feet of buildable upland. The building coverage of the proposed single family residence is 15% and the lot coverage is
44.5%. This coverage is in compliance with the Chattam bylaws per appendix 2 and in a GB2 zone there is no maximum building coverage. However, the maximum lot coverage allowed is 70%. This design is well below that
limit. Many of the surrounding properties do not meet the 7,000 foot buildable upland requirements, while many others meet this requirement, but contain less buildable upland than 10 inable lane does. These properties are identified on the map and charts that we provided and their sizes were confirmed by the
assessor's officials records which were previously attached to our previous application on November 2nd, 2022. Per the decision dated October 4th, 2024 regarding land court case number 22. The zoning board of appeals
rejection of 10 Annabal Lane on October 27,22 was null and void. Judge Smith stated that the board's decision to deny the special permit in regard to inadequate lot size was not valid due to the board's reasoning that the minimum
lot size in every every residential lot is 20,000 square ft. Judge Smith determined that the board cannot apply the residential lot dimensional requirements to that of a general business zone despite the use being residential. Therefore, the lot is adequate in terms of size for the
residential use as proposed and meets this criteria. The second act item that it has to meet is suitability of the site for the proposed use. The proposed use for tanville lane is a single family residence. There are many other single family residences around this property
and throughout this business district. In fact, the single family residences represent over 50% of the buildings in this GB2 district over 50%. Additionally, there are several multi-use buildings with apartments over
businesses immediately adjacent to our property. Those are not included in that calculation of the percentage. All these residential and multi-use buildings blend very well with the few business properties in this business district. Accordingly, the proposed single family
use for 10 Annabel Lane is suitable for this location. Therefore, the proposed use is suitable for this lot. The third factor is an impact on traffic flow and safety. 10 Annabel Lane is one of four approved building lots in the subdivision with access onto depot road.
The subdivision was engineered to provide any vehicles leaving the subdivision with a clear view of any vehicle, pedestrian, or bicycle traffic in both directions prior to exiting the subdivision. This design provides for the safety of vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians. The number of vehicles entering and exiting
the subdivision on depot road will be minimal. 10 Annabel Lane is proposed for a single family home, and unlike potential business uses, there will not be a constant flow of traffic from this residential property. Therefore, the impact of traffic flow from 10 Annabal Lane will be minor and meets the
criteria. The fourth item of criteria for this special permit is impact on neighborhood visual character, including views and vistas. 10 edible lane is not clearly visible for any of the adjacent roads. The existing buildings on Main Street
block any view from Main Street, and the town owned lands, trees, and adjacent structures block any view from depot road. The view from Veterans Field are not affected either by the construction of a house on Tanable Lane. 10 Annabel Lane does not abut the town property at
the Western's Veteran Field. As nothing is currently planned to be built on 15 Annabel Lane or 20 Annabel Lane, there will be a 75- ft tree and vegetation buffer between Veterans Field and 10 Annabel Lane. As a result, there's no negative impact on the neighborhood's
visual character, views, or vista. Purther decision dated October 4th, 2024 regarding land court case number 22. The zoning board of appeals rejection of 10 lane on October 27th, 2022 was null and void. Based on evidence at trial and supported by Judge Smith's on-site
viewing of the property indicated that 10 lane would be obscured by trees, vegetation, and other structures, that it would not have a visual impact on the neighborhood's visual character. Specifically, Judge Smith stated that the first floor being 10 foot above the driveway is not a valid reason to deny a
permit as the approved building still meets the height limitations. Therefore, as long as height requirements are met, differences in current grading will not be a negative impact on the visual character of the neighborhood. This proposed residence will have no impact on the visual character of the negative of the
neighborhood and meets this criteria. The fifth criteria item is the adequacy of method of sewage disposal, source of water and drainage. The sewage disposal and water supply are being provided to 10 lane through connections to the town sewage and town water system. These
connections were designed and shown on the approved subdivision plans and the engineered calculations for the drainage system were provided with those plans. Also, all rain water will be contained within the subdivision in each lot. Underground recharge units will be
installed and no water will run off to run off of these lots to any adjacent property. These water and sewer system connections and drainage systems were approved by the appropriate town agencies having authority over these systems. Therefore, the town has confirmed that the proposed sewer, water, and drainage systems are
adequate. The sixth criteria is the adequacy of utilities and other public services. The drainage system on 10 Annabel Lane in the subdivision is self-contained on the property and engineered to handle the flow of all the rainwater. The water and sewage systems
are town systems and these connections have been reviewed and approved by the town agencies having authority. The electric and gas requirements have been confirmed with these utility companies to be adequate availability at 10 Anabel Lane. The design of the road and the capability of emergency vehicles access
has also been reviewed and approved by the town authorities. Therefore, the town has confirmed that the proposed road, the electric, the gas, the sewer, the water, and the drainage systems are all adequate to support a single family residence in this property. The seventh criteria is noise and
litter. There will not be any outdoor trash disposal containers on Tenan Lane or any of the other lots. The owner of the single family home will keep the property free from litter. There will not be any unordinary noise from the use of tenant and bolain as a residential single family home. Unlike some of the
surrounding businesses, there will not be a constant flow of vehicles, customers or workers, and the noise levels will only be that of a standard single family residence. Therefore, noise and litter will not be an issue at 10 Annabel Lane. The eighth criteria is the compatibility of the proposed use
with the surrounding land uses. The majority of the properties within the surrounding area include residential components. Many of these properties contain single family residences. 10 Annable Lane has been reviewed and approved by the HBDC to conform to HBDC's guidelines. Therefore, ensuring
that the visual character of the town in this business district will be improved. Additionally, the HTBDC will perform a full review of the final landscaping proposal for tenna. That's within their perview. We have also shown in our preliminary landscape plans our intentions to plant buffer trees and
some fencing along the abuing property line between lots for the decision dated October 4th 2024 regarding land court case 22 zoning board of appeals rejection of 10 Annabel Lane on October 27th 2022 was null and void. Judge Smith affirmed that the
HBT's determination that a project is appropriate for the that the project is appropriate for the neighborhood is not binding. Judge Smith wrote that simply stating that the proposed building is not compatible when the immediate neighborhood is characterized by mixed uses with many residential uses
interspersed with traditional businesses is not sufficient. Therefore, the proposed building is compatible with the surrounding land uses. The neighborhood will not have a dramatic change. The use we are proposing currently exists all around our property and around the
adjacent town property. There's a town owned parcel along Depot Road which currently provides a 25 foot natural tree buffer between the road and the majority of the property our property along Depot road. This barrier will remain. Additionally along left center field line from the school but overlift
there's a 25 foot buffer of trees on the town's land which will remain and additionally there's currently a 30-foot vegetated buffer from the 20 Annabel lane that lot that has no current plans for any development. This will provide a
deeper vegetation barrier. Therefore, there is not a detrimental impact on the neighborhood and the town's visual character. The ninth criteria is the impact on natural environment including slopes, vegetation, wetlands, groundwater and water bodies. There are
currently no wetlands, groundwater or water bodies on or adjacent to our property. The existing vegetation does not contain any protected tree or shrub species and consist consists of trees and shrubs entangled with invasive plants. Our proposal includes removing these plants and trees and planting
native trees and plants. Each property line shared within a butter will have trees planted to provide privacy separation. Plants which require less water will be installed to minimize the need to irrigate frequently. There will not be any area on 10 lane where water runs off of the onto an abut's property.
The new trees and plants will invite birds and other animals to come to the property to find food and nests. Therefore, there is no negative impact on the natural environment by this proposed residential home. The 10th criteria is the impact on neighborhood in town visual character of any formula
business establishment. This is not a proposed formula business establishment. So, this does not this criteria does not apply in the plans that we provided. I don't know if we can. So um if we can go to
um the the clock engineering drawing. Okay. The clock engineering drawing provides what is required by the criteria. He identifies and he he shows the site coverage down at the bottom
here. You have to stand at the microphone in order to talk. I can't point to it. You can use the pointer. Okay. So, if you look in the bottom of the middle of the page under lot two, it has the he identifies the site coverage. He gives you the proposed building coverage and
he gives you the proposed deck and patios coverage and the proposed driveway coverage for the total coverage which equates to 44.5 44.6%. well under the 70% allowed in this
district and in line with most of the other properties in this area. To the right of that, he has a chart with it's labeled up top just above it building coverage. The proposed dwelling he gives you that that building coverage number and shows that it represents 15.0%
0% of the overall up upland of of the lot and that is within the criteria also. And then the chart what the chart does is it shows you there's a restriction on height of buildings within the district and it shows you um
the height elevations calculated from our architect's plans by the engineer. He gives you in the middle of the build the building there. He says propose three bedroomedroom dwelling. He gives the ridge height. He gives the first floor height and he gives you the top of
foundation height. He calculates down below the height. The the maximum height is determined by an average of the grades around the building. It's not just pick the highest or lowest grade. It's done by an average. He does that in the chart and he shows what the average
grade is on the fifth line from the top with the numbers 44 either 44.9 or 44.8 and from there from there he gives you the calculation with the architect's design we're
allowed to go up to a ridge elevation of 74.8 Excuse me. You're being provided with a pointer if you like to use it. Thank you. Okay. So, right here he gives you the average grade which is 44.8 and then he tells you on the next
line 44.8 but a 30 foot height is 74.8. That's what's allowed 30 feet from your average grade around the building. So by right a building could be built in this zone up to a height of 74.8 and our proposed ridge elevation is 74.2 for
this particular home. Okay. So just pointing out all done by an engineer certified calculations to meet the guidelines that the that the town has put together and it complies with the
requirements. Okay. I'm not going to take you through the the plans themselves. I don't think we need to go through the building. We we saw it the last time we were here. Nothing has changed. I think it's a beautiful design done by Mark Zebra and
we hope that you will see fit to allow us to build it. Does that conclude your your uh presentation, sir? No. Hold on one second. So, we received some uh documentation
from the town this uh late yesterday. Am I to address that now or wait till it's presented and then address it on rebuttal? Um that's entirely up to you. It was provided to you as well as the rest of the board members. I will get a chance to rebut after it's presented. Yes.
Okay. I think I'll I think I will do that. And the other thing is I did put together a memo to the Cadam ZBA. We we received that today. You did? Okay. So I You need me to give you copies of that? I was told to bring 11 copies. You can
just provide that to our clerk and then we will she will pass them out. But we did receive them just through an email just today. Yeah. Yep. Thank you. Okay. Does that conclude your presentation? Yes, it does. Okay. Very good. Very good. Okay. So, is there
anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application? Please raise your hand and you will have an opportunity to be heard. In favor, seeing no one on Microsoft Teams with a hand up and no one in the
audience with their hand up. Um, we will now I will read the correspondences and there are eight. Yeah, two of them are documents, so they're not really correspondences. Okay, so now there are six. So, first
from our our health agent, Judith Giorgio, she tells us on 211 2025, this property will be connected to the municipal sewer system and can support the proposed three-bedroom dwelling uh in accordance with uh town laws, and she
has no concerns. Then we have a note from the HBDC and this is from January 22, 2025. They tell us, they remind us that on August 3rd, 2022, they heard the application um and they voted for it on
August 7th. Um no, actually, I'm sorry, August 17, 2022, and they rendered the following decision. The commission voted 4 to one approving the construction of the proposed new dwelling located at Tannabel with conditions that they
change or alter uh the any anything um they have to come before them again. The applicant would have to come before them again if they want to change anything. Um on August 7th, 2024, the commission reviewed the request for a one-year
extension and they um approved that. So that was uh received and let's see then we have um a memo from the zoning. Let's see what is this. Okay so I I see that attorney fabber is here and I'm going to
assume that you would rather speak than me read this document. Would that yes I viewing an affirmative answer to that. I will now just scroll through a long document. Now I see a note from um Mark Paulina of the Chattam Police Department
and um that was written on April 22, 2025. Dear Chair Pardash, I was surprised and disappointed to learn that Chattam Productions is once again seeking permission to build very large residences on small lots in the general
business zone. I have followed these requests over the last several years and having seen the plans located to in close proximity proximity to Veterans Field and the Chattam Community Center, I am dismayed that the matter is once
again before you. With a zoning bylaw in place to ensure proper development and land use, these one family dwellings are not appropriate in the general business zone. The small lots are inadequate and the eerie is not suitable for these
houses. You have properly denied the applicant's pre previous requests and should reject the latest applications for the same good and sound reasons. I respectfully urge the zoning board of appeals to deny these special permits very truly yours. Mark R. Paulina
Chattam Police Chief retired. Next we have a note from okay Peter Gain. Peter Gaines and this states on 42025 um dear board members I am writing in
opposition to the request of Chadam Productions to construct houses in the GB zone on Annabel Lane. Our zoning bylaw is intended to manage development appropriately and these proposals are not consistent with that goal. Building high price single family residences in
the GB zone where multif family residents could be cited is inappropriate. The use would be incompatible with surrounding land uses and the impact on neighborhood visual character adjacent to Veterans Field would be detrimental to the character of
the neighborhood and the town. I hope the board of appeals will reject this request. Next we have a note from Jack and Sally Bowman, 25 Wonka Pit Way. Dear Chair Pardash, we are dismayed to learn that Chattam Productions is again seeking
your permission to construct relatively large residences on small lots in the general business zone in such extremely close proximity to Veterans Field in our community center. Veterans Field is one of Chattam's crown jewels and any
changes to the wooded area behind left and center field should be treated with the utmost caution and care. Our protective zoning bylaw is in place to ensure proper development and land use management. Large one family dwellings are not appropriate an appropriate fit
in this general business zone. you have properly denied the applicant's past requests and we urge you reject this latest application for the same sound reasons and that was uh received on April 22, 2025 in case I didn't say that
before. Um and then we just have do I we then we have some uh some materials that were um provided by David Nixon and David V of Cadam. Okay. Now is there anybody here? All right. Microsoft Teams
who wish to speak against this application or has a specific question. I see a gentleman approaching and I assume that he would like to speak. He knows the drill. Good afternoon, Madam Chairman.
Bill Litchfield here representing Chattam Athletic Association. You have heard me in the past express reservations about constructing large single family dwellings on this site. Uh unfortunately, as the applicant just
stated, nothing has changed. Uh that which you previously rejected is before you again. I'd also remind you of something briefly that you already know that this is not a section six hearing so-called where it's a matter of substantial detriment, but rather one
under section 9 of chapter 48 where you're required to make the determination whether the proposed use is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the bylaw and in keeping with the future and established character of the neighborhood. Mere compliance with
dimensional requirements as recited is necessary, but it is far from sufficient. The proposed structure remains too large. It remains incompatible with the surrounding properties, and the site remains unsuitable. No question that we need
more housing in Chadam, but not in what I assume will be a multi-million dollar price range. Allowing this house in the GB zone is not in harmony with the purpose and intent of the bylaw and it will be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood. It is true of course
that the planning board in the HBDC acques to the subdivision. They had no discretion which you do have. It is also true that the trial court remanded the case after hearing but he did not say that your decision was wrong only that it needed to be supported by more
detailed factual findings. There are multiple bases in the bylaw which warrant the denial of the petition. The size of the site is inadequate. The site is not suitable for proposed use. It will have a negative impact on neighborhood visual character and most importantly, it is not compatible with
surrounding land uses without importing the requirements of the residential zones into this GB neighborhood. You can find that the town voted 40 years ago to end residential development of small lots. The the bylaw
that we have allows multif family and commercial uses with apartments upstairs on GB lots as small as this. But single family residences are not an as of right use in the GB zone. One stated purpose of our bylaw is to prevent overcrowding
of land and another not inconsistent is to provide housing for persons of all income levels. Building a house like this on this lot where apartments could go frustrates not one but both of those purposes as to
suitability of residential development in GB zones. You have in recent years properly rejected at least two proposals to build single family residents of the GB zone. I'm not talking about the prior ones on Annabel Lane, but both 410 and
442 Main Street. You did so, and you can do so here again. The voters decided a number of years ago to reduce the commercially zoned areas in town, but they sensibly left this area as one in which commercial development could be
allowed. It is obviously adjacent to the municipal zone with the fire station, the elementary school and of course Veterans Field which are long established and allowed uses. The site is not suitable for single family residential use development rather. In
addition to being poor land use, uh the nature of the adjacent uses illustrates why it is not suitable. As to neighborhood visual character, any one of the several houses proposed today might be unobjectionable in the residential zone, but they will have a negative impact in this location on such
a small lot, especially in combination with the other proposed today and others that may follow. By way of small example, the gross floor area of 101 Depot Street AC diagonally across the street uh is is less than and that's the
former Nicholson Lumber headquarters. That's less than the gross floor area of this proposal. And while not directly abuing Veterans Field, there is no question that it will have some and I think significant detrimental impact. Most importantly, this development will
not be compatible with surrounding land uses of 24 adjacent properties. Only one at 22 Post Office Road is a single family dwelling and that is a non-conforming pre-existing use. I recall some of the comments made at the
special town meeting in October of 2020 when the voters unanimously rejected this developer's previous efforts at changing our zoning bylaw. Except for motions to adjourn, we rarely see unanimous votes, but we saw a unanimous
vote by the 300 odd voters who were present. As one person at that hearing said, we're all in favor of rehabilitating a Monoy Theater, but that can be done if there's a genuine genuine will to do it consistently with our zoning bylaw. It might not reap the same
financial benefit as that voter said, but there's a need and and a desire for some form of modest housing on Depot Road. The real estate market and the profit motive really shouldn't decide land use decisions or those of this board. And again, it's a stretch to say
that Judge Smith said that all was well with this proposal. He simply said that if you did reject it on remand, you could do so provided the denial was supported by factual findings. In summary, I'm sorry. I don't know how that happened, but that's not accurate. Your five minutes is definitely up. Then
I will cease with that. And thank you. I know you had other evidence to consider. Those are the rules. We play by the rules. No, the the clock was inaccurate. So, I apologize. I kept looking. Thank you. Yeah, you did. You did. You have a magic skill there. All right, let's see. Um, who else would like to speak against
has a question? Attorney Farber, please approach. So, good afternoon. My name is Peter Farber and I am the author of the memo that I filed on February 13th. Um, I'm certainly not going to repeat what's in there or reiterate. I hopefully each
of the members has had a chance to review it. Um, what I am going to do though is just focus on two points. Um, and I don't want to repeat Mr. Lichfield's comments either, which are very well spoken. But Judge Smith missed
the most important case that addresses a a situation like that. This and that actually originated from this town. That was in 2001 and it was Davis versus the Cadam Board of Appeals. not one comment
in Judge Smith's decision regarding the leading case on the responsibilities of a board of appeals. And as Bill mentioned, Bill Litzfield mentioned a moment ago, this is not a section six case. This we're
not talking about substantially more detrimental. We're not talking it about an expansion of a nonconforming dwelling uh or other structure. uh this is purely under section nine and in my memo and here today I will read you because it's
in our bylaw the very statement um that is that is a leading statement in section 9 and I will and it's found in our bylaw in section Roman numeral 8 uh C4. So I'll read you just the first
sentence. Special permits may, very important word, be granted when it has been found that the use involved will not be detrimental to the established or future character of the neighborhood and the
town and the conjunctive when it has been found that the use involved will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the bylaw. conjunctive. As I
mentioned, you may find that this is not in detrimental to the neighborhood. It's established or future use, but you still must find that it is a use that will be in harmony with the general purpose and
intent of the bylaw. And the first thing is Judge Smith, in my view, he missed this point. He thought that what you did back in October of 2022 was to take the 20,000 square foot
minimum lot size applicable in the residential zoning districts and applied it to the general business district. I suggest that's not what you did. What you did was you said, as Bill mentioned
before me, roughly 43 years ago, this town voted that there would be no new residential construction on lots of under 20,000 square feet.
Now, you didn't apply that to this, but you recognize that at that town meeting in 1982, 86% of the people who attended that meeting voted no more building on what
was then 10,000 square foot lots. And for that has that standard by the town has stood for over 40 years. And so when you are considering this application
today, you look and say to allow today a dwelling, a single family residence to be built on a under twoughly 12,000 square foot lot. Is that within the general harmony general purpose and
harmony of the bylaw? I would say absolutely not. The other thing Judge Smith meant missed was that use of the word may. He didn't recognize that even if
the applicant satisfies the criteria under the bylaw, this board and every board of appeals throughout the Commonwealth retains the discretion to deny the permit.
Just want to call your attention to the clock. Okay. In this case, he not a word mentioned, but it's in all the case law which I cited in the memo. And you only need to make one finding. You don't need to address all the findings if you deny
it. What you need to find is that just the first this site is to be allowed to be built on new construction. I'm sorry, time's up. Okay. But we did receive your memo. Thank you very much. All right. And thank you for your time. Thank you for coming. Is there anybody here on
Microsoft Teams wish to speak against this application or has a specific question? I thought I saw you wave your hand, sir, on the first row. No. Okay. Very good. Anybody on Microsoft Teams against or has a question? No. Okay.
Now, rebuttal time for the applicant if he wishes. Again, Greg Clark for CH Productions. Uh, in regards to Attorney Favor's comments, he made the comment that this
board has not approved a single a single single family home in this district since they adopted the 20,000 square foot requirement for lot. That's an incorrect statement. And we didn't even research this. There was
a document that was sent to us late yesterday by the board. This right here, which was done by David Vch, and it has a list of properties on it, and specifically called out on the fifth line down, 713
Main Street, special permit issued in 2005. The lot size was 14,374 square feet. We haven't had the chance to check this to see how much buildable upland there is because as you know the buildable upland is what matters. You can have that could have
wetlands on that property. It could have other things that are restrictive. So we don't know. But the interesting thing is the footprint of that building was 2,138 square ft. Just to compare he has further down on the
chart. So up here he has 713 Main Street special permit issued 2005 lot size 14,374 10 lane is 12,590 ft. The footprint of the building that
was permitted was 2,138. Ours is 1855 proposed. The gross floor area 6,138 square feet. Ours proposed 5,282 in a living area 4,000 square feet
that was approved to ours at 3514. The percentages our percentages are lower. Our percentage on that our percentage is lower on the uh overall coverage the footprint and the living
area. And if you look at the next building down, which we have not presented yet, five Annabel Lane, those numbers are very similar. Our numbers are smaller than what was approved up here. So to make this the statement that the town
decided that you could only build in the GB2, a residential building if the lot was 20,000,000 square feet is incorrect. And the second thing I'd like to say regarding attorney Favor's comments is he wrote a memo. We got the memo ourselves yesterday and and looked
at, but we didn't really pay too much attention to it because Judge Smith has been in the land court for quite some time. For him to accuse Judge Smith of making an error in his decision that he
believes that's his interpretation, but Judge Smith is the judge. He didn't make the decision on this case in a matter of hours or days. He did significant research. He had presentations by both parties. His
decisions are based upon the proper case law, not the case law that attorney Faber represented to you today. Okay. And then regarding uh Mr. Attorney Lichfield's comments. I
mean, again, it's not really telling you the whole story because the guidelines in GB2 do not allow you to build multif family residential buildings. So, to say the same thing, one of the um someone wrote a letter and against our project
saying why aren't they building multif family there? Well, if you go back and if you look at the memo that we sent to you, it clearly tells you the story. When we first came and purchased this property, we attempted to put multif family back there because we asked the town, "What do you need?" They told us
multif family would work. However, we're in a GB2 zone, which doesn't allow it. So, we're going to have to come up with another way of doing it. We can either go with a 40B, which we did not want to do, or we could look at doing an overlay district. This was in conjunction with members of the planning department of
the of the of the town. So then we proceeded to work with our attorney and them to come up with the exact language to submit a new district overlay that will allow us to perform this. And the intention was to put 55 plus restricted
housing there so people from town who've lived here all their life who want to downsize but want to stay in the town would have a place to live. And everybody thought it was a great idea. We went from one board to the next and the votes were uni unanimous in support of us and you can go back and check the
record on it. But then CO hit and co hit and there were also a couple of issues in town that were contentious that you know were being pushed off. So what we were told is that our petition would could not be heard
that we had to push the meeting from spring to summertime and then go pushed to the fall and then we were told we're going to move it to next year. But yet the selectman told us at that meeting that hey if you go and get 200 signatures you can force us to have
a meeting on this and we'll have to vote on it. That suggestion came from them not from us. We didn't come to town saying we just want to fight fight fight. We came here trying to do something to give housing and to restore
the theater which was basically closed down by the board of health. Okay. So for him to say that, you know, why aren't they building something else? Well, single family housing is what's allowed by special permit in the GB2 zone. We're following
the town guidelines when we're submitting this. We're not trying anything unusual. Okay. Um, and like I said, the overlay district was shot down because once we had that approach of let's have the
meeting, everyone was upset about it and it was a unanimous vote for that reason. I don't think it was a unanimous vote because they didn't want housing. I think people in the town want housing. The problem is you have to figure out how to get that housing. And with your guidelines, it gets very tough. I mean,
we were talking our our plan for the properties out front. We had housing units on the second floor of those buildings, but we still had to go back and get a special permit for it. Okay. So, again, I think I think attorney Glitchfield's comments are taking out of context and him making comments that the
judge misinterpreted things. The judge is the one who does this all day long and he's a judge because he's very educated in land court issues. So, thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. Okay, so now we're going to do see if anybody
else has a comment against or has a question just to double check. Seeing no one else and uh now we will go with questions from the board. I would recommend that the applicant you might want to stay there because the questions are for you. So unless you like to get
up and down. I wasn't I wasn't sure if anyone else was going to get up and speak. Yeah, we Yeah, now we know that. So now it's it's questions that come this way from us to you. All right. Very good. So questions from the board. We'll start with David Nixon. Questions.
Well, thank you. Yes, I have uh a couple of questions. Uh Mr. Clark, um I'm wrestling with I've heard, well, these are million-dollar houses and and all that sort of thing. And so I asked uh one of the local builders who
specializes in single family homes to take a look at what you had submitted to us. And so he did some computations and then figured out what the land cost and you got to build a road and you got to buy all this kind sort of thing. So it
seems to me that and we want to include a profit for you and and he was using 35%. I don't know how that how that works with you. Not bad, right? Okay. Okay. Well, anyway, um, so we came up with the idea that these homes would have to be
marketed in the four to6 million range. Is that a number you can confirm for me? Or if I'm all wet, tell me why and what the correct number would be. They would be they would be over just over $4 million. Okay. All right. Okay. Thank
you. Um, secondly, I have a question from Mr. Lichfield. And Mr. Lichfield, um, there was a lot of remarks made about some of the comments you had made. I would be appreciative if you could address those,
please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very briefly, I did not say anything suggesting that Judge Smith had misinterpreted the law or otherwise. And I think you might have seen me rise with a degree of eye for that misrepresentation because that was
patently false. What I said was that the judge's decision said that you he could have first of all he could have overruled the board and issued the order the issuance of a special impairment. He did not. He instead remanded it and said
that you could approve it with appropriate conditions or you could deny it with factual reasons sub supported by the factual record. Thank you.
Okay, Ed Actton questions. Sure. I have a question for Mr. Clark. Okay. Um ju just a a quick question. Um why why didn't you pursue the the a 40B or why aren't you pursuing
a 40B? When we when we purchased the property was 2019. I understand currently you have a couple of 40Bs that are moving forward as friendly. 40B is usually not considered friendly in a lot of towns and and in Chadam it wasn't in
2019. A lot of things changed when CO hit, but that's why we chose not to do it at that time. We still have that option of of of proceeding to do that and that is one of the options we have on our table. But, you know, we'd prefer not to go into a town and try to force
something. We'd rather come to the town and say, "Hey, that's that's why we were told, let's do the uh overlay district and get that approved because that would have allowed us to build those units there." Yeah. It seems to me from what I'm reading here that the town sort of asked
you to go the 40B route. No. No. No. They said they they they they suggested the 40B or the Olay district and we told them we said we don't feel like fighting with the town over 40B because we've I personally was involved in some other
40bs years ago and usually they're contentious. Like I said, you have two in town that are currently moving. I don't think either of them are settled yet. Right. Correct. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to go over here to Paul Simple for just
questions. I have no no additional questions. All right. And does Steve have any questions? Um I guess just one. This this lot is the lot that's down in kind of a a hole that Well, it's it it you you may think
it is, but it really it's it's the grade the grade there is higher than the um because there one of these charts that was given to us. They had a question about Yeah. You don't you it doesn't have to be spec but that's that lot that's down that's closest to the theater property. It drops off at the
end. Yes. If it drops off at the end that's why that that back wall is built up but the rest of it is up high already. So as you come into the property the road is the high point and this is right against the road but then it drops off as you come toward the theater. Right. I and so I just wanted to make sure I was talking about I was
looking at right the correct lot. So assuming that and assuming that there's the the project with the theater moves forward, is there going to be issues with parking for the for the theater if this house this house is relatively close to the back of the No, it's not
it's not as close as Yeah. See, we we never submitted to this board. we had to submit to HBDC and so on, but the whole site plan that shows everything which shows the difference between you still have the road around the back of the of the theater for the for fire vehicle and whatnot. So, actually there's more
parking out back. Okay. Um that we've created under that proposed plan. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. I'm going to go to David V now. Questions? Yeah. Uh so um um Sarah, perhaps you could put up that
plan that that uh I think Mr. Clark just referenced because I some of my concerns here are relative to the um compatibility with the uses on the um on lot one uh which is the uh current theater builder, the theater building,
etc. So um has first of all down in the corner of this plan. I have to I have it somewhere here. There's a there's a statement um that I'd like to ask you about. Um bear with me for a
second. And uh it's not right there on the screen, but I'm going to read. So this is listed and it's listed as option B proposed if lots three through five receive approvals each for 3800 to 3990 foot
homes. Um so I'm my thinking then is that you're talking about living area. Is that correct? Can I can I see can you can you corner that and find that what he's talking about? It's cut off on that plan. If you give me a second, I can find it from when it went to HBDC in
2022. Okay. You want to formulate a question with Yeah. Well, that was So, that was Mike. Why I was going to ask him to comment on it, but he hasn't seen it yet. So, the second piece that I'd like to um go into
um with that plan is that um it's it's kind of a sketch plan. and it shows a couple of parking lots, possible parking lots on on lot one. So, I'd like to ask you had has and and they don't appear appear to to u meet the sideline um
requirements. So, I'd like to ask you has an engineer u looked at that plan with the any idea of how it might overlap with compliance with parking regulations, etc., etc., in the Are you talking about the one that was just up on the that Sarah's searching for the
corner of In the meantime, we could see if um if uh Jenny has any questions and then we can go back to that. Yeah, sure enough. I'm at five. All right, Virginia Fenwick questions. Yes, I have a few for you, Mr. Clark. Um, I want to start with your
criteria narrative. Um, specifically suitability for site criteria 2. In your uh second sentence there, you say there are many existing single family residences around this property and throughout the general uh
throughout the business district. Are you referring specifically to GB2 when you're making that? Okay. Yes. So around this property but within GB2 is what you meant by that sense. Right. So we did a chart. We we did a chart that
shows the the GB2 area and we labeled each of the properties. It was this chart here. We took it. So you have to this one doesn't have just the GB2. This has other areas. But this property across the street on Main Street is part of GB2 also. And that has many single
family residences on it. Okay. And then GB2 also extends downtown past the center of town on the left hand side as you're heading east. And the percentage of single family residences in that portion of GB2 is greater than 50% also. Okay. Well,
that's why I'm asking you to be very clear about that sentence because do do you have a number? I I have seen that chart uh as you mentioned you it was provided. Um do you have a number? You you say you say um so many existing single family in
in GB2 in the section just around Depot Road and Main Street there there are 44 properties not including mis municipal land properties 26 of them are residential only. Okay. And then the other portion
downtown the um near the Isaac Hardy lane and and so on there are 20 properties 11 of them are residential only. In addition to that there are several other that are as you know commercial with residential apartment component above them. Sarah can we do we
have that chart that Mr. Clark is referencing the uh chart that's GB2 and beyond GB2. Yeah, the map. I'm sorry. Yeah, that that Mr. Clark was just referencing.
So, this this is the chart that you're referencing. Yeah. But there's a this isn't all so that isn't all GB2, right? We gave we gave calculations before on all of the area around here and then we were when we were given this information
about the GB2 surrounding on this document that we received yesterday, we recalculated just the GB2 area. So if you take if you have the town map that shows the zoning and the GB2, you can see the limit of GB2, but it's not going
to show you. We we know it because we checked it once we got this document. You're not going to see it on this document exactly which one's GB2, but I can I can tell you Yeah. So, this is this is GB2. This is the upper portion and then there's a
lower portion further downtown as you pass through the center after you pass through the center. So, you're so the yellow the bright yellow is GB2, correct? And you're saying that there's more bright yellow farther down that we don't
see. Yes. Yeah. That's a separate section of GB2. Um I think it starts starts right around Isaac Howdy Lane and continues down. Okay. I I don't know if that's accurate, but I think the reason we were focusing
on this is because this is your subject property. Yes. Right in there. And then what I told you is that if you if you take all those properties that are GB2 and you look at the you count the ones that are only residential, no, not commercial residential mix, not you know or just
strict commercial, it's greater than 50% of them are residential only. Okay. Um your numbers don't correlate with my numbers, but we'll get to that in a minute. Um question. So you uh 70 depot road was
one of your properties and you did you dem demolished that last? Yes, we did. Y summer of 2024. I don't know exactly when we demolished them, but we demolished I think four or five ancillary buildings at all one time.
Okay. I wanted to question you a little bit about the height when you were talking about the height. Um And Sarah, I want you to say that shot for a second. You were talking about the height. Uh you you mentioned I thought you I heard you say by right you have like 30 you can go to 30 feet by right.
Is that what you said? 30 feet above the that grade. Right. But you heard Mr. Lichfield and and also just our zoning criteria is that you're you're here in front of us because you're asking for a special permit. If which is not the same thing as building it by right. I mean if
you could build it by right you wouldn't be here. That's correct. But the the issue with this was we went through all of this with the HBDC. So the HBDC controlled the guidance of the buildings, right? So they reduced the height. Our architect designed it
initially and had certain heights and then HBDC came back and said, "Hey, look at you've got to get below this elevation. If you get below this elevation, it fits. It fits within the area." So that's what they did. the our architect went back, changed things, reduced roof roof ridge elevations and
changed the designs to match the roof pitches and so on. And that was a process that went on for, you know, more than a year of of of going back and forth on that. Okay. Um I I want to ask you a question.
You mentioned uh Dave Vich's chart and you made the comparison. you focused specifically specifically on 713 and comparing it to Annabel 10, Annabel 5. Um, were you aware of the fact that 713 is split zoned R40 and G2? No, we
didn't. We His chart says it's in the GB2 district. Uh, I just wanted to point that out because you were making that comparison. I I thought you maybe didn't know that because Oh, it's it's right there in 713 is in the GB2 zone. No, it's split zoned. It goes down into R40.
The light yellow is R40. Why was there a special permit issue for it? It was because it was split zoned and the house the house that you see right there was rebuilt but it was originally an R40. The house. So that's why that one
is showing as a special permit. I just wanted to clarify that with you because you but I think the fact that it's built on all the land the building is on the land that's in the GB2. It should have had come under the GB2 requirements. Well, they wanted to move it up and line
it up with the for the streetscape with the houses that were next to it right on the road. Yeah, that that's just I'm just clarifying for you. That's one of the reasons the special permit was allowed for 713. We will we will look that up and see.
Okay. So, I I wanted to ask you a question going back to the chart with all the homes on it. the circles. Yeah, this one. So, the reason I was asking about your
statement in criteria too about the adequacies. So, a lot of green circles on this chart and I wanted to ask if you were for example counting including the ones above the ball field. I mean the uh the elementary school and you you're saying no, you weren't. You're not
you're not in GB2. Exactly. Okay. So, I also did some research on this chart. Sarah, could you pull up the And I guess my question for you is, do you do you agree with this analysis that I've done? Because you you said when I asked you for a number, you said you
thought the number was 30, 40 homes that were in GB2. What I said was there are two sections of GB2. the portion up here on the easterly I mean the westerly portion of
GB2 because we do have the map showing the other portion of GB2 correct but they are one district so are all of the homes that you're talking about in that district which I did not include because it's not relevant to your locus in this pro in in this in this zone
right here there are 26 residential only properties 26 within within this hashed out. So what I the hash the hash Yeah, the hash out is not GB2, right? So that's why even this portion even this portion up top here is not GB2 where the
the the fire station, the school, none of that's GB2. Yeah. So can I just go through this with you? So because my question is I'm trying to reconcile our numbers because you're saying it with you know certainty
as to why you it's the crux of the reason you're here. you want the special permit and and the previous it's remanded to us because the previous uh board said you're not going to get a special permit. Okay. So when I look at this the black hash marks focus the area
that's GB with so the area within out you know with inside of the black hash marks is GB2. I don't think I don't think that's accurate if Sarah pulls that up. I don't I don't think that's accurate. Okay.
See, so what I did on the other chart, I've hashed out the areas to the left, the area to the top, the areas below. I think you had these properties included in it, and I think you had this property included in it because I think you were in your hashmark here and here. Okay, Sarah, can
we I wish we had a split screen. We could look at it. Um, okay. So, I did not include Okay. I'm talking black hash mark, not the red square. Yeah, the black hash mark is what you excluded. Correct. Correct. Yeah. So, this shouldn't be included. These shouldn't
be included. Well, good. I'm glad you agree because I actually took those out. Um, I'm trying to narrow the focus here. So, I xed out municipal, the ball field, the items you're talking about, not in the black. I started with the black and then I'm now I'm looking in the center and
saying, "Okay, which of these is single family?" So, we can get apples to apples. And so, I so I got rid of I mixed municipal. I mixed uh got rid of the condos. You see the legend on the side. Um that's sort of what I used to
try to help you see what I was referring to. So, I took out the condos. There were 11 of those. I took out multi-use apartments. There were 10 of those. Um, anything that's there in the red outline, which you see there, was small business. So, they're taken out of the
number because they're they're allowed um uh use. And then I took out two family homes. There were four of those. So, when you subtract all those, you're left with 13 single family
homes and 12 of those are pre-zoning. So, 12 of them are prezoning. So, we're really talking about one single family, apples to apples in that. No, you have you have 15 single family homes that are dotted in green. And then these are all
completely residential properties. All the ones in pink are 100% residential. They they were done either by special permit or however they were done, but those are all residential only. And that's what we said. No, the pink are condos. So, I took those they're residential. They're residential condos,
but they're condos. I'm talking single family home is what you said in your narrative. No, we say we say the residential only use. But I I think what our member is doing is she is um making a um pointing out the difference between
a single family home that one family lives in versus a condominium complex. Can you can you agree that she's just making that distinction? Yeah, we we fully understand. I'm just But the use is the use is only residential in a GB2
district that you're saying residential use is not allowed. So we're telling you that in addition to the 15 green dots, there are additional a significant number of pink dots that are residential only. We understand the difference
between residential and a condominium complex here. Um and I think you do too. Yes. So I want to go back to your statement. Your first your second sentence in your suitability number two says there are
many existing single family residences. You don't say residences. You say right there single family. That's why I asked you by that sentence. There are you just you just agree that there I think you said 11 or 13. When I count the green
there, I have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12. I have 15. 15 green. That's not like there's one or two. No, I'm there. There are 13 green and 12 of them are pre-zoning. That's why they don't have
to go to get the special permit. So, my point to you is that there's one there's not 40, 30, 12. There's one one house in that area that is green single family home that needed a permit and that's 713 the one that's highlighted in yellow.
But I I don't think that's the I don't think that's the court's interpretation of you know if if I if if if it's allowed by special I was reading what you wrote in your narrative for criteria 2. You said single family res. Can we just try to keep this questions? So
those were my questions. Okay. Okay. No. Very good. Very good. I'm gonna I need to go back to Dave V, but um and then I I I will have one or two questions and then we'll close the hearing. David V. Okay. I don't think necessarily we need the map up there, Mr. Clark. There there was a I I'll tell
you it was a it was a sketch that of lot one that um was taken from the um original subdivision plan that uh was showing some additions to possible additions to the um theater
building to include a that at least the HBDC is representing fly space restaurant couple of potential parking spaces things. So my question to you was where we left off was has an engineer looked at that plan just as a as a
cursory looked say well okay x number of square feet restaurant use theater use fees you're going to need about x amount of parking or it that's the question is yes yes we did we did have an engineer look at it and he was using the
guidelines that the town the planning guidelines y so and he pointed out to us most of the restaurants in town don't have parking and that he felt that it would not be an issue to get that approved. The existing theater didn't have parking. People parked on the on the lawn there. That's
all they had. So, if anything's going back in there, it's not going to meet a strict criteria of parking, almost anything. Okay. Well, and I and I and I think now I I I did find where I believe I had
asked you a question about parking during one of our previous one of your previous presentations on a different property. And um parking on this this lot one or potential parking and I think your answer was that um you know there's
there's never been enough parking and something along the lines of if if you were going to have events there then you would run a shuttle. Is it do you remember that? Yes, I do remember that. Okay. All right. So, I I'm just trying to get an idea of how much this has been looked at and and I guess I would also
say um it comes to mind I don't know if this is question or not, but in your I read your recent communication we got this afternoon and you have some indication of not um pursuing things where you don't need to go to any town boards and we we may ask the attorney to
to comment on that perhap if at all because it doesn't Well, I guess the only other clarification that I' I'd like to offer just with with Jenny and and the numbers that she's if you read the heading to the chart that I gave
handed out and you got what it says is single slash2 family residences in the GB2 district surrounding Annabel Lane proposal. I did not include the other portion of GB2
which is done on the eastern end of Main Street. So that's to help clarify some differences in numbers there. Um and I did include and I but I noted in in the list if they were two family there was
ones a three family and or if they were condos and I just made that distinction because the building code makes a distinction between one and two family dwellings and other types. Okay. So, I think I think as far as questions that I would have now for Mr.
Clark, I think that's probably about it. Um Okay. Very good. Well, you're going to get to comment on deliberations. So, so Mr. Clark, I just want to just maybe even for the viewers, I just want to clarify you. You know that the HBDC
looks at the architectural appropriateness of a property and opines on that. Correct. They look at the size also. Okay. And and isn't it true that the chair of the HBDC voted no? Remember
that? No, I don't. We had four se four separate buildings. But at the end of the day, the chair of the HBDC voted no and he said too much mass. If you don't remember, that's fine. But I'm asking you if you remember that, but I could tell you in good faith that's exactly what happened. And then as to the HBDC,
another member said he voted yes, but also said it's too big. But because they were focused on the architectural appearance because that's what their purview is. They have a different purview from us, right? I don't believe so. I believe it's
conflicting the way the town's written that they have they had us come back and forth and back and forth over size. Not over features, over size. You don't want to agree that they have a different criteria than we do? Have you looked at their criteria and ours? Yes, we have.
Okay. And you don't you agree that we see confusion between the two of them. Yeah. But don't you agree that they're different criteria? Yes. Because they also they also just wanted to get the Yes. They're different criteria and we are not bound by an HBDC decision, are
we? I don't know. No, I I think you do. I don't. Okay. Well, I'm going to just tell Can I respond to uh Mr. Vich's last comment? Sure. Okay. Isaac Hardy Lane single family homes GB2 district.
They were approved after this house was approved. They're not in a split district. They're in the GB2. If you pull that up, you'll see. We submitted this in our first presentation. It was pushed aside because it's on the other end of town,
but it's GB2. It sets the precedent. Okay. Thank you. R Randy, is this going to be a question? Yeah, it's a question. Yeah, I just Sorry, I I was looking at my list and I forgot that I had a question here, Jay. I wanted to
ask you because of a conversation we had and I'd like to be clear about this to our building commissioner. The question. Yes. Yes. Jay Briggs. um the um with this new um ADU bylaw in place, um we if we when we grant um a
special permit for residential use in um one of the business districts, then I believe you told me that then that could those would then qualify for ADU possible ADU um by right development.
Correct. The new legislation for the protected use ADUs, yeah, is allowed by right as you say, even if the single family dwelling use is is only allowed by special permit, the ADU would be allowed by right. Okay. And but then they would also of course still have to
meet the septic or the the board of health or setbacks and things, health, fire, and building requirements, dimensional requirements. Yes. Thanks. And and I just have a question for town council. I know he's online. Uh, welcome, uh, Attorney Talon. Um, I have
two questions for you. Just to clarify for the record and anybody that's watching, is the ZBA bound by the decision of the HBDC, the historic business district? No, not at all. Wait, you're muted.
Council, I'm sorry. You're muted. I'm not. There you are. One more time for the record. Can you hear me? Yes, now we can. Are we bound by the HBDC here on the zoning board? No. No. And and the judge actually noted that. That's it. I
I would say what the what the HBDC does is evidence of something, but it is not binding in any way, shape, or form. It doesn't there's a it's a works in parallel to the um zoning bylaws. They
have a different um uh mandate than the zoning board of appeals does. it it might be of some facial use, but ultimately it's not going to be determinative um in any particular case. And they have
different criteria. Is that right? Yeah. I mean, your criteria are pretty straightforward. Um it's right in your zoning bylaws. Their criteria are pretty straightforward. It's in their bylaws and the statutes that govern them. And they're not the same. No. No. No. Thank
you very much. Um, does anybody else have a question for councel before we close the public hearing and move to deliberations? No. Okay, Paul, I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. Uh, David seconds and votes yes. I vote yes.
All vote yes. Jenny votes yes as do I. Um, now we'll do deliberations and David Nixon. We're going to start with you, sir. Thank you very much. You know, in zoning here and in other towns, but let's just talk about Chadam, the subject of neighborhood
comes up all the time. Like if we just had a a regular special permit, is it substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood? That is not what this permit they are asking for is. That's different as Mr. Farmer pointed out. So,
it's important to me that we understand what the neighborhood is of this GB2 district. And Sarah, if you would put up this chart, please. And um do you happen to have a
pointer that I could use? No. I'm gonna get that cat pointer from there. Okay, great. Cat toy. Is that what that is? Thank you very much, Jay. Oh boy, is a cat to push that button there, huh?
Okay, great. Okay, so what is the neighborhood? And to me, it's absolutely plain and clear. The singular most important building in the entire town of Chadam is located in this district. And what is it? It's our one and only
elementary school. We don't have two like Brewster does. We have one and that is right there. So it is supported by several other objects, buildings,
organizations in the town. So if we go right next to it, it's not a mistake that the fire department was built contiguous to the elementary school. I mean, what do you think about when you think of schools in this day and age?
Safety. safety of the children. So, we have the fire department. I'm not worried about a fire there because they have fire drills all the time. I'm worried about accident and sickness. And we have a fantastic um EMT department and I know for myself because I took a
nice ride from here to Hyannas not so long ago. I don't remember it, but I did take a ride. So, at any rate, so we have that and then across the street we have what is now really three things going on over there. There you have Monoy Community Services, a nonprofit which
provides for the children of this town along with located there is the Cadam Children's Fund. Again, this is a nonprofit that is concerned about any children need, you know, coats, shoes, whatever it might be. And also the Monoy
Community Services, they uh administer the child care voucher program for the town. So all of this is going on and what happens is and I have a grandson who has this in another town. At the end of the school day, some staff member
across the street here, right here, goes across to the lobby of the elementary school and collects the children that need daycare and they sign up in advance and they march them across and happened to be there not so long ago. The staff member got in the middle of the street,
stopped everybody. It was kind of like the make way for ducklings. And all the kids came one and another across the street and they got to the other side and they looked down at one of our fantastic playgrounds. They screamed and yelled and they were gone like a shot. It was just a wonderful thing to see. So
this is a program that is available to any child in that school and also in the town. They sign up in advance so the family doesn't have to pick them up. I think it's 5:30 is the time that this happens all the time and that goes on in the summer and all that. It's a
wonderful support for our school. Also goes there's two great playgrounds. One is right here that was just mentioned. There's another playground over here right beside where the town water department used to be. Now it's a vacant house and we can't seem to figure out what to do with that. So at any rate, so
and also we have as part of all this and again support for the elementary school the children we have down here we have the community center and they have programs all year round you know summer in fact I was trying to get a granddaughter in there the other day and I think I'm a little late we have the
little league field here we veterans field as Mr. Litfield talked about. So that is what the neighborhood is. That is what that neighborhood is. It is focused on our one and only school. So I'd like to Sarah, if you can put up my
second chart, please. And incidentally, Sarah helped me with that uh previous and thank you very much, Sarah. So what is this? Well, this is the sad tale of all. What's happening to our school? This goes back 30 years. And if you look at the column
over here, it tells you what the total population was starting. You what you have is you have preK K 1 2 3 and four. That's what those are the six years that the school handles. And if you look at
where it started up here at the top and just look into 2004 and in 2004 the school population was 297 pupils.
Today it's 146. That's less than half of what we had 20 years ago. This is dire. You can only lose so many pupils and then what are you gonna do? You know it
doesn't come become viable and what are you going to do? So this is a crisis in town. We have other crisis but to me this is number one. The last thing we need is to have
the one singular singular privatelyowned lot of any size which is the lot that Mr. Clark's been talking about the last thing we knew need is to have that developed into single family homes that as Mr. Clark said are going to retail
for something a little over $4 million a piece. That is not a family with children. We need weather over there that starts to provide children to bolster up the numbers that we have in our school. We can't afford to let this
go away. It's that important. So with that, I will reiterate what Mr. Farmer and Mr. Lissio said. When we come to the purpose and intent and the bylaw we're talking about
is this one right here, town of Chadam bylaw, protective bylaw. And on page one, the purpose of this bylaw is to manage growth and development in the town so as to ensure the appropriate use of the land encouraging those qualities
which distinguish Cadam as a desirable community year round. And if you go through the various points I want to highlight third point schools we have to consider schools.
That's what the bilar is telling us. Number two, the provision of housing that we do needs to be for persons of all income levels. That's not going to happen if you build $4 million homes. It just is not going to
happen. And the last one that I'll mention here is a preservation for present and future inhabitants of Chadam and historical assets of the community. Our school is we can't have it go away. It's
it there's nothing to replace it. Criteria. Special permits may be granted when it has been found that the use involved will not be detrimental not be detrimental to the established or future character of the neighborhood in the town. And when it has been found that
the use involved will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the bylaw. It's very important that we consider here the future character. If going back to my numbers that I showed you where it's half the population it
was and the school that it was 20 years ago, that's the future. We need to build that up. Allowing this privatelyowned land to be used for four plus million dollar homes is totally
wrong. And it's the absolute wrong way to go. It does not answer this criteria specifically. We could talk about the suitability of the site for the proposed use for the suitability of this site. No, not for single family homes
that only mega millionaires can afford. Even a millionaire couldn't afford to hold there. Big one. Compatibility of the proposed use with surrounding land uses. What I'm talking about is a failing school
system that we need to build up and it's not going to happen with houses of this nature. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, sir. Um, Virginia Fenwick. So, for me, it's criteria one, two, and
eight. Um I spent some time during questions mostly uh on criteria two suitability of the site proposed use. So just to quickly recap um in Mr. Clark's own narrative for criteria too. Um,
second sentence, there are many existing single family residences around this property. And the analysis that I showed you with the, you know, colorcoded chart and everything, taking out condos, taking out multi-use, etc. is
13, but 12 of them pre-exist zoning, so they don't need a special permit, which left the one. And um that one is a split zone uh property, part GB2, and it was it was a permit was provided in 2005 for
that uh because they wanted to move the house to match up with the streetscape. and then another special permit which may correlate with some of the numbers that have been thrown around with the number of special permits that there were two on that one property. That one property again is 713 Main Street. The
second one was granted in 2008 and it was for a garage. Those are the only and that was never built by the way. the only two special permits in this area that we're talking about that are the loc that are within the locus of the subdivision that
we're talking about. Um it's it's only one. So I I don't agree that it's many existing single family homes residences around this property. So that's that's criteria two. Criteria one, adequacy of
site. uh 12,394 square feet of buildable upland with the total gross floor area of the house projected to be 5282 square feet. I don't think that
that is uh I don't think a lot size of um I don't think the lot size is sufficient for that. You know, forget about whether it's in GB2 and it's 7,000 even 20,000 square feet. It's that's a large house. So, I don't think that the site is adequate. So, that's criteria
one. And then number eight, Mr. Nixon um covered that. So, I'm not going to add anything else to that. Thank you very much, Steve. Well, I don't really have very much to add to whatever everything that's already been said, but I think there is
a much better use of this property um than what's being proposed. Um, I just wish that uh more energy would be spent um looking at alternatives rather than these uh large homes that we don't need. All
right, Paul, would you like to deliberate on the criteria? Yes, I think uh the information that was provided by uh Mr. Nixon and by Mr. each um has been uh very helpful um
especially looking at the overall size of the homes uh that are being proposed here. Um I realize that uh this is in a GB zone and what the applicant is doing is taking advantage of the dimensional
requirements of a GB zone to in effect create a residential zone. And that really is not the intent of the bylaw. Uh and the reason why it refers in the bylaw to approval by the zoning
board of appeals is because the zoning board is designed to act as a buffer between the applicant and the overall intent of the bylaw to effectuate the intent of the bylaw.
So although we may have structures that will nominally uh fit into the dimensional requirements of a GB zone, they're really residences. And if we were to allow everyone who comes in here
to use those criteria, we would in effect get rid of our GB zone and create residences throughout u the GB zone situation. Um the important thing here is that a
single family residence is not a permitted use by right in the GB zone. It requires a special permit. As such, we must find uh creating a four to five
uh I guess four size foursiz lots and houses are not detrimental to the established or future character of the neighborhood and town and that the use involved will be in harmony with the
general purpose and intent of the bylaw. Now, in when we looked at the general intent and purpose of the bylaw, we look at section one of the uh bylaw provisions. And as Mr. Mr. Dixon has noted out the purpose of the bylaw is to
manage growth and de development in the town so as to ensure the appropriate use of land encouraging those qualities which distinguish Chattam as a desirable community for yearround and seasonal residential commerce tourism and
recreation including some of the items which are outlined there are provision of housing for persons of all income levels which is not really the count concept of a of a $4 million house. Uh
prevention of overcrowding of land which uh if you think about using residential residential and then using general business dimensional requirements, it certainly crowds the land much more than we would ever permit in a residential
zone. And uh we talk about uh preservation of for the citizens of their right to their comm excuse me customary means of earning a living. Well, that means we
need to keep some business zones. We need to not change them into residential zones by approving houses. So we need to continue to allow this GB zone to act as a GB zone and not end up as a
residential zone with different criteria. So my feeling is that uh we should not be attempting to uh shoehorn in residential use into a general
business zone. And that that has only been done if it's been done in very rare situations and this is not one of those situations. So as a result, my inclination will be to vote no. Thank you, Mr. Simple. David V, you haven't
deliberated yet. I know you've talked, but you've not delivered. I have not deliberated. Go to Mr. Well, I I I wrote some of this out, so I I hopefully stick to the script here. Um the script that you wrote, the I wrote. Um, and I hope I'm not I mean I'm maybe
some repeating some points that have previously been made, but this is the way I feel about it. I want to start by noting that one of the options um the judge gave us on remand was uh that we could issue a special permit with uh any conditions which are reasonably related
to our it's our concerns about a residential use of the property. And I when I look at my concerns, which I will explain going a little further into this, I I cannot think of conditions that I I could suggest applying that
would alleviate those concerns. Um those concerns extend to um the um established municipal and business uses having a negative effect on on the single family residential use. Um particularly if
someone's paid market rate $4 million or more for a house, I think the expectation uh might um be somewhat jarred by spillover of lighting from the ball field, noise, um reduced privacy. I lived in this neighborhood for about 10
years, so I speak from direct experience on that. So then further, I'd like to say that I cannot support um a special permit for single family residential use on this lot at this time. And that is I'm going to cite the
criteria um which uh just to clarify to be extremely I'm rather than going by the number I'm going to go by the letters as they are printed in the in the zone in the uh bylaw. So my the with respect to the criteria uh B which is
suitability of the site for proposed use and H compatibility of the proposed use with surrounding land uses. Um my objections center around aspects of the subdivision of the land which has been designed to maximize single family
residential use. uh the lot line separating lot one which is the um um business use on on with the main street address that has the existing buildings on it the remaining existing buildings. Uh the lot line separating that from lots two and
three on the subdivisions is located as close as close to 20 feet to the back of the existing commercial building. That's the Monmouth Theater building. Required minimum setback of 15 feet has been met, but leaves little room on lot one for
back of the building access and activities related to commercial use. The proximity and elevation of the proposed single family dwelling to the back of the commercial use building on lot one is not compatible.
The proponent the proponents have been in discussions with the HBDC indicating an interest in expanding the building and its uses on lot one including a restaurant that would exacerbate the inherent conflicts can arise between
commercial and residential uses. And our bylaw in section 7B16 lists special regulations for restaurant use that that include among other things landscaping or fencing to minimize conflicts with adjacent
residential uses. I think here we can find that um we can by not allowing this residential use to take place in this immediately adjacent to Magnus building that is helping to um
deny to um alleviate that situation where not allow it to to take place. So I think that's a legitimate reason for not doing it. Um and then I also further find that the proposed alteration to the topography of lot two which is number 10
Annabel in which enables the house to have a basement level garage and raising the first floor level to about 10 ft above the existing grade which was mentioned in our earlier decision letter and the judge noted it in the um um in
his um decision is not comp is not compatible with the uses on lot one and the reasoning for the commercial development of lot one could be greatly constrained by this combination of grade change and
residential use at number 10 Annabel. I note that the existing grades of lots both lots two and three or modest variations of same could be important in providing necessary parking for proposed
commercial uses on lot one. With respect to criteria D, impact on neighborhood visual character, the proposed single family dwelling on lot 10 would loom over the back of the commercial building and the neighboring
mixeduse building to the west. The ridge of the house would be nearly as high as the eve line of the towering fly space at the top of the theater of the building on W1 as well as 5t higher than the adjacent mixeduse building at
784 Main Street. The first floor would be four feet higher than Main Street at that point and about at level with depot road at that point. So, I know that there's that there some views of this building were it to be
constructed would be um blocked by the buildings on lot one, but you would still see this building from portions of Main Street and from depot road. So the
um and I don't and I would like to and I'm I'm also would like to avoid a situation that we created or helped create uh in a subdivision on off of Croll Road. When I look down, I see a building looming over the back of
another building. And I don't want to I don't want to repeat that error. Um, and I'm just going to say that the uh the proponents seem to have the cart before the horse here uh potentially constraining developments on lot one in
order to accommodate residential uses of lot two and lot three. I find this to be contrary to the criteria to criteria B and H. The proposed concentration of up to four market rate single family
dwellings in this subdivision would result in an intensification of this use. Leveraging the lesser dimensional and differing lot coverage standards of the zone in the heart of the surrounding GB2 district and GB2 and municipal
districts. This would not be in keeping with the interspersing of existing uses noted by Judge Smith in his decision. The effect would be a oneoff R13 district created by individual
special permits presented separately. I do I find this to be detrimental to the establish established character of the neighborhood and not in keeping with the general purpose and intent of the bylaw. This would cumulatively negatively affect the surrounding uses
on lot one as well as adjacent mixed and municipal uses. And uh the table I think the table that I presented also shows the a proponent had illustrated its comparison to the previously special permitted use. But
all of those other 12 that Jenny counted I believe um in single family uses within that area which were uh pre-existed zoning. If you look at the size as and I imagine you have the size of those lots and the
footprints and and grossful areas of the you will find that none of them none of those are as large as what the proposals are on lot 10. So in and then further just as I as I I wanted to comment that judge Smith
noted in his decision that we did not explain our differing determination from that of the HBDC and having been a member of both boards perhaps I can offer some clarification. The HBDC is charged with passing judgment upon the
appropriateness of exterior architectural features and is not empowered to consider use in making its det. There is some overlap in their
considerations but that does not extend to the uses involved. So uh and then the further in in reviewing uh the tapes of the meetings, some of the HBDC meetings, I I find in they in their rules and regulations,
they say where appropriate, every effort should be made to use the building structure site in a way that requires minimal alterations to that existing building structure or site, including topography, natural growth, trees, shrubs, and indigenous plants. And I
didn't see any discussion about this significant change in topography that's being proposed here that I also I just find uh again for that reason and for the um location of the back of that building is inappropriate. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Vich. Ed, do you have
anything new to add? Yeah, I I'm not voting, so I'll be brief. Um uh the the two um issues I have with this this development is um the suitability in GB2 zone. A strict
residential project in a GB2 zone uh especially large single family homes doesn't uh qualify in my uh my opinion and I also feel uh you know a master plan of the whole property would have been helpful to me especially regarding
compatibility to uh you know other things in the area. If you only seen part of the plan it it's tough to come up with a an informed decision. And that's the only thing I have to add. And I don't really have too much to add either. Paul
took the word out of my mouth uh shoehorned and uh that I can't help but think that these houses would be shoehorned in there where they don't belong. I look at um criteria one, two, and eight as did my colleague uh
Virginia Fenwick. And uh just because the applicant has every right to be here and he does he has every right to ask does not mean that we need to grant it because we have reasons to believe
that it's not uh adequate for the proposed use. The proposed use is a very large single family home. Number one, proposed use. Um, the adequate the adequacy of the size of the site for the proposed use. I would say that it's not
adequate for such a large house. Maybe it's adequate for a house but not this one. It's also it's allowable but not adequate. Um, number two, is the site suitable? It's not suitable for this
particular application. Maybe it's it's suitable under the rules for some house, but not this one. Um, and it's clearly in no way compatible with surrounding land uses, as Mr. Nixon very nicely pointed out, we have a school, we have
playgrounds, we have a fire department, and then across the street, squarely across the street from Miss Annabelle, are very two tiny little homes uh on depot road that are flanked by commercial businesses and mixed use. These properties. This property would be
flanked by mixed use and commercial use. And there are no huge market value houses anywhere in the area that are new like this or that look anything like this. Therefore, I would vote no. Um Paul,
I will move to approve the application as submitted. David seconds and votes no. I vote no. Paul votes no. Jenny votes no. As do I. It's unanimous. No. Um, thank you to the
applicant. And now we will move to the next application when Sarah's ready. This is uh 24-149 Cadam Productions care of Greg
Clark five Annabelle Lane. And uh Mr. clock. Assuming that you want to move forward with this application, um we will hear from you. Application number 24-149, Chattam Productions LLC, care of
Greg Clark, 1234 Chestnut Street, Sweet 211 Newton, Mass 02464. Owner of property located at lot located at 5 Annabel Lane. Also shown on the Town of Cadam's assessor's map, 14E, block 37, lot 5. The applicant proposes
to construct a single family dwelling in a GB2 zone which requires the grant of a special permit. The proposed lot coverage is 4,13 square ft 31.2% where 70% is the maximum allowed. The lot is conforming with
12,877 ft where 7,000 ft is required in the GB2 zone. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 9 and sections 3C 4C 26 and 8D2B of the protective bylaw. This was continued from February 13th, 2025.
Welcome back, Mr. Clock. Well, thank you. Um, first of all, I apologize to you people afterwards, but this has to be done for purposes of appeal. Okay. Chattam Productions is here regarding Five Annabel
Lane. Chattam Productions proposes to construct a three-bedroom single family home at 5 Annabel Lane in the GB2 district zone. The property contains 13,248 square ft of lot area of which
12,877 ft are buildable upland. Proposed dwelling will have 3,452 ft of spa finished space. The unfinished basement will have 1812 square feet, making the total gross floor area 5,264 square ft. Pursuant to the
definition of building coverage in the bylaw section 2B21, building coverage means the buildable upland portion of a lot which is covered by buildings including porches but excluding parking areas, pools, decks, and any other permanent structures which do not have
roofs. The proposed dwellings building coverage is 197 square ft or ratio of 14.8%. Where there is no restriction pursuant to the uh pursuant to the definition of lot coverage in the bylaw
in section 2B65 which defines lot coverage as the buildable upland portion of a lot covered by buildings, driveways, parking areas, pools, tennis courts, decks, and any other permanent structure. The proposed dwellings lot coverage is 4,3 ft or
31.2% where 70% is allowed. The criteria for the special permit include several items. The first one is the adequacy of the site in terms of size for the proposed use. The proposed use is a single family residence. The minimum required lot size
in a GB2 is 7,000 square ft of buildable upland. The size of five Annabel Lane is 13,248 square feet of buildable upland. The building building coverage of the proposed single family residence at five Annabel Lane is
14.8%. And the lot coverage is 31.2%. This coverage is in compliance with the Chattam bylaws per appendix 2. In a GB2 zone, there is no maximum building coverage. However, maximum lock coverage allowed is 70%. Many of the surrounding properties do
not meet the 7,000 foot buildable upland requirement, while many others meet this requirement but contain less buildable upland than five Annabel Lane. These properties are were identified on maps previously submitted and confirmed by the assessor's official records which
are also previously attached an application 28-085 for 10 Annabel Lane on November 2nd, 2022. Therefore, the lot is adequate in terms of size for the residential use proposed within this district per the
guidelines. Suit second criteria is suitability of the site for the proposed use. The proposed use for five bill is a single family residence. There are many existing single family residences around this property and throughout the business district. Additionally, there are several multi-use buildings with
apartments over businesses immediately adjacent to our property. All these residential and multi-use buildings blend very well with the few businesses properties that remain in that business district. Accordingly, the proposed single family use for five animal lane is suitable for this location.
Therefore, the proposed use is suitable for this lot. Third criteria is the impact on traffic flow and safety. Five lane is one of four approved building lots in the subdivision with access onto depot road. The subdivision was engineered to
provide any vehicles leaving the subdivision with clear view of any vehicles, pedestrians, or bicycle traffic in both directions prior to exiting the subdivision road. Can we put up the um the chart that shows the school, the fire station,
and the back area of the of this area? The zoning map or Yeah, the zoning map is fine. I I may have interpreted Mr. Nixon's comments incorrectly. Correct me if I I did, but I think he was talking about this area
over here as if a single family home over here with not a lot of car traffic would cause safety concerns for the students coming out of the school going to the after school daycare and
amenities. Is that what you were We This is not a time for questions and answers. We stick totally to the script. Okay. Okay, there's a time for your for your application uh to be presented. Okay, respectfully. Okay, so to continue with criteria three, the impact of traffic
flow and safety the design provides for the safety of vehicles, vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians. Number of vehicles entering and exiting the subdivision on depot road from this one home will be minimal. A five Annabel lane is proposed for a single family
home. And unlike potential business use, there will not be a constant flow of traffic from this residential property. The impact on traffic flow from five Annabel Lane will be minor and will not have an impact. Criteria four, the impact on neighborhood visual character, including views and vistas. Five Annabel
Lane is not clearly visible for any of the adjacent roads. The existing buildings on Main Street block any view from Main Street and the town's own land with with trees and adjacent structures block any view from depot road. Viewers from Veterans Field are not affected either by the construction of a home on
Five Annabel. Five Annabel does not abut the town property of Veterans Field as nothing is currently planned to be built on 15 Annabelle or 20 Annabel Lane. There will be almost a 75 foot tree and vegetation buffer between Veterans Field and 5 Annabel Lane. As a result, there is no negative impact on the
neighborhood's visual character vista of views. Criteria five, adequacy of method of sewage disposal, source of water and drainage. The sewage disposal and water supply are being provided to five innovable lane through connections to town sewage system and the town water
system. These connections were designed and shown on the approved subdivision plans and engineered calculations for the drainage system were provided with those plans. All the rain water will be contained within the subdivision in each individual lot. Underground recharge units will be installed and no water
will run off of these lots onto any adjacent properties. These water and sewer system connections and drainage system designs were approved by the appropriate town agencies having authority over those systems. Therefore, the town has confirmed that the proposed sewer water and drainage systems are adequate. The sixth criteria is the
adequacy of utilities and other public services. The drainage system on five lane in the subdivision is self-contained on the property and engineered to handle the flow of all rainwater. The water and sewage systems are town systems and these connections have been reviewed and approved by the
town agencies having the authority. The electric and gas requirements have been confirmed with these utility companies to be of adequate availability at five vanabel lane. The design of the road and capability of emergency vehicle access has also been reviewed and approved by the town authorities. Therefore, the town has confirmed that the proposed
roads, electric, gas, sewer, water, and drainage systems are adequate. The seventh criteria is noise and litter. There will not be any outdoor trash disposal containers on five Annabel Lane or any of the other lots. The owner of the single family home will keep the property free from
litter. There will not be any ordinary no unordinary noise from the use of five Annabel Lane as a residence. Unlike some of the surrounding businesses, there will not be a constant flow of vehicles, customers, or workers. and the noise levels will only be that of a standard single family residence. Therefore, the
noise and litter are not an issue with this proposed residence. The eighth criteria is the compatibility of the proposed youth with surrounding land uses. The majority of the properties within the surrounding area include a residential component. Many of those properties contain only a
single residential building. Five in lane has been reviewed and approved by HBDC to confirm to the HBDC guidelines. Therefore, ensuring that the visual character of the town in this business district will be improved. Additionally, the HBDC will perform f full review of
the proposed landscaping at five Annabel Lane. We have shown in our preliminary landscape plans our intention to plant buffer trees and some fencing along a budding property lines. The neighborhood will not have a dramatic change. The use we are proposing currently exists around our property and around the adjacent
town owned property. There is a town-owned parcel along Depot Road which currently provides 20 foot 25 foot natural tree buffer between the road and the majority of the property along Depot Road. This barrier will remain. Additionally, along the left center field from the schoolboard over to the
centerfield, there's a 25 foot buffer of trees on the town's land which will remain. Additionally, there's currently a 30-foot tree buffer from 15 Annabel Lanes property that has currently no plans for development and will provide a tree and vegetation barrier. Therefore,
there is not a detrimental impact on the neighborhood and the town's visual character. The ninth criteria is the impact on the natural environment, including slopes, vegetations, wetlands, groundwater, and water bodies. There are currently no wetlands, groundwater, or water bodies on or adjacent to our
property. The existing vegetation not contain any protected tree or shrub species and consists of trees and shrubs entangle with invasive plants. Our proposal includes removing these plants and trees and planting native trees and plants in replace. Each sh each shared
property line within a will have new trees planted to provide privacy separation. Plants which require less water will be installed to minimize the need to irrigate frequently. There will not be any area on five Annabel Lane where water runs off onto an Abot's property. The new trees and plants will
invite birds and other animals to come in properly to the property to find food and nests. Our proposal has no negative impact on the natural environment. And the 10th criteria is the impact on neighborhood and town visual character of a any formula business establishment.
And this is not applicable as we are not proposing a formula business establishment. And if we go to the second drawing, this is the landscape plan. If we go to the second drawing, the clock engineering drawing. Here it
is. So again, here this is the Could you raise that up, Sarah, please? And maybe blow it up a little so I can read it. Yeah. Thank you. So this is where it gives you the building height requirements and the average grade is
calculated by Clark Engineering, the engineer of record who did the design for the subdivision in each of the lots. The average grade is 44.1. With the 30-foot height limitation by the guidelines, the maximum height could be
74.1. This is proposed at 72.2. As you can see, this is almost two feet below the height limitation, but this is because it was done in conjunction with the architect and HBDC on the design that was determined to be acceptable by
HBDC. And the architect, I think the building is a little bit narrower, so he could get the the roof line a little lower. Okay. This tells you the first floor elevation is at the 48.4, four which corresponds to the the chart that we
just looked at. Um and again there's I didn't see any comment any question about the grade on this but that takes you through the design that was done in conjunction between our architect and our civil engineer. Okay.
I'll leave it at that. Thank you very much. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application? If so, please indicate. I do not see anybody that wishes to speak in favor. I will now read the um correspondences. I will not read Peter
Farber's unless he's he left. Okay. So, I'll his is longer than is allowable. So, I'll probably summarize that. Um I will go ahead and read the the um correspondences. First one's from Judith Giorgio, our health agent
2112025. She tells us that she has reviewed the three-bedroom dwelling on the lot and um it's in accordance with regulations of water and sewer and the final review of the proposed floor plan floor plans will be required um before a
building permit sign off. Then we have a note from the HBDC. They tell us that um they have allowed for a one-year extension on this. They had approved it um in the past and um that was received
on January 22nd, 2025. We um this is a long memo from Peter Farber. Um he uh was not in favor of the application. He um was not in favor of 10 or five for the same
reasons. He um states in his in his uh memorandum that single family residents are not permitted as a matter of right in the GB district. The applicant was aware of this when he purchased the subdivided uh land uh of uh these small
lots. The area coverage requirements that apply everywhere else in town when a new lot is created are dramatically different and have been since May of uh 1982. Uh other areas in the town require
20,000 square ft. Um he says that um in pursuit for a greater profit, the applicant is seeking to capitalize on the very modest area requirement in this particular district um and the very generous coverage requirement that this
particular district allows for. Uh he um says that the board of appeals is not without guidepost. U the M Massachusetts legislature um you know allows us to apply criteria and that he also says that um the appellet courts have
provided uh guidepost um and uh not the trial court um or land court uh necessarily has it right. Um the authority is reserved for the appellet courts and the supreme judicial court. Um he's referring to Judge Smith uh who
remanded the case. he didn't agree with Judge Smith's um some his findings. Um he also tells us uh the one thing Judge Smith did get right um was the first sentence um in considering an appeal of
a decision of the municipal uh board. The court may not disturb the board's decision unless it is based on legally untenerable ground. Um but then in attorney Father's uh position, the court
uh still uh denied it at this point and remanded it. Um let's see what else. This is again it was too long. So I'm just going through some key points that he made and I'll just read the conclusion now. Judge Smith of the
land court failed to recognize the body of law which supported the board's initial decision may deny the special permit sought um if the board is on legally solid ground um and uh the board should deny the special permit according
to Mr. Farber um at the end of the day. So we also have a note which we had for the other application from former Chattam Police Chief now retired Mark Paulina. He was surprised and disappointed to learn that Chadam Productions is once again seeking
permission to build a very large residence on small lots. And incidentally, we received this on April 22, 2025. Um that he said he was dismayed that the matter is once again before us. The zoning bylaw is to ensure
proper development and land use and these one family dwellings are not appropriate in the general business zone. the small lots are inadequate and the area is not suitable for these houses. Um he tells us that we had properly denied the application the
first time and we should reject the latest applications this time as well. Then we have a note from Peter Gaines. Hope I'm saying that right. uh from 42025. Also writing in opposition uh the
zoning bylaw is intended to manage development appropriately and these proposals are not consistent with that goal. Building high price single family residences in the GB zone where multif family residents could be cited as inappropriate. It would be incompatible
with surrounding land uses and the impact of the neighborhood. Visual character adjacent to Veterans Field would also be detrimental to the character character of the neighborhood and the town. I hope that the board of appeals rejects this. Then we have from
Jack and Sally Sally Bowman of 25 Wonka Pit Way received on April 19th, 2025. They are dismayed to learn that Chattam Productions is again seeking our permission to construct relatively large residents on small lots in the GB zone.
Veterans Field is one of Chadam's crown jewels. Any changes in the wooded area left behind center field should be treated with the utmost caution and care. Our protective zoning bylaw is in place to ensure proper development and land use management. Large one family dwellings are not appropriate to fit in
this general business zone. you have properly denied the application in the past and should do so again for your sound reasons. Um that concludes the uh correspondences. Now is there anybody here or on Microsoft teams wish to speak against or has a question? I see
attorney Lichfield uh rises to this occasion and he will approach the microphone when he's ready. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Bill Lichfield. I will be try to be brief. I think this is the sixth time that I have
had to speak in regard to houses on Annabel Lane. And given that we've already been advised that things are necessary for an appeal, it may not be the last. Be that as it may, uh the conclusions that this board made and its
individual members offered during your deliberations are a better summary and more succinct than anything I could say as to the reasons why this proposal ought not be approved. I went back and
watched some of the prior hearings and listened to the comments of some of your for me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me members Dave Thompson and Megan Story and Buck Upson and and what they said back in 2022, starting in April of 22 and then October and November of 22
were entirely correct and your deliberations earlier today in appeal number 24149 were precisely on point. I do want to make a couple of observations. Curiously, I don't think there was any
discussion in the last hearing of the architectural plans themselves. Uh they were portrayed, but ordinarily for you to make a positive determination, you need to know something about the house. That didn't happen for whatever reason.
Um you understand full well that the area is not suitable. it is not compatible and that the house is out of place in this neighborhood. Our comprehensive plan is something that isn't talked about terribly often
because it's guidance just as as but it's important guidance. It was adopted unanimously by the voters. It states that we should never maximize development. This is plainly maximization of development. As with the
prior proposal, while not immediately veterans feel, there is no question that it will have a negative impact. And I do want to reiterate something about which there was a lot of back and forth that of the 24 immediate adjacent immediately adjacent
properties. I'm not talking about the GB zone generally or the GB2 zone. You know, the whole story of why Isaac Hardy was zone GB is goes back 60 years and I could bore you with it. We're talking about the neighborhood because that's
what the bylaw says you have to look on look at and what you have to protect. There is only one single family dwelling and that is as has been said by you a pre-existing non-conforming use of the 24 properties in the neighborhood. I
don't agree with the appellet court's holding in another case that a goal of zoning is the eventual disappearance of nonconformities. But I fully endorse Mr. Simple's suggestion that what is proposed here is
the creation of a new inherently nonconforming R13 residential zone. That is wholly inappropriate as Mr. Simple noted and as the board found. I will not go into the other things that are wrong with this
proposal in any great detail. You know that the surrounding land uses are commercial in the east and the south, commercial and multif family residential in the north, municipal on the east, and the pro the proposal is patently not in harmony with the purpose and intent of
the bylaw. But sitting here, I was struck by something. Channel 18 when it when it does the roll in to this to your zoning board of appeals hearings shows our downtown business district. It shows that it's
it's comprised of commercial structures. It also shows some important locations like the lighthouse and maybe Veterans Field is akin to that. I don't think the channel 18 rollin is
ever going to use a photograph of 17 or 18 million dollars worth of houses shoehorned into this location and I don't think you should allow it to be an option. I would urge you to reject this request and I thank you. Thank you, sir.
Is there anybody else here in Microsoft Teams that has a question or wishes to speak against this application? If so, please rise or raise your hand or indicate in some fashion. Seeing no one. Okay. Questions from the board. Are
there any? Yes. David V. Questions for the applicant? Yeah. If the indulge us one question and and this was actually one that I was hoping to address to Dave Clark, but I don't see that he's on on
the line. Um perhaps you can um tell me, Mr. Clark, in looking at the site plan here, I see some uh trees indicated and I and I'm I'm thinking that those that
shows um some existing tree locations. Um correct. Do you? Right. And um I mean I could see at least some of those are slated for removal. Um do you I mean you mentioned plantings along
the property line. What about any of these trees that are that are there? Is that a on a case by case basis or some of them I mean one of them's in the middle of the driveway so that I'm sure is not going to survive. Uh um if you if you walk the site, you can see there
there are no trees there that aren't strangled by invasives or Well, I've walked this I've walked site a few times. Yeah. I mean, there are there there's invasive stuff. I mean, and most of the trees most of the trees are white poppplers, silver leaves are not the
most prized. Let's just keep it to the Can you answer the question just Okay. And then the other thing that I note here is that I see on the um architecture drawing some um um doors and steps leading to the out to
the outdoors, but I don't see any indication of patios or decks or anything uh on either side of the back of the house. Um, so I'm that's my question is are there plans um for Can you pull up the
um landscaping plan? So no there there are not any plans currently. Uh okay. I mean, I would assume that there are some future plans probably, but uh that's uh so that is and that would be were there to be patios or
whatever, those would be reflected on the site coverage um um calculations. Although you're well below the 70s percent, but still there's no none of that kind of hardscaping has been included in these figures here.
Correct. Okay, that's all. Yep. Thank you. Does anybody else have any questions on this particular Yes. Um, Miss Fenwick, please go ahead. Okay. I wanted to just in the previous hearing, I asked you about the demoing of one of the properties. Um, were you aware that that property was 1900s and it could
have been demoed? I mean, it could have been um you could have had asked for a special permit for that property. What's what special type of special permit? One of the properties, one of the properties that was torn down was before zoning. So, you would have been
able to get a special permit for that property. Were you aware of that? We we we are familiar that we have a couple of pre-existing non-conforming buildings there. Correct. One, but but it was torn down. Like, I'm
just I just wanted to see if you knew that because it could have um It could have been one that you could have built without having to get the special permit. No, that's not true. You still We still need to come for the special permit. Yeah, you could have applied. That's all. Yeah. Yeah. Of course. Just like you're applying here.
Exactly. Yeah. Doesn't mean you would have gotten it. Just Yep. You could have applied. Yep. So, we've established that. Okay. Paul, I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. Uh Dave seconds and votes yes. I vote yes. All votes yes.
Jenny votes yes. And I vote yes as well. Okay. Deliberations. We'll we're going to just do the same drum roll. Sure. David Nixon. Okay. I don't think I need to uh throw the map up again, but essentially what I said before was it's very important to us what the
neighborhood is. I don't care where we are or what we're doing. Anything to do with a special permit of the different kinds we have or a variance. What's the neighborhood? And um I do believe that our elementary school defines the
neighborhood. It is singularly the most important building in this town. Why? Because that's where our young children go to learn how to read, write, and start to interplay with one another. I mean, what could be more important than that? You'd say, "Well, we have another
school. They call it a middle school, whether it is here." But you don't get there unless you go to the elementary school first. That's the whole point. So, that's why it's so important. And I pointed out that there are a number of buildings in that neighborhood that
support the elementary school. For instance, across the street is a building that houses the Monamoy Community Services and the Cadam Children's Fund. These are two organizations that have programs and money to help out children and
children's family. They also administered over there is the Cadam uh I forget what it is. Um, Chadam something to do. What is it? Uh, the voucher program. Yeah, Chattam Children's Fund. Thank you. Well, no.
And the voucher program, but the voucher is what? Monoy Community Services. Nope. It comes through town. Yes. And the administrator is Mon. Yeah. Anyway, so uh the importance
of the lot that uh Mr. Clark has been talking about is it is the only privatelyowned lot left of any size in this whole GB2 district that we're talking about. It's only talking. So the use of it for
anything other than supporting the Chattam Elementary school population and the other chart that I put up there showed you that unfortunately in the last 20 years the population has been reduced by more than half and we're down
to I think it was 146. uh we need to do something to support that school to build it up whether it be housing that you know brings people with young kids to town or whatever it is that's what that land needs to be done used for I'm
sorry so it becomes compatible with our school our elementary school which is 100% funded by the taxpayers in the town of Chadam and I don't think I want to reiterate anything else that's enough. Thank you. Uh Mr. V, just stick to the
criteria if we could and and give your deliberations as to criteria. Um Oh, okay. Uh well, I'm on the fence with this one. I
mean, I I have said in the past that one house I could possibly um see in this development, but not certainly not four. Um, and this is still a large it's
it's it's a large house. It's demonstrabably larger than any other single family residential other than the one that was cited across from the uh the uh community center. Uh, and I actually honestly I'm torn. I
don't know how I I I don't have I don't know what to offer. Okay. But now we're going to go over to uh Paul Simple and then we'll continue on. Uh as I've uh as I've looked at the uh applications both on this on and on
uh lot 10 uh which we dealt with earlier today. Um what we're looking at and the applicant has indicated is that these are substantial structures that are being proposed. In this case, it's the house um which uh he has estimated would
sell in the range of $4 million. A substantial amount of money. Um, aside from the specific criteria that we look through in terms of adequacy of the site and the suitability
of the site for proposed use, we start with the concept that this is an application under section uh 8C4 of our bylaw, which indicates that special permits may be granted when it has been found that the use involved will not be
detrimental to the established or future character of the neighborhood. neighborhood and the town and when it is found that the use involved will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the bylaw. And when we look at the question of what is the general purpose and intent of the
bylaw, we look at among other things, section one, general provisions of the zoning ordinance for the town, which says that the purpose of this bylaw is to manage growth and development in the town so as to ensure the appropriate use
of land, encouraging those qualities which distinguish Chattam as a desirable community for yearround and seasonal residency, commerce, tourism, and recreations, including among others, um provision of housing for persons of all
income levels, the prevention of overcrowding of land, um and preservation uh for the citizens of their right to their customary means of earning a living. For those reasons, I think it's important to consider when we look at
the question of housing in a general business zone that we're effectively reszoning that area by making it a residential zone when in fact what we really need in Chattam right now is continued uh general business zone
because general business zone provides the jobs that we need, provides the ability to establish businesses that will support our families and our uh employees. So uh we need to keep that in
mind and when we start to create u individual houses in these locations they should presumably be uh houses that we need on a basis that it's more important than it is the general business. U I don't find that when
looking at these proposed houses and in this case uh five on Annabel Lane that that is a house which will be promoting the general purposes and intent of the bylaw and that's the significant
question for me. So uh from my viewpoint I would say we should not be uh extending the rare situation where we allow housing in a GB zone to this proposal. We should keep this as a
general business zone. Uh we need to preserve it and um we should not change it to a residential proportion. Um, so I would uh say it does not make sense for us to go forward with that as a prop
proposition. No, thank you. Um, Jenny, I don't have anything else to add. I agree with with Paul and my previous uh colleagues comments. All right, Steve. Yeah, I I guess I was going to reference some of the things that Mr. Nixon said and and Mr. simple
that um you know the the the declining uh enrollment in the schools. We need we need to attract young families here that have kids. And if we develop everything um in in the the the business
zones with residential homes, we're we're losing opportunities for small businesses and job opportunities, which would then hopefully feed the schools. So I I don't I don't we we don't have very many of
these business districts left that are undeveloped. And I think there's a much better need uh for for a different uh type of occupancy here rather than four large homes. So I think it it could be done differently. All right.
Thank you, Ed. Uh on the criteria a little I agree with my colleagues and have nothing to add. All right. Well, okay. So I'm going to just go through the criteria that I think are important. Um, number one, the adequacy
of the size of the site in terms of the size for the proposed use. It's not just a single family house. It's a huge one. And I don't think it's an adequate size site for a huge 5,000 5,000 square foot
uh house. I know it's a little less than that, but if you add in the basement, which we must if the basement is finishable, then I do not think that it is uh suitable adequate. even though it's allowable to go ahead and apply for it, it's not adequate because it's too
big. It's not suitable because it's too big. The site is too small for such a large house. There's only there's a lot of ways we could say it. We've said it numerous ways. Um the proposed use is a 5,000 square foot house or a 4,000 foot
house, however you want to slice it. Still too big for this lot. They're shoehorned in. It would be shoehorned in. Just looking at this one by itself, it would still be shoe in. Um and number eight, it is not compatible um for the
proposed use given the surrounding land uses. The surrounding land uses our school parks. Across the street on Depot Road, there are two tiny little houses right across from Annabelle that are it they're flanked
by commercial and mixed use. the this house would be also flanked by commercial and mixed use um on both sides. There are no houses that look anything like this house in the area. Therefore, it doesn't fit. Um the pro
let's see the other thing would be um the uh purpose intent of the bylaw of course is to manage growth and development. That's what we're here for. Just because an applicant has the right and this applicant has every right to to
file this um application, that's his job to do what he thinks uh is is um potentially uh advantageous to his reasoning. And we have a job too and our job is to manage the growth and development of the town as Mr. Simple
said and and we've all said that we don't think this is taking the town in the right direction with regard to grow to growth and it's not appropriate land use for this area. Um and I'm not going to beat this horse any further than that. Um did you want to say anything
else Mr. Beach? I'm I'm find myself in agreement with my colleagues and uh will not be supporting this. Yeah. Okay. Um and Mr. Nixon, you want further deliberation? Yeah, I just wanted to add to what you were saying
about the purpose and intent uh specifically schools as mentioned. You know, we need to be considerate of the schools and anytime we approve anything that's going to be in the back of it. Also, it's very clear in the purpose of
intent of this bylaw that provision for housing for per persons of all income levels needs to be included. Thank you. And I agree. Okay, Paul. I'll move to approve the application as submitted. Uh
Davids and votes no. Nixon. I vote no. Paul votes no. Jenny votes no. As Dwight, it's unanimous. Uh denied. Um and uh we are now going to take a short break and we will uh be back after that.
Thank you. Randy, can I just make one s Yes, please. One suggestion here. There was a number of findings by the board members and I think this is especially in that this was a remand with some clear direction from the court. I think
it it may serve the board well to return a draft decision to the board at a later meeting so that the board can can kind of check the details of their findings and agree with them so that we
do what the judge suggested we do if we deny it again. Okay. So that was to the first application and what we just heard was the second one which was not on remand. Well, I Yeah, but I I think for both I mean that the same the same rules are going to apply. Yes. And I I think
it's sufficiently complex and obviously there's been litigation already to date and I think it in fairness to everyone including the applicant. We should make sure that the details match and correspond with all of our duties under
the the protective bylaw. So you have 90 days to make a decision. So, I think you should return a draft to your next available opportunity. I know you're meeting next month and the month after, so you have plenty of time. Okay. We will take your advice. Thank you. Okay.
Yep. Do we need a vote on that? Do we need a vote on that or No. No. We have 90 days and uh Yep. Okay. Very good. And we are now going to take a recess and we will be back after that. Okay, now we're back on the air and this
is the zoning board of appeals meeting. Today is April 24th, 2025 and we are now moving to application 24-152 whenever Sarah's ready. Application number 24-152. Mark Zippo,
care of Andrew L. Singer, Esquire, PO Box 67 Dennisport, Mass 02639. Owner of property located at 139 Indian Hill Road. Also shown in the town of Cadam's assessor's map 8G block 3, lot E3. The applicant seeks to enlarge standard change a non-conforming
accessory structure on a non-conforming lot via the conversion of a portion of the existing detached garage to habitable space. And under the second except clause of section six of Mass General Law chapter 48, such substantial alteration requires the grant of a special permit. The building coverage
will remain 4.4% where 10% is the maximum allowed. The law is non-conforming and that it contains 44,685 ft where 60,000 ft is required in the R60 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B
of the protective bylaw. This was continued from February 13, 2025. Welcome, Attorney Singer. Madame Chair, I am uh I am recusing from uh this hearing, so I will be leaving the room. We will miss you. And we will have uh Ed
Actton voting on this application. Uh I don't know why there's a gentleman with his hand up in the front seat. Uh front. No, you cannot talk from there. That's why I don't know why your hand is up. uh this isn't a time for anybody in the
audience to talk at all. So um basically we're not going to correct anything at this juncture but there will be an opportunity later for questions if you have any. Attorney Singer please go ahead. Thank you madam chair for the attorney Dennisport here on behalf of Mr. Zippo
who is in the uh second row this afternoon. Uh this is technically a continued hearing um but this is the first time we're presenting before you so we're opening it up tonight uh for the first time. Um, and I think given the afternoon, I'd like to start off by noting that this is a section six case.
Uh, and it is not a section 9 case given that you've been looking at that many of the similar criteria, but the biggest one being the legal standard of of not substantially more detrimental. And so, we had submitted some materials to you including a summary of reasoning. Uh,
the property in question is at 139 Indian Hill Road North in Chadam. It is a previously developed single family residential property with a detached house and a detached garage. Uh it is in located in the R60 zoning district. The
lot itself is is fairly substantial. It's over an acre in size, but it is less than 60,000 square feet and the frontage is not uh it's 125. Today you need 150. The structures that you see on the site are actually conforming. They're completely conforming structures to the zoning bylaw. We had met with
Jay and and Sarah um before before the filing. Um what Mr. Zipple would like to do is this is an application dealing with the garage, not the house itself. Um on the uh garage, he would like to add a shed dormer on the front. um and
to um uh renovate space on the existing second floor and part of the first floor maintaining a singlecar garage with an exercise room on the first floor and then there'll be an office and space and there you there you can see it. So the first that so there's no change to the
footprint of the garage the built the garage is not getting bigger than itself. So it's a conforming structure. It's going to stay conforming. This is all interior work. In meeting with um Jay originally, we had discussed whether or not we even needed to be here because the question was the zoning enforcement
officer has the authority to allow pre-existing non- or has allowed to has the right to allow pre-existing non-forming structures or conforming structures to be changed or altered, extended or altered if they don't increase the non-conforming nature of the site. And in this case, the only
thing that was non-conforming on the site is the lot size and the frontage and those weren't changing. however, made the determination that is your um protocol that when you are making changes, even if they're conforming changes on a pre-existing non-conforming lot, that requires a special permit from
you. And so that's why we're here under section um 5B and section six, MGL section six to request the special permit to make the add the dormer, add a deck um and some emergency stairs and to make the
interior changes to the property inside the garage itself as a special permit. There are as again it's all conforming work. the the you know the work itself is all conforming but the lot itself remains well not a small lot less than 60,000 square
feet and so we are here before you requesting a special permit as I said and requesting that you make a determination that the proposal as we'll go through it will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conforming conditions again the lot size and the
frontage uh will not be more detrimental to the neighborhood and that the specific findings of the zoning bylaw in section 5B are met. Um, respectfully submit that the proposal will not um adversely affect the public health,
safety, convenience or general welfare of the town and that as far as adequacy of terms of the site, the property at just under 45,000 square feet is 1acre plus. It's developed as you see on the plan on the screen and this will not change. So, it's a permitted use on a
permitted on on a on a pre-existing non-forming lot. The garage footprint, as shown, will not change. The only changes are going to be the proposed uh second floor deck on the rear and the um uh emergency stairs on the
uh right hand side there. There will be as noted and you can we can see it on the elevations, a dormer put onto right now there's a the front of the building's like a shed a shed uh dormer down. So there you can see it on the top right and the bottom left there. That that dormer is what's being proposed um
on the front of the garage structure itself within the footprint but it obviously expands the roof area at that time. Building coverage is and will remain only 4.4%. So there's as you saw in the site plan there this is not a significant coverage issue on the lot
itself. Um this is a residential district and um it developed for residential use and there's going to be no change in that use. The there is a fourbedroom property now. It's going to remain four bedrooms. You have a memorandum from the health department. Um they consider the second floor space
in the proposed second floor space in the garage to be a bedroom for classification purposes. So um there is some basement space in the house that's going to be just retrofitted and the h the property is going to remain a four-bedroom house. So there's no change increase in density or traffic or any of
that. Um it's going to remain as is from a calculation point of view. Just moving one bedroom for calculation purposes um over to the garage. It's not actually even a bedroom. The basement area in the house is not a bedroom either. But again it's a walk out so it's classified as such.
um we submit that as to the impact of scale sighting and mass on the neighborhood visual character that this proposal will be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood in terms of all of that the garage itself. Could we go back to the site plan era? Um so
this property from Indian Hill Road north on the right slopes down and it slopes down so much that the um uh roof of the garage is actually many feet below uh the road. like when you're standing at the road, you're almost looking almost over or at the garage.
So, it's set way down. So, adding this dormer on the front is not going to have much of you'll see it, but it's not going to have much of any visual impact because it's within the existing footprint and it's in the middle of the property, you know, couple hundred feet back and set down so low. You can't tell that from a two-dimensional plan, but if
I assume you might have been out there, you'll you notice that it it dips down. Um the uh again the only change is the dormer and and and the deck. So we submit that it's consistent with vernacular residential culture constructions uh
character of that neighborhood. Excuse me. The garage as I noted will continue to be conforming to all setbacks and building height is 21 plus or minus feet now and it's going to remain conforming. That dormer is not increasing the height. It's just bumping out some floor space on the front of the building.
um compatibility of the proposed use with neighboring uses. Again, submit there's going to be no change. The use is existing and it's not changing. Um and there's going to be no negative impact nor harm to groundwater, water supply, drainage or storm water. Uh
there going to be no impacts at all. The work is all really on the inside of a building. Um I noted about the fourbedroom septic system and you have that memorandum. Uh there will be no change or impact to traffic generation
because again no increase in density. There is plenty of parking um available on the site and that's going to remain with no changes at all. Um noise and litter we submit there's going to be no impacts to noise, nuisance, odors, sound or other negative impacts. This is a a
an interior change predominantly except for that second floor deck which is standard on in residential properties. And as far as uh utilities and other public services, uh the property is currently served by water, oil, and electric services and there are no
changes proposed for those. Um given the length of your afternoon and um this I think I'll stop here and just say we respectfully um request that you make the required findings of fact under 5B in section six that the proposal is not substantially more detrimental to the
neighborhood and grant a special permit. Yeah, thank you. and we did receive your findings anyway. So, well, very good. Is there anybody here or Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application? If so, please indicate in favor of the application. Sir, you wish
to speak in favor? Okay. We need you to get you have to No, no, no, no. There is no talking unless you go up to the microphone to speak in favor. Yep. You just have to state your name, sir, and speak in favor. Yeah. Bruce Bruce
Gibbs, his next door neighbor, not next. One house over. Five minutes. Okay. I don't need five minutes. I was just raised my hand because I was going to correct you even on your diagram. It's not the correct road. Now, this is a time to speak in favor of the
application. There will be a It's Indian Hill Road North, ma'am. Not Indian Hill Road. That's all I'm trying to correct you on. And I'm telling you this is not the time for that. If you have a question later then you can do that. This is not a time that Okay. I'm speaking in favor of it. Okay. Very
good. Okay. Thank you. All right. Now, anybody else like to speak in favor? Not in favor. No. It's in favor. No. Very good. I will now read the correspondences. There are not a lot of them. Just two. Chad uh let's see.
Chadam's uh health agent Judith Giorgio tells us that uh on 211 2025 she was reviewed the proposed renovation to the existing detached garage to this property. I met with the owner and reviewed the proposed floor plans. The
owner has agreed to open out the hobby area in the basement of the main house to eliminate that as a bedroom space. The existing main dwelling will have three bedrooms. The new garage space will have a fourth bedroom. The property and septic system can support four
bedrooms. Future additions to the main dwelling will require reconfiguring the main dwelling bedrooms to maintain the four bedroomedroom septic flow. I have no concerns at this time. Next, we have the submission of three two photographs
and uh a letter. Yeah, they're from Jim Raymond. Um she he he tells us on uh April 22, 2025 that his cousin Ellen McKe relayed to uh him that we submit any exhibits we would
like to present to the zoning board in advance of Thursday's meeting. My family's property is at 170 Indian Hill Road North and is in a butter to the property of Mark Zippo. the applicant for
24-152. Attached are two aerial photos that we would present in connection with our comments on April 24th. The property before it was purchased uh it had natural screening intact. The property before it was purchased um no since has
the lot has been cleared of trees and vegetations and they just wanted to um put that those facts forward. Now, if there's anybody here on on Microsoft Teams that wish to speak against Yes, sir. I see you. You have to go up to the microphone, as you probably could tell.
Uh, and you have up to five minutes to We have those and we have seen them. So, thank you. Just state your name when you get up there and you're here to either ask questions or to speak against the application. Yeah, I'm here to
speak against the application. Oh, okay. I didn't realize it started. Yeah. All right. Sorry. Uh I'm Jonathan Raymond. Um, I'm uh live we have a house at 170 Indian Hill Road North and joining us uh I have my brothers Dan
Raymond and on the Zoom call is my brother Jim Raymond. We also have Ellen a neighbor. But you're going to do the speaking for the family. Uh they're going to I'm just introducing Yeah. Okay. Yeah. They'll they'll be Just tell us why you're not my brother. Okay. Tell us what the problem is. Okay.
So, um, all right. So, just to go a little bit back on our history of our family, we've, uh, our parents bought this lot in the early 60s from our, uh, our father's cousin, Tim, uh, Tom Raymond
and his wife, Janet, who first laid out Indian Hill Road neighborhood. And our section is now a gravel road that leads to a dead end. The rest of it has been paved. We left ours gravel by choice. Um Emil uh Ellen's family purchased the lot
about the same time. We have Sandra and Kevin Sullivan whose family whose parents bought the um h their house which is across from Ellen's on schoolhouse pond and um they bought it from uh Janet after Tom passed away in
the early 70s. We've been there for a long time and we value the uh natural vegetation and environment. Um and the neighborhood itself is Upland Pine Barons, one of the
largest unfragmented left in Chattam. We are next to schoolhouse pond which is of course everyone should know is a great swimming pool swim swimming pond and has a town beach. Uh the lots on our side of the of
the street are subject to covenants that were established by Tom and Janet that left the area in a wooded natural state which we prize. Unfortunately the lots on Mr. Zippo side were not subject to the same covenants. He has taken full
advantage of that. He purchased after he purchased the property from the Campbell, he promptly and for practical purposes clear cut the lot much like you might do in a sub Connecticut subdevelopment. Um be if you look at the
the pictures you see a before and after the this is the after photo and you can see his lot sticks out like a sword and thumb in terms of being cleared. the the other photo. This is a photo from um
when the uh from the U brokerage uh salesperson photo they took as part of the sales package by the previous owners. You can see what was there was well shielded, fit into the rest of the neighborhood, uh was consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. And you can
see that we're now dealing with a lot that's very different. So, you know, it's impacted the neighborhood use. It's impacted the um um you know, the appearance. Uh we do
invite you to take a a virtual tour of the neighborhood via Google Maps and you can see that even more. Um and just a note on his site plan, you'll notice the driveway from the garage leads actually into John and Kathy's stories um
driveway. There is no we have not found any record of easement granting that access. They have verbal permission. I know that um John Sur gave the Campbell verbal permission. We assume Kathy has done the same but again it's just it's
no um it's just temporary. Um why is this important in according to section five the nonconforming lots and building uses uh we do think that um
what has been done here promotes uh I mean you look at that excuse me when you look at section five and it's supposed to promote and maintain compatibility to avoid adverse impacts it's to avoid you know in in general
Um and two specific items that we think are most relevant on pages 49B4 impact the neighboring pol uh properties or the natural environments including soaps. Just so you know, you're down to 20 seconds. Okay. We are
asking u and also um section 8 uh C4 applies. We're asking the board to uh decline the proposal. If you deem it, we want conditions applied. Basically
establishing uh a screen and other conditions. Okay. Thank you very much. Um and I would just recommend that anybody else that wants to speak against just talk about the the criteria and this particular application. Um if if
you would. Okay. Who else wants to speak against this application or has a question? Ma'am, please go ahead. Thank you, committee members. My name is Ellen McKe. I live at 184 Indian Hill Road. Uh, I've lived there for over 60 years. I grew up there and I live
there now in the same house that my parents built. Um I will refer specifically to a couple of the criteria elements. First of all for D the impact on neighborhood visual character. Um as well as for uh I impact on natural
environment including slopes, vegetation, wetlands etc. Uh and again referring to those photos um just to give you a little bit better idea of the layout. Um the the the the group of properties we're
talking about that makes up of Indian Hill Road North uh lies to the south end of Schoolhouse Pond and Ryder's Pond. Um and abuing that is actually a 35 acre parcel that the Chattam Conservation Foundation uh owns. Why why do they own that parcel?
Well, what you have here is a very rare area of upland pine barons. Uh and just a reminder that Massachusetts coastal pine baron ecosystem is one of only three remaining in the entire world. So this is one of the reasons why that parcel is one of their flagship uh
properties among 800 acres that they own in uh Chadam. Um the neighborhood, those of us that have lived there for for a very long time, um take pride in the fact that when people drive down, they say, you know, there's not many places like this left in Shadam. this this um
woodland landscape. Um we uh we are very dedicated to maintaining a dirt road. We're dedicated to the natural woodland yards, maintaining woodland yards and sort of a Cape Cod lawn requiring no fertilization or irrigation. None of us are tree huggers,
but we do feel a very important and shared responsibility uh to maintaining um preserving the special environment and avoiding uh yard design and care practices that that might be appropriate um in places where there's no issue of
phosphate runoff uh but which are not appropriate here for this unique and delicate ecosystem. We have had very sincere concerns about Mr. at both drastic eradication of the natural landscape uh cutting down as as John mentioned uh
mature growth trees every mature growth tree uh bringing habitat loss and a fragile ecosystem and erosion issues on the back slope. We're bringing this up as it is the basis for a new concern about Mr. Zippo's plans under review.
Correct me if I'm wrong. I think there's another bathroom that you're added. Um, this new building, it just looks like it's going to be perfect for use um eventually. Maybe it's not saying this, they're not saying this now, but as an Airbnb or another area where people that
would bring more population to um and traffic to the road, further stressing the local natural environment, pond, wildlife, vegetation. Um we do abdicate that the petition be declined um due to the negative impact
on neighboring uh on the neighbors and negative impact on natural environment. We would like to suggest that as part of any conditions if this is approved that there are conditions to the special permit that a landscape plan be developed. This landscape plan would
provide landscaping for visual buffer and screening particularly on the the road frontage which is frankly very unsightly now because of the clear cutting. Mitigates damage to the fragile environment already created. This includes erosion control on the back
slopes. This does not mean laying sod and planting a few decorative decorative uh plants and and uh plants. And in light especially in light of the proximity of the property to the pond
and its upgradient location, we would request a landscape plan that rec requires where feasible the use of native and droughtresistant plants that do not require either fertil uh fertilization or irrigation. So we
respectfully request that the landscape plan be submitted uh if so approved for consideration by the zoning board or the consom as appropriate to asssure that what is being proposed accomplishes these objectives. Thank you. Thank you for coming. Is there anybody else here
on Microsoft who speak against or has a specific question? Yes ma'am. I see you. Um if you have any additional information that would be great. Um, uh, I don't have additional information, but I wanted to reiterate just briefly. So,
uh, Sandro Sullivan, 193, uh, Indian Hill Road North. So, um, I don't have a huge objection certainly to the scale, but I do have concerns. Uh, and my primary concern is that, uh, Mr. Zippo has shown a
disregard for the character of the neighborhood. Um, and I think it's been pointed out that this is it's a dirt road and it comes down, it goes through a wooded area and it gets near schoolhouse pond. And um,
people appreciate that it's natural. We have for years. I mean, we really do value that. And as a new property owner, he came in and clearcut his lot. Now, that may be in in his right to do that um because he doesn't front on the lake.
uh but and he's also a real estate developer by by trade I believe and so he has a certain approach or viewpoint um into what is right in that regard and the property by itself without considering context is perfectly nice. It would be
nice in any generic suburban neighborhood but here it just doesn't fit in and you drive down the road and it's wooded and all of a sudden just nothing and then a house. So, I wanted to known that we were very shocked. I
know it's after the fact that the clear cutting happened, but it's important uh that it the use going forward. This garage, you can call it a gym and an office with two two extra bathrooms, but
it's effectively two more bedrooms. It's going to be a freestanding secondary dwelling. um which I don't object to so long as the septic cano handle that truly. So if you already have a fourbedroom home, he can say I
just really think it's going to be an additional two bedrooms, two baths right near schoolhouse pond and if the septic can't handle it, I'm just concerned that there hasn't been enough um care given uh by the developer as it is and
I'd want it to be attended to going forward. Thank you, ma'am. Anybody else here on Microsoft Teams wish to speak against or has a question? Just those two things. If that fits your bill, sir, then please approach the mic, state your name, ask
your question or speak against only. Well, I guess uh stating your name first. Yeah, Bruce. Bruce Gibbs. Uh I guess my question is I have to ask Mark. I I would like to believe that what his intentions are are valid and I'll try
and support that. And I understand my neighbors concerns. I'm the man that takes care of the road and I love where we live. Very very few places anywhere even in this state compared to where we live. So we don't want it changed. I pe
understand people's concerns and I've said this to Mark clearcutting the property. It was terrible. It was a mistake. Okay. So, maybe we can move on. Maybe we can all move on and and be good neighbors. And I'm going to put my faith in stock
in that. But it's up to Mark. So, that's all I want to say. Okay. Yes. Thank you. Anybody else here on Microsoft Teams wish to speak against or has a specific question? I see somebody. Yes, I see them. Yes, sir. On Microsoft
Teams. Just make sure you're unmuted. state your name and your question or why you're against this application. Uh my name's James Raymond. I I don't know if you want to permit me to speak. My brother did speak for um Well, if you
have anything new that would be great. I I do. Um two things. One uh the and know Ellen touched on this. The application is shown as an office, but
sheet A2 shows a full bathroom and what certainly appears to be a kitchen just on the other side of the bathroom wall. So, it appears this is going to be a dwelling unit. The importance of that is it increases the intensity of use. Uh
second, it was noted earlier your comprehensive plan. It's not law. It's not like a zoning ordinance, but it does provide guidance on interpreting uh your criteria and your comprehensive plan and the land use section does refer to
preserving the environment of Chadam and you know it's feaside resort look. Mr. or Zippo's lot now no longer has that. Why that's important is if you look at the criteria you're
you're to consider it is visual impacts um on the neighborhood compatibility and uh natural environment. Now this garage is below arguably the plane of the road
but because he chose to strip the lot it's clearly visible. This is not a hidden structure. So that any increase in use is going to be clearly visible with an impact. So if you're essentially having another dwelling unit on this lot
um on an essentially a naked lot, it's going to have an impact. Uh Mr. the Zippo crew probably had the was entitled to strip his lot, but he's coming before you for a special permit now where you're entitled to review the impact of
the further development and to say this is not going to have any in light what he's done to the lot is nonsensical. So that's why we think when you do your review and find the criteria that the ordinance requires you to find,
it's going to be very difficult to find it's not having an adverse impact on the neighborhood. Uh it's not compatible with the existing uses and it's going to have an adverse impact on the natural environment. Now we recognize board
generally will approve permits. That's why we also added that as an alternative to consider as conditions some effective screening. He's taken it all away. The photograph show there were there was screening before. There is none now. Um
so we'd like that to be restored as a condition if you choose to approve this special permit. Thank you. Thank you for attending, sir. Anybody else here? Um, madame I I can't attend because I had back surgery. You attended by being I
know, but it's not the same. I don't want you to feel like I wasn't coming. No, we we heard every word you said and we appreciate your your attendance in whatever capacity you've attended. Okay. Now, anybody else here are on Microsoft Teams that wish to speak against or has a specific question? I don't see
anybody. Council, would you like a chance to rebut? Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. Both myself and Mr. Zippo would like to respond. I I just want to start with um three points. Um, one of which is, and as you know
this, and you've heard it from representatives before, um, the board reviews what is before you and what's been presented. You can't assume illegality in the future which is what several of the neighbors have alleged. Um you know the application is what is before you and you are entitled to have
bathroom facilities in a accessory structure and that's what he is showing. Uh it what is being proposed is what is being proposed and that is what's on the plans. It's what's in the application and that's what's being testified to. Um would also like to reiterate something
that Mr. Jonathan Raymond said, which is he said that Mr. there are no covenants on Mr. Zippo's side of the road and he did nothing illegal. He took some trees down and he's going to explain why, but there was no illegality completed on
this property by cutting down trees on your private property when there were no rules that say you can't cut down trees. So again, it's being purported that, you know, some grave um illegality took place, but respectfully that did not happen. And then finally, as you are
looking at this application, um the is the garage visible? It's lower as I said, but yes, it's visible if you're out on the street, but what is the visual impact as you're looking at the plans? Effectively, it's a dormer because the the decks on the back of the
property. So, the visual impact of the existing structure on the existing neighborhood is the addition of a dormer. And I just ask you to keep that in mind as you're reviewing the the proposal. Um, and Mr. Zippo would like to respond as well. Thank you. Yes, please just state your name for the
record. Sure. Hi. Um, Mark Zippo, owner of the property. Thank you for hearing us today, board. Um, I'm a little shocked only because I've had direct conversations with each director of butter, uh, the SLOs's to my left, um,
the stories to my back, and, uh, and then also I've had conversations with Bruce, but I really haven't heard from the Raymonds until today. Um, all I really know about the Raymonds and the property is that they owned a significant a significant amount of the property in the area at one time and
that it may have been diminished over time through the family. I'm not sure about that, but I know that their dad owned um sort of a diagonal property and he was a very nice man. We met several times. We had many conversations. He was a World War vet. My father was a World
War vet and uh he was in his 90s and he passed away. Since then, I really haven't had any contact with the Raymonds um or any uh conversations like I do with the rest of the neighbors. Um I do respect the desire and I do
understand the um the feel of the neighborhood and the trees. Uh I've prepared a little bit of a response to that because Bruce and I have talked to this at length. Uh after I moved in, a tree d a tree dropped and damaged the roof of the garage. Uh this
damage still exists on the top of the garage. It is not leaking into the house, but it does require repair. We called the service out. We discovered that we had almost 20 infested pines, all within approximate range of damaging the existing structures. Um they were
apparently ravaged by beetles. After pricing the cost to clear the infested pines one tree at a time because they were intermittently intermingled within the property. Um the pricing was between 15 and $20,000 not counting the potential for any further infestation
uh that could happen with the existing trees. We made the decision to clear the lot of approximately onethird of the coverage of the 45,000 square feet. Um, currently, uh, prior to what has previously been said, the lot is not clear-cut. There is many, many feet of
lot and protection between the stories, which is the back lot and myself. Um, anything that could or would not fall on a prop on a on a structure was not cleared. Um, let's see. At that time we told we called the town
and we were told there were no local ordinances related to removal of trees on the lots that were not within a conservation area. Additionally, since the clearing, there have been almost 40 evergreens planted and an additional 12 flowering ornamental trees. Uh so that is my response to
that. Thank you. Very good. All right. So now we're going to continue on with um I believe questions from the board if I'm not mistaken. Are there any? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. David Nixon, go first. Mr.
Singer, um, Mr. Nixon, when I see things like three showers, uh, several linen closets, sinks, areas for refrigerators. I start to think, oh, and
big deck. I start to think, boy, this is almost a guest house. It's this close to being a guest house. And as you know, guest houses aren't alone in this scenario.
So, I'd ask you a couple of questions. Why so many showers? Why? Linen closets, sinks, areas for refrigerators, and a
deck that is massive and an office. But I'm hearing this really isn't an office. Maybe it's a bedroom. Um, so just kind of fill me in on some of that things.
Let's start with is this an office or no? It's an office but because it has similar to the basement in the house because the office has privacy because it's in a separate structure. The health department under the state health code treats it as a bedroom but it's it's an
office to answer that question. Okay. And well let's stay with that. Okay. And the office uh what sort of business is your client in that he would have this office? He wants to have a private office for his own personal use. Mr. Nixon, it's not a business. We're not
He's not proposing a home occupation. This is just to have an office space. I have an office at my house. It's what would have been the den, but I've turned it into my office. It's where I do my writing. I mean, it's a space to get away. This is his This is Mr. Zippo's year-round property. Lives with his
family. And um you know, the place to exercise on the first floor, shower when you're done, uh and have space on the second floor. and you might shower there. I mean, it's there's nothing improper about having an office. And if if this building was attached to the
house, you probably wouldn't have the same questions, but it's Yeah. Uh so he has no employees. Is that correct? Correct. This isn't a business. I mean, it's just it's you see offices labeled
on houses. He could have said den. I mean, but it's it's where he's going to do his his work, his it was not a business. Why the size of the deck? I mean, that's a big deck.
I mean, there's no legal requirements against the size of a deck, but look, I'm not I'm not here to argue with you. I'm simply asking questions, okay? And I want answers, not a joke. Mr. Zippo, I'll respond. Thank you. The reason for
the number of bathrooms is I'm a 62-y old man. And if I were to drink the bottle that was previously sitting next to you over there, I would have several trips to the bathroom. And I have a knee problem and I would prefer not to have to go up and down the stairs. And I doubt that there's many people in this room who are 60 or over who would not
like as many bathrooms as they can possibly afford in their house. I have the opportunity to do that right now and that's what I would like to do. It is nothing illegal about it. And the size of the deck. I don't think there's a prohibitation on the size of a deck. I I think that that
a lot of this previous conversation from um the people who are objecting and now this particular conversation sort of insinuates that I might do something illegal and I really feel uncomfortable with that. I I'm I'm asking for to be
granted permission within my right to do something and whether or not I choose to do something illegal on it will be between me, the law, and the neighborhood in the future. Right now, I'm asking for permission to expand my
house. The existing house as it is, I'll speak to the closets. The existing house as it is. We're going to do questions and answers and you weren't asked very respectfully. Yes, you weren't asked about your closets. Well, we were we were we were asked about we were asked about closet space. Well, I moved on to
the deck. Actually, we he actually just asked you why you need such a big deck. Okay. And I don't even know if that's something that you need a special. You don't have to any question I ask you don't have to answer. Nope. There's no obligation. I'm choosing to answer it. You asked the question and you asked him to make sure that he answered the
question. So, I'm I'm I'm I'm replying. Okay. So, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else have any questions? Anybody? Yes. Virginia Fenway questions.
So, I had similar questions. Um, and I can respect the fact that you'd like a second bathroom on the second floor, but there um it's a full bath. I mean, in total,
two floors, one car garage, two full baths. Um, an unlabeled space. There were a couple unlabeled spaces which appears to be a kitchen configuration which just I mean the floor plan and Mr.
You did a nice job explaining there's no increase in the coverage, but um I I you know I guess my question is what what why do we need two full baths, two linen closets, a schematic of a kitchen and then some unmarked rooms on
the first floor which frankly are bigger than the garage space which is what this structure is. So that's my first question. Please, if that's okay, Mr. Zippo, respond. I don't see an unmarked room on the first floor. Can you please
elaborate on that? Yeah, the first floor. Um, maybe it's a loft space, but the space on the other side of the garage in the right hand corner. I'm not seeing that. Can I come? Can I approach? Well, we have a pointer. I
don't Yeah. Is that just all garage? That whole space? Okay. Onecar garage. Okay. So, it goes all the way back. Sure. Okay. I didn't I didn't understand what the dotted line was. Okay. All righty. Okay. Um the showers are a
convenience item just like anything else. There is no intention to do anything illegal in that property. I do and I have had this discussion with the health department and I believe the building department. I'm not sure, but I do intend on expanding that property further and being before this board again in the future. And when I do that,
um, there will be an addition or proposal for a swimming pool that I would hope to get appro, you know, approved for and hence the shower on the bottom floor. So, it's it's a very it's very simply a matter of something that I can afford and I would like to have it and
it adds to the value of the property. The math is very simple. I am a businessman and it's not it doesn't have any ill or inherent use plan for it. Um, it's my property. I don't have additional renters. is I'm not petitioning for an ADU. I'm not looking
to subsidize myself um or subsidize the property in any way, shape, or form. I don't need to do that. Um not being pretentious, but I own a decent amount of property on Cape Cod that I that I do provide four fully year round rentals. I
have no investment in any short-term rental in any piece of property in Cape Cod. Yet, I do rent houses out to nine full-time residents. I think we'll go but I but I think it's important I state that for the board. Okay. And I'm I'm ready for any other question. Okay. Uh
Mr. Singer, at the beginning you mentioned that four bedrooms is the limit for the septic and that was approved by the board of health. Um and you said that we had to reconfigure a bedroom that was in the basement. Is that what I heard? Not not a bedroom but
again hobby space that's being classified as a bedroom the same way the office is. Okay. So, you're reconfiguring it so it isn't considered legally a bedroom and then you're moving that fourth bedroom. Actually, no. Right now, um right now the house was
previously identified as a three-bedroom house this year. Last year, excuse me, a four-bedroom septic system was installed. So I met with the health department and we are now utilizing the fourth bedroom
uh as the one that they had requested that uh we we were not obviously um in I was not obviously in love with the idea that they wanted to identify one of those things as a bedroom because the loft space but I didn't want to get in
into a a contestual situation. the loft space between the first and the second floor is open, but they they desired to have it called the bedroom. So, I said, "Okay." And then we had a conversation about how I wish to expand the house in a year or so and what we would do. And I
went through the layout with them and we had a nice conversation and I invited them out. I I think they had said that they were not inclined to come at this time uh until I presented the plans for the other house. But the right now the three bedrooms that are identified in
the existing house which by the way was a cabin when I bought it. So there are very very few closets uh there the space is very constricted. Um one of the bedrooms is identified as a basement bedroom. But as a basement bedroom this
has two doors and a pass through and one of the doorways you have to is below 6'8. You have to squeak down to get through and into it. So what we talked about with the health department was when the time came and I drew up the new plans, I would open up the basement and
she would be open to considering the fact and of course all this would be presented to the board to remove that bedroom. I just want to say that we already have the health agents comment saying that you reconfigured. So I obviously we we trust that you will go
along with whatever they need. Thank you. Right. Can we just Can we agree with that, Virginia Fenwick? Yes, we can. We can. Uh, but thank you for the explanation. Thank you. Um, one more question. You heard the neighbors concerns about the and you you mentioned
you're doing some landscaping. Sure. What do you would you be opposed to conditioning some of the specifics with respect to um adding adding more vegetation? I would be open to adding vegetation on of
course that I'm open to adding but not to other people and you know other people's wills and desires. I can't put back scrub pines um and and oaks. I I cannot return it to the to a pine oak forest that you know most of Cape Cod is. But of course I would be open to adding some more trees
and vegetation um at choice places where I'm not planning to build in the future. You don't want to be you don't want to be pigeonheld to what and where. Well, I I believe I have. Like I said, I've added 40 evergreens, but I mean, you don't want us to put conditions on you. Is
that I would prefer I would prefer not. Sure. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Yes, Mr. V. I I don't hate to prolong this, but I just would like to check SJ. Um, and I know that this is not being proposed,
but is does this look on if someone were to seek to turn this into an ADU, does it look like it might meet the requirements? I believe so. That's what I'm thinking. And I don't and and you know, we're trying to encourage that kind of thing. So, I just want to say that. Thank you.
Yeah. So, council, you're aware that you wouldn't even have to apply for that ADU. If you wanted to do it, you could do by right. Is isn't that right? That's correct. But I have no intention to do that because I was going to ask your attorney that. Yes, we agree. And and I wouldn't hold you to the same level as your attorney with regard to whether or
not you could do it by right. Fair enough. And then the other thing is with regard to your deck, you don't even need a special permit for that from us today, do you? No. No. Yeah. My only qu with respect to my only requ comment would be
a question back to Jay. Since you had noted that the change of habitable space required a special permit, would the deck itself not? If it was just a deck, if if Mr. Zip would come in and said they want to do a deck with some emergency stairs off the back, would that have been allowed by right?
Well, as you know, you and I are differing opinion whether or not this structure is conforming or non-conforming. I see it as a non-conforming structure because it doesn't meet the current 25 foot butter setback. But um so for that reason um it it's a conforming deck. If the deck
meets the setback, you probably would not be before the board for that. Okay. My understanding is it meets the setback, but I have a good source. So yes, I believe it does. I just wanted your neighbors to know that you have a right to have that deck. You don't need us to to allow for that. So that's the a
question that I wanted to make sure I got answered. Um okay. So um we don't have Paul to do it. So Dave V. Uh yeah, I will um move to close the hearing, move into deliberations. And now David Nixon, uh Ed act. Ed action will second.
Very good. Yes, I agree. And uh yes. And I agree as well. Okay. So now I vote yes. Oh, very good. Very good. Yes. Now we're going to do deliberations and we'll start with Ed. Um, uh, I
I was listening to the neighbors and I can respect, you know, their, you know, enthusiasm for the environment there that it's it's been that way for a while. They've lived there for quite a while. Um, but a lot
of what they were discussing would come under the purview of conservation. Um, not us. We have, you know, 12 criteria, 10 11 that apply here. [Music]
Um, and, uh, the applicant hasn't, um, you know, cut down any trees that are in a sensitive area by the laws of of the town through conservation. And if he had, he would he would take that up with conservation, but it I don't really
see that as in our purview. Um, I believe it's uh it's not substantially detrimental to the neighborhood what's being proposed. Um, I like the fact that the applicant, you know, would consider, you
know, perhaps screening some some areas if uh if everyone could get together in the neighborhood. Um, and uh I have no issues with the the proposal. Okay, very good. Uh, David Beach, while we're down there. Yeah.
Um the uh um I I certainly um appreciate the concerns expressed by the neighbors. I I it was uh and they've done it and and congratulations on doing a very good job of maintaining a a nice area and
gravel road. It's really a a great little enclave there, a little neighborhood. Um, and I think that the concerns and then and I I also frequently if I see a a loss of a a
number of trees, it's kind of a shock to me uh and a shock to my but the in this situation um you know this is something that took place. he had the right to do that and he gave us good reasons why he has done that and it really is not have
direct bearing on the um proposal before us and what's being asked of us in this special permit. Uh I don't believe that this is something that's already taken place and it was taking place for a reason had a right to do it. conservation commission does not have
jurisdiction here on this property and so um those the concerns that and and um and I don't so I don't think that those concerns are um properly uh we should be
probably taking many of those into consideration in this case. Um, I think I confined the decision to what's being proposed and it's and I certainly I don't find it to be substantially more detrimental detrimental to the neighborhood. It's really it's adding a
dormer and a deck um and um but I appreciate the considerations being expressed and I'm sure and it sounds like Mr. Zippo will take all that to heart and and um and go forward with it. But I I this certainly meets our criteria, all of our criteria, and is
not substantially more detrimental than the neighborhood. And I don't think we should be attempting to um condition it uh in in response to something that's already taken place on the property legally. Okay, Steve, deliberations.
Well, I was a little bit concerned about the uh about all the tree removal, but um there was a reasonable explanation as to why. Um it is kind of a shock when you see something like that but as long as it can be explained you know we have to consider
what the application is and the application is dealing with just the garage who's um the footprint of the garage is not changing um in in any in any size. Um you're you're adding a dormer but that's not adding to that's
not decreasing a setback. Um it's not increasing the height of the building. Um, so we have to consider um exactly what's what's being um uh applied for. Um, I wouldn't mind seeing um a little
bit more landscaping done. Um, but you know, as as far as the application itself, I would support it. Okay. David Nixon, what say you? Well, I don't like it. I I just I got a
real bad feeling, but I can't vote based on that. Um they were evasive about some of my questions. Uh and like I said, they don't have to answer any question,
but that deck could be a lot of problems to neighbors, noise, that sort of thing. Um, so I'll probably vote no. Okay. Virginia Fenwick, deliberations.
So I agree with comments from my colleagues. Um, from a zoning perspective, a lot of these things, I mean, there is no change to the building coverage. Steve, you mentioned that. No change to gross floor area. I don't like
it either. Um, I don't like it because it looks like it could be a second home on that lot. However, it's all interior. It's not within our criteria that I can see except for use. Um, I do
uh differ though. I would I would condition it if I supported it because I think that it's uh the cooking fac I mean there's an outline of a kitchen here. Let's let's it's not labeled a kitchen, but that's what it
looks like. And I and by the way, we see these all the time. We very frequently we see these. So, we're we're very familiar with having a situation where it's it's uh needs some conditioning. So, I I would support conditioning if if I voted
in favor. And um so I understand that you could have an ADU just by right there, but then that that has special rules for it and you might not want to have those rules. May I May I respond to that? No, you cannot. No, you cannot. Okay. Um so I'm just saying, you know,
if we we voted no on this, you could have an ADU, but then you'd have to follow all the ADU rules. Um and you probably don't want to do that. And you had every right to take down those trees, and you didn't even have to give us an explanation. Although what you did was you caused your problem in that now
there is an issue of how this looks from the neighborhood because you've gone and caused your own problem because now everybody can see everything and your neighbors are mad. Um but again you had the right to do it. Um and you didn't
have to explain it. whether or not this this is substantially detrimental to the neighborhood. It's it's it only is because you've you know you've infuriated your neighbor. So you've already done that. So I don't think putting up a dormer is going to get them any more upset. It's maybe the future
things you want to do will upset them further, but that is not for us for today. So I cannot vote no for a dormer on something that you could barely see even without the trees. However, you know, this, you know, this is
unfortunate. And I am a tree hugger, just so you know. Yes. Very much so. But um but again, I'm also, you know, I respect your rights. So, I would vote yes. Um I'm not sure if you're going to save the day here because we have two
people that may not. Um so, do you want us to do a straw vote? Council. Um well, if I might, Miss Fenwick made said that she you didn't say what, but you said you if you're going to consider um voting yes, you'd be looking for a
condition. I assume the condition was there shall be no kitchen in this in the detached structure. And if that's the case, then that's a condition that Mr. Zippo can live with. So that would be fine if that's what you were speaking to. I thought you were speaking of trees,
but maybe not. No. Yeah, that's going to be something that would be very difficult for us to police. You know, we're not going to be able to ride by the house and see if we hear a toaster oven dinging or or you know, we smell pie cooking. Sure. You
know, with with all while that is an absolutely true statement, I have seen such a condition before. And what that relies on, as most things do under zoning, is if if Mr. Zipple was doing something inappropriate there would be a complaint to the building commissioner. He then has the authority to come out
and do a inspection and if there was a violation then you issue a show cause and the applicant would be back before you. So so absolutely while it's hard to police there is the mechanism to do it. Yeah. So we have still haven't learned whether or not Miss Fen could vote yes
with no you know no um stove or whatever it is that Well, I want to follow up. Mr. Singer, you said no kitchen. So that area would no refrigerator, no sink, no stove. There's already a sink, right? Yeah. Proposed. No, no stove for
sure. It was never intended to be a kitchen, but it is very convenient when you have an out building to have a sink and a refrigerator for refreshments and to wash your hands and things like that when you come out of, you know, well, the restroom especially if you want a pool down the line. So, right, you know,
we don't want you to make premises. You can't. So I I I would be more comfortable with no kitchen, you know, just it will not it will not be a kitchen and that would be written into the into the permit express condition in the decision. Oh, wait a minute. We we have some information. So you'd be looking for no cooking facility shall be
installed in the accessory structure. Is that the language you would normally utilize? Yes. And that seems fine. Is that something that you would vote yes on? Oh, would you like us to do a straw vote because we we don't want to disappoint you. Right. Well, I think
yes, a straw vote since I think Miss Fenwick's once we we've had some experience with that recent past. So, no, I I appreciate So, yes, if you'd be willing to do a stra the condition of no cooking facilities in the accessory structure. Okay. David Vch, how would
you vote with that? Um I would vote in favor in order to see this Yeah. go. I I philosophically Mr. Action, how would you vote? I would vote yes. Yeah. And no, Jenny,
I'm not happy about it or I don't like it, but I would vote yes if you what condition. And I'm I told you I would vote yes, but you know, um this is not a great situation. So, um now we'll officially vote. We would appreciate
that. Thank you. And um so we need a motion with the conditions. So um I will move approval of um application number 24052
uh as presented with the um condition uh that Sarah has said that no um no no cooking facilities shall be installed. cooking facilities. So, be installed in the um accessory structure. Okay. Uh and
I don't really think we need to kind of we don't need our other conditions. Uh I don't believe so. Uh that's my motion. Second, Dave. Can you second it? Oh, no. I'm sorry. Ed's going to be the seconding person today. I apologize. I'm used to Dave
filling in. I second that. Yes. Okay. And how do you vote? Can I vote? Yes. And And I vote yes. And Dave Beach votes yes. And Dave Nixon, I vote no. And Jenny, I vote yes. As do I. Okay, you prevailed with a Thank you, board. Appreciate your time today. Congratulations.
All right, moving our way down to the bottom of the first page, 25-01438 North Road. This is going to be an application by the homeowner, I think. And um first Sarah will read the application.
Application number number 25-014 Lavville Nominee Trust 38 North Road Chattam Mass 02633 owner of property located at 38 North Road also shown on the town of Chattam Assessor's map 9 I block 16 lot
SW39. The applicant seeks to enlarge extend or change a non-conforming dwelling in a non-conforming lot via the construction of an accessory structure art studio. The proposed accessory structure 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 48, such substantial alteration requires the grant of a special permit. The existing building coverage is 1,647 square ft and the proposed building coverage is 1,982 ft where
2,850 ft is the maximum allowed. the lot is non-conforming and that it contains 20,190 square feet where 60,000 square feet is required in the R60 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law Chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the
protective bylaw. Welcome. And we we know you've been sitting here for a long time. Um we're glad you have we haven't scared you away. Do you have a a copy of the criteria that and you can only you what you could do is run through the ones that are relevant if you would. uh
the criteria that are relevant. Tell us about your ad studio that you want to put. Okay. Uh Mike Lavell, Dominic Trust, Laura Lavel. Okay. So, what we're looking to do is uh build a uh 15 by 20 foot um one room, one-story building to
be used as an art studio with vated ceilings. Uh currently my wife is the artist and she paints in the basement with low ceilings, poor lighting, poor ventilation. uh we're in a position where we want to bring her up so she can, you know, have a nicer space to to work on her her art materials. Um the
the the um the studio itself would would abut the deck that's already there in the back of the house and the side of the house and it really doesn't impact anything. It's in behind the house and it's for over 40t from the road and more than 100 ft from the front
of the house going the other direction. Uh it's everything is within the um required setbacks for R60 zoning. Uh we purposely sized the building um this way so that we could fit inside the uh the zoning setbacks. Um again, it's got a
little bit of an attached bathroom on the backside with a toilet and shower and there'd be a sink on the outside. That thing in the lower right hand corner that says wet bar, sink, refrigerator, I don't know. The the artist uh the guy that drew up the plans did that. There's no wet bar. Uh we were originally going to put a sink there,
but we decided to move the sink over to the lefthand corner. I asked him to remove that, but he never did before he got the plan. So anyway, that's that's not there. Um and then the bathroom and the sink over there, and then would have some double doors going out onto the deck and a little bay window in the back
there where she could uh you know, sit. It's uh going to be put on a 4ft foundation, so there's no foundation or livable space underneath. It's just going to be a crawl space for plumbing. And I don't know if any storage if I needed anything to put some more wood down there or something. Who knows? Uh
in the future. Um and that's about it. I mean, I can address these things here. The adequacy you you guys mentioned it there. It's about 330 ft. Well, I think we I think we're good. Yeah, you're good on that, right? Okay. So, um compatibility with No, no, I I don't think you need to necessarily
It looks good in the neighborhood and it's you know, it's not substantially detrimental in your Yeah. If anybody's been over by, you could see where it fits. It same design, same as the existing house in there. There's no impact on the neighborhood. No noise, no utilities, nothing like that. No, you
did a great job. Okay. All right. Very good. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams who wish to speak in favor of this application? If so, please make it known. Seeing none, I will read the correspondences if there are any. Are there not? Are there? Oh, sorry. Oh,
sorry. Yes, there are. Yep. Okay. So, we just have a note from the health agent and she tells us that uh on 42425 she reviewed the plan for not studio. The property meets the board of health definition of a bedroom and will require further review to confirm total
bedroom number existing and allowed. Um the property is restricted to a twobedroom under the nitrogen loading. So, you just need to deal with the you don't have to explain. Can I speak to that? No, you can just deal with her. Okay. because I already have actually. That's why I'm surprised she wrote that anyway. Yep. Okay. We wouldn't stop you
because we know you have to deal with her. Okay. Sure. Yep. Very good. All right. Now, is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams wish to speak against this application or has a specific question? No. Seeing none, are there any questions
from the board? No, you already it's already gone by. Sir, where did did I just have a question? Oh, okay. Then you need to approach. I did specifically and I know I'm particularly articulate and I said, "Are there any questions?" And you did not raise your hand. I think we're
down this late. Come on. How How tall is the structure? You know, you'd have to throw it up there. Sure. It's one story. 14T 6 in 6 and 78 in. All right. That's great. Yeah. You can always find that all out
by the materials online just next time if you'd like. All right. So what what kind of artwork? Um I do oils. They're small paintings. I work pretty closely with the um
creative art center. Take a lot of lessons there. And it's not for a gallery or anything like that. I have a little online website, but I just paint for my own pleasure. And I'd like to get out of that basement. Great. I don't blame you. All right. David Nixon has a question. I
do. uh the shower that you have out there. Now, the last painter artist I knew about that needed a shower was a guy by the name of Pollock. So, is that the sort that's why
we want to put it in? Is that the sort of art you do? It's flying around and watch out. This is Jackson Pollock I'm talking about where if you had one, you'd you wouldn't be talking to us. should be living in a $50 million house. But anyway, so so why
do why do you need a shower? Because your house is like right there, right? But we're putting in the bathroom anyway. And you know, why not have the additional shower just because of the convenience? She's going to be out there painting. She's going to be, you know, just clean up before she comes in the house. And you know, I mean, grandkids
visiting in the summer sometimes an extra show. I mean it really and the existing house has the one we got the one one bathroom in the existing house and it's you know that's it. Okay. And you said the wet bar is out right? Yeah. That was never I don't know why he put
that. I just need a sink in there. Okay. And room in the left back lefthand corner. Yes, that's what it's called. Yeah. And I'll probably just put some shelving to store my artwork and that's it. Okay. Yep. That's it. Okay. Are there any other questions? No, seeing
none. Oh, yeah. Wait a minute. Virginia Fenook has another question. Is the gas stove there for heat element in that space? It's uh called a Lily Hammer and it's uh it's a one of these stoves that you can control from a thermostat and it would be used for heat in the winter time and uh you know, we could turn it
on remotely when we go in there. Okay. So, it's not going to be electric heat. It's going to be heated. The house will be Oh, no. I'm also going to put in a mini split. So, I'd have uh air uh heat and um air conditioning. So, the gas stove, what's the reason for
the gas stove? Additional, you know, ambiance, I guess, so she can have a nice gas stove to paint there in the winter and some extra heat. You know, it looks nice. I don't know if you ever seen one of these. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Yep. Okay. I think
we're ready. Paul, I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. Uh Dave each seconds and votes yes. Yes. All votes yes. Jenny votes yes as do I. All right. Deliberations. Will Dave each? Um well certainly um not
substantially more detrimental the neighborhood. I'll support it. Uh I would just um um caution you a comment to um have the engineers stake it for you so that you know when you go out for an asbuilt you have not gotten closer.
you they're like you're like six inches beyond the U setback and so you want to make sure when this is set that it's where it's actually shown on the plan and not didn't get moved six inches in which case you'd have to come back here
to us which you don't really want to do that surely okay sure okay that was just comment you acting uh I think it's going to be a nice addition and u happy to help you get out of the Thank you, David Nixon. Well, now that
I'm assure that's not going to be paint flying all around now. No, I have I have no issue. It's certainly not substantially detrimental. Very good. And Paul? Yeah. Certainly not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and she has her first amendment rights to put paint where she
wants to put it. So if we need to fight about that, we can fight about it. Okay. All right. And uh Steve, I think it's a nice project. It's within all the setbacks and I don't think it's an issue. And Virginia, um I do I agree, but could we since you said the wet bar
and the sink and the refrigerator was not supposed to be there, can we x that out on the refrigerator will be there and she needs the refrigerator to put her paints in the freezer. I need at least a freezer. So I put my paints into the freezer. All right. So that way it poor people because you have this on the
plan and we're going to approve it. I'm just going to Yeah, you can cross it off the wet bar. I asked the guy like three times to take it off and I don't know why. Yeah, we'll we'll mark that out tomorrow when we sign the All right. Thank you. You're gonna need that wet bar after this here. Yeah. Yeah, I know. Yeah. Bring it back. Yeah. All right.
So, um where are we? I think we're ready to approve the application as submitted. I'll move to to approve the application as submitted. I'm not sure that we need any conditions given that location. No. So, uh I'll leave it at that. Very good.
Uh David seconds and votes yes. I vote yes. All votes yes. He votes yes as do I. It's unanimous. Congratulations. Thank you. Enjoy. All right. Thanks. All right. Last but not least, we have Richard Pooio Jr. and Karen Pooio Care
of William Lichfield 25-015 36 June Drive. We've seen this before, so maybe we could learn what's new. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Bill Lichfield. Uh Sarah read the application number
25-015 Richard C. Pusio Jr. Karen Pusio Car William G. Lichfield Esquire 330 Orleans Road North Chattam Mass 02650. Owners of property located at 36 Dune Drive. Also shown on the town of Chattam's assessor's map 16A block 10,
lot C6. The applicant seeks to enlarge, extend, or change a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via partial demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of additions. The existing dwelling is non-conforming and that it is located 8.2 ft from the southerntherly of
butter, 20.3 ft from the northerly butter, and entirely within the coastal conservancy district flood plane elevation 13. The proposed addition will be non-conforming and that it will be located 18.6 6 feet from the southerntherly butter where a 25 ft setback is required and entirely within
the coastal conservancy district where a 50ft setback is required. The existing building coverage is 2,820 ft and the proposed building coverage is 2,845 ft where 2,800 ft is the maximum allowed. The lot is non-conforming and
that it contains 101.6 6 ft of frontage where 150 ft is required and 0 ft of buildable upland where 20,000 ft is required in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law Chapter 48 section 6 and section 5 via the
protected bylaw. Mr. Lichfield, welcome back. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Bill Lichfield here on behalf of Richard and Karen Pooio. Uh we have with us that Eldridge of East Southeast online and in the rear we have Ted Spencer and Matt Spencer, Spencer and
Company, the designer and potentially the builder. We also have uh sort of an aerial drone computer model, but after 4 hours uh my suspicion is not withstanding Mr. for Eldridge's efforts. You would like
me to explain the differences from what was before you in December. Uh the goal at that time and now is to reconstruct the southerntherly end of the property and bring it out of the flood plane.
That is the area down to the bottom of that that plan, the dark area there. There is uh there are essentially two changes from the plan that was before you. First of all, in December, you you said that
you wanted some additional information. One of the questions that was asked and perhaps not prayerfully answered is that with a garage that small, can you get a vehicle into it? And the answer is no. You can't now and we don't propose to. It is simply for storage. uh from
lawnmowers to kayaks and everything else, but it is it has not been suitable for any vehicle since the Volkswagen uh bug from 1963. Although I guess the Cooper Mini could fit in, but so we're not proposing to expand that. We're not
proposing to use it for parking. You also were less than enthused about the sort of hip roof appearance of the uh proposed reconstructed end. So, we have changed that and made it into a more
compatible and we think more traditional shed dormer. We have also lowered the ridge of the reconstructed uh portion. Uh it was going to go up about 4 feet. It's now a shade over 2 feet. So those
are we think changes which are responsive to the concerns that were expressed by some members of the board in December of uh 2024. I'd be happy to go into the criteria if you'd like me to do so. I I
don't think we need it. No submit written. You did submit written findings that we um have been privy to. So thank you. But I'd love to see thads. No, I'm I'm speaking for myself. I don't think anybody else. I'm just saying that
maybe he could stop by the office at some point tomorrow. I want to see it and see it. Yes. All right. Very good. Very good. So, is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams who wish to speak in favor of this application? If so, please make it known. Um, is there anybody? No.
No. Interrupt the chair. Mr. Nixon has been granted while you talk. Yeah. There you go. Very good. Very good. So, I will read the correspondence while you view the uh aerial photo. Um, Juice Giorgio tells us on 424 2025 that she reviewed the plan to renovate and reconfigure the
property. It appears the dwelling will maintain the existing five- bedroomedroom layout and will not encroach on the existing septic, but I'll need to see existing floor plans floor plans to uh uh approve it. Conservation Commission has this project
scheduled for an order conditions on May 7th. They tell us that on April 3rd, 2025. And so they they expect to um approve it on May 7th, 2025. We also have one letter from Bernardet Keller and William Daly received March 11th,
2025. They live at 36 No, the subject is 36 Dune Drive. They live at 43. They're writing in support. Um that's all they wanted us to know that they support the plan. And that concludes the correspondences. Is there anybody here
or in Microsoft Teams that has a specific question or would like to speak against this application? If so, make it known in the next two seconds. Seeing none, one, two. Very good. And now, um,
questions from the board. Are there any? Yes. Virginia Fenwick. Will the siding be um like it is shown here a vertical wooden as opposed to the Mr. either Mr. Spencer could respond if the chair would allow as to the siding materials. If
they come to the microphone then they may do so. Hi Matt Spencer. Uh, I believe that was drawn in to uh help articulate the contrast and give some depth to the drawing for the for the board to see it more clearly. It would be white cedar
shingles just like the rest of the house. Okay. Thank you. And the roof shingles to match the the remainder. Okay. Anybody else want to ask a question? Don't be shy. I just figured I would do it this way since it's a simple redo for us. No. Okay. Paul, I'll move
to approve the uh excuse me, I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. Uh Dave V seconds and votes yes. Yes. Paul votes yes. Jenny votes yes as do I. Okay. Deliberations. Uh we'll go again with Dave V. Well, I was okay the last time around, so I'm
even better this time. Uh it meets all of our criteria. Not substantially more detrimental in the neighborhood. Is actually an improvement uh with respect to the flood zone. So, I'll support it. and Ed, uh, if I was voting, I would support it for the same reasons. Thank
you, Mr. Nixon. Well, last time I was a negative, but I think the changes you've made have uh uh made me feel a little better about it. And uh I'll be voting yes. And Paul,
I agree with Dave V. I think it's a a good project. No problems with it. And nice job on the vertical look at it. Very nice. Thank you, Chad. And Steve, I agree with all the previous and I too was a no last time and I thank you for
being responsive to um the comments that we made. It looks more integrated and I would support it. Yeah. And I thought it looked awkward last time too and now it looks very nice. So, thank you for listening as usual and um let's vote. I'll move to approve the application as
submitted. Um, I think other than uh keeping all construction vehicles uh on site uh as part of our standard conditions, I don't think we need any others. Um, and Dave V seconds and votes yes.
Mr. Nixon, I vote yes. All votes yes. Jenny votes yes. As I unanimous congratulations. Thank you very much. We appreciate it. And um now we uh need a motion to adjurnn. I'll move to Oh, go ahead. I'll move to adjourn. And before just before we have that seconded, I will say that our next meeting is on May
8th at 2 o'clock and we are going to take up the um the 40B application at the beginning of that meeting, I believe. I just want to announce that and uh second the motion to adjurnn. No, no, no. I just want to say one thing. Uh
make sure you drive down Shore Road. The house that was purchased by CBI that we gave the approval to, they put up a fence along the street and with it a huge ad promoting Cape Associates. Yes. And you know
what? We should think about stopping that practice. That's all I'm saying. Just think about it because uh it's it's awful. Okay, that being said, David seconds the
uh motion to adjurnn and votes yes. Yes. Okay. And you how do you vote? Motion to adjurnn. I'm going to vote on that. Yes. Oh, wow. And Ed act. Okay. All vote yes. Steve votes yes. Jenny votes yes. As do
I. And what time is it? 6:09 p.m. 6:09 just to [Music] [Music]