Welcome everyone to today's town of Chadam's only board of appeals meeting. The date is March 26th, 2026. To begin with, uh we'll have uh Steve read a message from our very charming
governor of the Commonwealth. >> Please note this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly hereafter for scheduled and on demand viewing on any smartphone or tablet device. If anyone else is recording this meeting, including the use of AI
note-taking apps, please notify the chair. Pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28th, 2025 signing of chapter 2 of the acts of 2025 extending certain COVID 19 measures adopted during the state of emermergency
suspended certain provisions of the open meeting law general law chapter 3A subsection 20 until June 30th 2027. The meeting this is the meeting of the Cadam Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted in person and via remote
participation. Every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequate adequately access the proceedings as provided for in the order. A reminder that persons who would like to listen to this meeting while in progress may do so by calling
the phone number 1508-945-4410 conference ID450-650-658 pound sign or join the meeting online via Microsoft teams through the link in the posted agenda. While this is a live broadcast and simal cast on Cadam TV Xfinity channel 1072,
despite our best efforts, we may not be able to provide realtime access. We will post a record of this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible. In accordance with town policy, the public can speak to any issue or hearing or business item on the agenda during the
meeting when recognized by the chair. >> Thank you. We need to have a roll call of all members to authorize this form of meeting starting with >> David Hvich and I approve this meeting format. >> Uh Ed Actton I approve. >> Randy Podash I approve.
>> David S. Nixon I approve. >> Steven Dbor and I approve. >> Lee Hvey I approve. >> I think everyone here today is quite familiar with how we run the meeting. So I will not go through that again but basically if anyone's listening there are certain times when you can join the
meeting if you wish for either speaking in favor of an application or speaking against and we'll let you know when that comes up. Um how we run the meeting is the hearing notice is read by the lady to my right. This is Sarah Clark. She's
the PO for the town of Chadam. That's principal permitting officer. uh let's say we ask questions and all that kind of stuff and then we deliberate and we vote today. Uh we hope sometimes that's uh continued. But
voting today will be Vich, Randy, myself, uh Steve, and Ed. >> Sorry, Lee. I thought you That's okay. >> If somebody else was missing, you would have been. All right. So, and as you
know, you have to to be successful, you have to get a super majority. That's four out of the five votes, I think. That's about all I'm going to do. Um to begin with, Randy, we have a couple of >> Yes, we do. >> That's the minutes.
>> Yes, we do. I move to approve the minutes from February 26, 2026, unless there's any audits. >> No, Dave, >> I'll second and vote yes. >> Randy votes Oh. >> Uh, Ed votes yes. >> Randy votes yes.
>> I vote yes. >> Steve votes yes. >> Okay, that's unanimous. And now we have March 5th, 2026. I move to approve those. >> Uh Dave V seconds and votes yes. >> Uh Ed votes yes. >> Randy votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> Steve votes yes. >> Okay, that's it. Thank you. All right,
on to our applications today. So I believe we're starting with are we starting with uh 009? >> Application number 26-009. Kathleen Magcguire and Paul Crook care of William G. Lichfield, Esquire, 330
Orleans Road, North Chattam, Mass 02650. Owners of property located at 294 Orleans Road, also showed on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 8A, Block 5, lot S1. The applicant proposes to change, alter, or expand a non-conforming accessory structure garage on a
conforming lot via the demolition of the existing structure and construction of a new accessory structure garage with habitable space. the existing structure is non-conforming and that it is located 0.5 ft from the easterly abuter. The proposed accessory structure will be non-conforming and that it will be
located 1 foot from the easterly butter of butter where a 15t setback is required. Also proposed are conforming additions to the existing dwelling. The existing lot coverage is 4,950 ft 30% and the proposed lot coverage is
5,50 ft 30.4% where 60% is the maximum allowed. The lot contains 16,590 square ft in the GB3 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law Chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw.
>> Mr. Lichfield. >> Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Bill Lichfield here on behalf of Paul Crook and Kate Maguire. Kate is here with us virtually this afternoon in regard to uh some changes they want to make to their house at 294 Orleans Road
in North Chattam. Uh the changes of the house are compliant with the zoning requirements. Um and as as Sarah indicated, sort of an unusual neighborhood in that u it's zoned for general business. U but eight of the 11
houses between Stony Hill Road or eight of the 11 properties between Stony Hill Road and Old Mail Road while commercially zoned are actually residences as is that of Paul and Kate. They've owned the house for almost 11
years now and are in the process of coming down to live full-time and they would like to make some changes to the house and more importantly and the reason that we're here is they'd like to make some changes to the garage perhaps before it falls down as you went out
there and saw it certainly needs some siding work if nothing else. But Paul is a uh avid woodworking hobbyist and he would like the reason for the larger garage. There were two reasons. One in
the rear he would like to have a woodworking shop and they are also Paul and Kate have a couple of kids and a couple of grandchildren. They love them dearly but when they come to visit they would like to have a place to put them
quietly. Uh, and having a bedroom above the garage, uh, would serve that purposes. And I suppose Paul and Kate might escape there at some point as well. That's another option. But, uh, through internal configurations, we are eliminating one of the five existing
bedrooms in the house. And when we get to that, the chair will read a comment from the board of health saying that they have no objections. So, I know you've been to the house. We have a relatively large lot as Sarah indicated in the hearing notice. We have 166% of
the required area. And that's sort of a segue into the uh criteria as to adequacy of site. The site is adequate for residential use as it has been since the house was built around 1958. uh and it will remain adequate if you
approve the small and conforming additions to the house and also allow for reconstruction and expansion of the garage. We're far below the coverage limit and parenthetically in the GB zone there is no building coverage
limitation. There's a lot coverage limitation but I think for consistency purposes I'll speak about building coverage as well. Lot coverage includes paving and drive all all sorts of other things. What you ordinarily review is
the building coverage number and that is consistent and lower than many in the neighborhood as compatibility of size. Again, uh the neighborhood is Jo zone GB3, but it has numerous residences in
it with a footprint of 1750 square ft and 10.5% of building coverage or at the lower end. The gross floor areas is less than 3,000 square ft, which is lower than all but one neighboring properties. And at present,
the house has only 1,865 square ft of living area. The numbers are on the third page of the handout. Uh the lot coverage again is half of the maximum allowed. The building coverage is comparable and consistent with the neighborhood even if you approve the
special permit which I hope you will do. The gross floor area and the living area obviously increase but they are still significantly lower than some and will remain compatible as to the extent of increase in nonconformity. Our sole nonconformity is the sideline setback
and there is a reduction in that. It is admittedly a small reduction but there is certainly no increase in nonconformity. And as you know from having been out there, the houses behind on Spring Hill Road, which is basically a separate neighborhood, are way down at
the bottom of a deep hill. They won't be able to see uh what's going on up here anyway. And beside there's a fence. The garage is located 12 the front of the garage is located 125 feet back from Orleans Road. And again you will read
later the chair will read a letter from the affected abutter the butter on the right hand side or easterly side who supports the proposal. It's closest to his lot line where we're talking as to suitability of site. Uh the site is certainly suitable for the existing
house and garage. There are no environmental issues involved. It will remain suitable for the reconstructed garage with living space above. As the scale sighting mass views and vistas, the existing structure is a 1 and three/4tory cape that the Griffin family built about
70 years ago. It's without impact on views and vistas. The garage really can't be seen unless you stop in the middle of Orleans Road and look in because of the the workshop, not our workshop, but the building to the east and because it's behind the house as
you're heading uh toward downtown Cadam. Uh so the changes, if you approve them, uh will have no impact on the streetscape. The garage again is cited far back from the road and not visible from traffic. So there are no scale or
mass issues. It it is I think you can find without detrimental effect on the neighborhood and in keeping with the surrounding properties. There are no views or vistas involved as to compatibility of use. It is always been a residential use notwithstanding the zoning. There's no change in that
regard. Uh it will continue as a residential use as are eight of the 11 properties as I said between Stony Hill and Old Mail Road. As adequacy of water and sewer, we have town water title five for for five bedrooms is no change. The
uh as I indicated one bedroom in the house will be removed and the board of health uh comment says that Judy has no concerns in that regard. So, as you know, the question is whether the proposed reconstructed garage with living space above moves slightly
further away from the lot line, but remaining far from the road is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current structure on a conforming lot. Uh, the project provides space for the extended family and for their hobbies with an appropriate and traditional design, but
without increasing nonconformity, decreasing it, albeit minimally. And tellingly again uh Mr. Morris the sole affected of butter is supportive given that it's cited so back from uh so far back on the lot again the garage is
larly largely hidden from view anyway. So in light of the criteria and the plans and particularly this location I think that you can find the proposed changes are not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. We'd be happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you.
Is there anyone here today or on Microsoft Teams and would like to speak in favor of this application? If so, please indicate you want to join the conversation. Don't see anyone. So, I'll read the correspondence first. Judith Giorgio,
health agent, writes on the 24th of March, I have no concerns with this plan. The existing five- bedroomedroom house will be remodeled to fourbedroom and the fifth bedroom relocated to the garage apartment proposed. The septic system is adequate in size and will not
be encroached on by the newly built garage structure. Then we have a note. This is from Chantel Kilkenny, community development secretary. and Chantel writes, "On March 19th, the
Historic Business Commission met and rendered the following decision." This is on March 18th. The commission voted five zip zip approving the demolition of the existing structure, construction of a new garage with space and additions to the existing dwelling located at 294
Orleans Road. Thank you, Shantel. And then we have a note. Uh, this is from Richard Mars, 282 Orleans Road, March 17th. I'm going to butter. In fact, I own the property directly to the south. As such, I probably am the most
impacted by the proposed project. I have no objection to the proposed project and I'm totally in support of the request. Thank you for your consideration. Then we have a note from Peter and Mary Ellen Marsden and they are at 26 Old Mail
Road. They write on March 16th. We're writing in regard to this application um while making conforming additions to existing dwelling and then replacing the garage. This application is to be considered. We have reviewed the
application and supporting documentation. We think that the proposed replacement and renovations are in accordance with the surrounding neighborhood and would enhance it. We therefore support the request that special requirement be granted for this application. That's the extent of the
correspondence. Is there anyone here today or on Microsoft Teams that wishes to either A ask a question in regard to this application or B speak against it? If so, please indicate now you want to join the conversation. >> Don't see anyone. So, we'll go to
questions from the board. >> Mr. Beach, >> I have no questions to you. And >> um Bill, what what's the existing ridge height of the house? >> Of the house? I don't know whether Tom
put it on the plan. I suspect that he did. >> Uh the building height is he's got 20 ft plus or minus and the garage 13 feet plus or minus. And it looks like the garage
ridge is going up to >> 23. >> 23. So the garage is now going to the new garage will be 23 3 ft higher than the >> It will be 3 ft higher than the house, but again set back into a corner.
>> Thank you, >> Randy. >> I have no questions. >> Steve, >> I have no questions. >> No questions. >> Well, my only question, Mr. Blissfield is about the Koopa. >> It It looks kind of strange.
>> I I >> Is that a necessary item? >> I I did not uh advise the uh applicants of the uh board's feelings on Koopas. Uh Kate, would you
be uh it it might not be critical to the approval of this project, but would you be willing to forego the Koopa? >> Yeah, I don't um I don't think it that's a >> necessary. >> That's not our biggest concern. >> No.
>> So, yeah. >> Thank you. Okay, Randy. >> Yes. I move to close the public hearing and move into deliberations. >> Dave V seconds and vote yes. Ed votes yes. >> Yeah. Randy votes yes. >> Steve votes yes
>> and I voted yes. >> Ed. >> Um I guess my only concern is the garage and it's the height of the garage. Um I guess Sarah, could you bring up the
picture of the existing house? So the existing house is a cape, you know, that you typically see quite a bit around Chadam. And then you have a garage and the garage is smaller and subordinate to the house, which is
typical and what I would say is good architecture. Um, if you go to the new drawings, I guess it's the second page that shows the front of the garage next to the house, you can see that the uh next one that shows the whole plane, I
guess. Nope. That one. Uh, and maybe because this is one-dimensional. It >> Yeah, it's the >> uh it it the garage just looks overpowering for the house, which I
don't think is necessarily good design, but I think your argument is it's pretty far back. So, it's it's going to blend in. I guess, >> Mr. Chairman, if I >> I recognize you're in deliberations, but I could respond or it's up to you.
Yeah. >> Is that a question? >> That was a question. Yeah. I guess >> I I understand the point and and looking at the two-dimensional representation, if it were like that, if they were on a a plane next to each other, I would absolutely agree. But given that it's
location significantly further back and the site plan would probably show the actual dimension, it's a it's quite a distance back. And again, given the bu the large building, Mr. Morris's building to the right there, uh, and the existing house,
you're not going to be able to see it except during that, you know, 15 foot or 20 foot wide window if somebody stops in Orleans Road to peer in, which I think is unlikely. So, I I don't think it's certainly a substantial detriment. >> Yeah. So, um I I agree with um the idea
that the Koopa doesn't really um belong there. I think it calls more attention to it. And I see this looking sort of like maybe even almost a barn back there. And I think we see that we had a um an application
on Diane Drive once where they put they took their garage and they put living space on top and it looked like two houses next to each other and we approved that. So, I wouldn't not approve this because I just think it would be in congruent with things that
we've done in the past and um and given that it's in the back. Um I think it blends with the uh neighborhood well enough. So, I would support it. Um, well, as I said earlier, I have a little past history with this house. So,
um, but I I think this is um a a good project. I think that tree that's behind the garage is going to help scale the the garage down a little bit. Um, and the fact that you're doubling the setback for the garage
um is a plus. I know it's going from a half a foot to a foot, but it's an increase in the setback, so it's good. >> Um, in general, I agree with my colleagues. I I think the garage, the
reconstruction is a really nice um improvement. I think that um and I also like the modest addition to the main house as well. I think that's great. Um, I think that the Koopa accentuates the
height of the garage and although it is a small Koopa, I just I don't think it's necessary. So, um, overall I think this is a great project and um, if I were voting I would be supporting it. >> Dave, you know, I I agree with all the
previous comments for the most part. I I very much the the the appearance of the elevation here is it distorts how it's going to appear in real life. So, I'm not I'm not concerned about the the building being a little bit taller than the than the house. I
think it'll fit in just just fine. Certainly, it's there's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and and meets our other criteria. So, I'll be happy to support it. >> Okay. Okay, Randy. >> Yeah. So, um, the board may want to consider the following conditions. All
construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neighboring property with permission from the property owner. Is that all right, Mr. Applicant? And uh, between June 30 and Labor Day, no exterior construction will be allowed. No work to be permitted on the weekends and construction between 8
and 5 only. Okay. >> Yeah. I I I don't know whether the seasonal prohibition is necessary, but that's up to the board. >> All right. So, let's see what >> and also uh the copala. >> Oh, and we're going to So, I move to um
approve the application uh as submitted without the Koopa and with the conditions that I just read. >> Second. >> A second. >> Okay. And how do you vote?
>> I'd like to discuss the uh no work uh on >> Okay. >> summer months. >> All right. >> I I don't in this location. I I'm not sure that I see the advantage of doing that. Uh I mean, whatever vehicles they don't have on the
property, they may be able to get permission of the the complex across the street to park at and things. And I and and yes, there are other residences in the neighborhood, but it's a business zone. I I'd feel I'd be more comfortable
keeping the the hours restrictions on work in the summer without necessarily um prohibiting exterior construction. >> Ed, how do you feel about that? >> Uh yeah, I would go along with that as well, >> Randy. And I would go along with it too
as long as it's not blocking the Orleans Road at all because that's seriously busy. Then >> I think if we kept the 8 to5 uh parameters um but working during the summer would be okay. >> You agree? Okay. All right. So the
revised motion please. So now I move to um approve the application without the Koopa as submitted with um between So we're going to do construction activity between 8 and 5 only. Did we say that?
>> Weekends no weekends >> and days of the week >> Monday through Friday. >> Okay. >> And also Randy the the um you also the the activity cons contained on site. >> Yeah. Activity contained on site. Sorry.
Okay, Steve seconds and votes yes. >> Ed, >> Ed votes yes. >> Randy votes yes. >> Steve votes yes. >> And I vote yes. That's unanimous. Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you guys. Thank you. >> Okay, Sarah.
I think Oh, yes. We're we're going to jump to um 26-010. >> Application number 26-010, Robert and Diane Dano, care of William G. Lichfield, Esquire, 330 Orleans Road, North Chattam, Mass 02650.
Owners of property located at 4 Moon Penney Lane, also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map, 10B, block 2, lot 13. The applicant proposes to change, alter, or expand a non-conforming dwelling in a non-conforming lot via the construction of a partial second floor. The existing dwelling is non-conforming and that it
is located 9.8 ft from Moon Penney Lane and 5.9 ft from Stage Neck Road, 10 ft from the southwesterly abuter and 3 ft from the southeasterly abutter. The proposed partial second story addition will be non-conforming and that it'll be located 17 ft from Moon Penny Lane where
a 40ft setback is required. The building coverage will remain 1,234 ft, 29.9% or 15% is the maximum allowed. The lot is non-conforming and that it contains 5,318 square ft where 40,000 ft is required in
the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law Chapter 4A section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw. >> Mr. Lichfield. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Bill Litchfield on behalf of the Don Hughes. We would respectfully request this matter, you allow this matter to be withdrawn
without prejudice. We are going to uh reconsider the plans to see if there is a way uh to address some of the concerns that were address were uh referenced in the correspondence which you have any questions or Mr. Litzel about this.
>> So I'm sorry I sort of zoned out for a second. Did you say I I thought I had understood you wanted to withdraw without prejudice. Correct. So So we need to do a motion to withdraw without prejudice. Okay. So I moved that the applicant is allowed to withdraw without prejudice. >> Dave seconds and votes yes.
>> Ed votes yes. >> Randy votes yes. >> Steve votes yes. >> And I've voted yes. That's unanimous. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Litfield. >> Okay. I believe we're on to 26-011. Please, Sarah. >> Application number 26-011
Elise Erbonte and Edwin Lopez 60 Winsow Road, Pinehurst, North Carolina 28374. Owners of property located at 17 Dusty Miller Lane, also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 4H block 14, lot 19. The applicant seeks to enlarge,
extend, or change a conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the construction of additions. The proposed structure will comply with all bulk and dimensional requirements but it of the bylaw but is considered a substantial alteration and under the second except clause of section six of Mass General
law chapter 48 require requires the grant of a special permit. The existing building coverage is 1,354 ft and the proposed building coverage is 2848 square ft where 2950 ft is the maximum allowed. the law is non-conforming and
that it contains 25,291 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. >> We do not have a presenter here today
due to the fact that CO has caught up with the applicants, but we do have someone online, I believe. So with that individual please introduce themselves and present the case for this application. >> Mr.
Lopez. >> Um so either Mr. Lopez or Mr. Donahghue, you'd need to unmute yourself and present your application. It's their turn. If there's um any confusion, I just wanted to clarify. Uh my name is
>> Would you please identify yourself? >> Yes. My name is Sean Donahghue. >> Okay. >> I am not related to this particular matter. >> I see. So you have nothing to do with this. Okay. >> No, sir. >> Okay. We didn't mean to get you involved. Sorry.
>> No, that's all right. >> Uh, Mr. Lopez, are you there? Mr. Lopez. >> Mr. Lopez, >> what is the address? What is the address of this matter, sir? >> 17 Dusty Miller Lane.
>> Oh, yes. I'm I'm involved in that one. And Mr. Lopez should be on the screen. My name is Sean Donahghue. I'm an attorney representing Mr. Lopez. >> Well, wait a minute. Didn't you just say you weren't involved in this? Yes. I thought you were talking about a matter involving an applicant with the last
name of Donahghue. >> Oh, okay. I see. All right. Well, that's come and gone. Okay. So, uh why don't you pres give us a presentation? >> That's what you're doing. Or help Mr. Lopez do such. Okay.
>> Yes, sir. Thank you. >> All right. >> Uh m Mr. Chairman, members of the board, my name is Sean Donahghue. I'm an attorney. I represent uh Alisa Urbanadi and Edwin Lopez uh in connection with this matter. Um
the um as proposed uh the applicants are seeking to uh expand the footprint of an existing uh one-story single family residential structure currently situated on the lot. Um
just to give you a sort of an overview of the lot itself, the lot is approximately 25,290 square ft of area. Uh the existing structure on that property uh covers
1,354 square ft. Um uh in addition to expanding the footprint of the existing structure, uh the applicants also uh are seeking to
construct a u a two-story uh garage, if you will, um to the on the east side of the property. Um
the second floor would be a u livable space single bedroom. The u ground floor would be a twocar garage. The um the existing structure on the property as I say is a uh existing
one-story single family residential structure to twobedroom. Um my clients are requesting for zoning relief is twofold. One for a special permit under section
um 8D2A of the zoning bylaw and also two for a finding under section six of chapter 48 of Massachusetts general laws. Um, I I had submitted a narrative for the
zoning board of appeals in their application. Um, I spoke with uh someone in the uh Annie, I think her name was, Annie Hayes, who said she had brought it down. I just wanted to make sure that you u received that narrative for a
zoning board of appeals. Yeah, we haven't. So, I suggest that you go through the criteria now. >> Sure. Um, as far as the adequacy of the size of the site, um, uh, the, uh, the property is located in
the R60 zoning district, um, which requires a minimum lot size of, uh, 60,000 feet. Uh this lot uh in
the subject lot uh consists of 25,291 ft. Um as far as the dimensional uh requirements uh the existing residential structure uh
and also the attached uh twotory uh garage uh will conform to all dimensional requirements for the district. Um the proposed building or structure
coverage is a uh 11.3% where 11.7% is the maximum allowed. Two, as far as the compat compatibility of the size of the pro proposed structure with neighboring properties,
um the the proposed improvements will enlarge the gross floor area from 1,6 square ft to 2,848 square ft, which is u compatible with the other
dwellings in the neighborhood. Um as far as three at the extent of proposed increase in non-conforming nature of this structure or use both the existing and proposed rent residential structures are conforming to all dimensional requirements. That's
something that I just mentioned to you a few minutes ago. I'm sorry to reiterate that, but um the suitability of the site on number four of the criteria uh the suitability of the site including but not limited to the impact on neighboring properties on the natural environment
including slopes, vegetation, wetlands, groundland, water bodies and storm water runoff. Um there is a gradual east to west slope u on the land which is located to the east of east of the residential structure. Um there will
be some impact to the existing landscape um when constructing the uh garage. Um there are no wetlands uh within 100 ft of the property.
The impact number five the impact of scale sitting in mass on neighborhood visual character including views, vistas and streetscapes. the um proposed dwelling is consistent with the visual character of the
neighborhood. Six, the compatibility of the proposed use with the neighboring uses. The proposed use of this singlestory single family residential structure is a
residential use with an attached two-story garage and is consistent with the neighboring uses. Uh seven, the adequacy of method of sewage disposal, source of water and drainage.
Um I just wanted you to note that there is a septic system, an existing septic system that meets all state and local regulations that currently serves the property and will continue to serve the property. I know that u I if I remember
correctly I believe that u there was a comment um I forget from who that question whether or not the um the existing septic system was suitable for the proposed um
for the proposed uh building uh or shall I say the enlarged building. Um, I do have a report from um, unofficial inspection report. >> Well, that's okay. That's up to the board of health. You don't you don't need to go through that with us.
>> Okay. Um, the impact se I'm sorry, eight. The impact of traffic flow and safety. Um, it's our contention that the project will not adversely impact traffic flow or safety in the uh
in that particular area of Dusty Miller Lane. Uh, nine, as far as noise and litter, uh, work will be conducted during normal business hours and the site will be kept clean throughout construction phase. Uh, 10, the adequacy of utilities and
other public services. Um all utilities are existing inadequate. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Okay. Uh so is there anyone here today or on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application?
Please indicate you'd like to join the discussion. Don't see anyone. So I'll read the correspondence. First of all, we have a note from Judith Giorgio, Board of Health, March 24th. I've reviewed the proposal. Our records indicate that this is an
existing twobedroom dwelling. The plan to renovate and add an additional bedroom will add sewer flow and is not allowed without board of health approval and an IA septic system. Uh then we have a note uh this is from
Christina Basset. She uh writes for the Cadam Historic Commission and she says uh the CHC found this home not historically significant twice with the most recent determination set to expire
on October 10th, 2026. And we have a note from David Maurice 95 Dusty Miller Lane writes on March 10th. Please let this email service support for this application. And that's the extent of the correspondence. Is
there anyone here today on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak either against this application or has a specific question? If so, please indicate you'd like to join the discussion. Don't see anyone. Um
Sarah, do you have anything to add about this particular with the ADU? >> Um so currently and it has been advertised um at this year's annual town meeting. The town is proposing modifications to their accessory
dwelling unit bylaw. The only one that will or could potentially affect this particular application um is that the town is require or proposing that they be a year-round rental. Um it does
still have to get approved at town meeting and by the attorney general's office. Um so >> okay, >> but that shouldn't affect just general information for us. Okay, questions from the board. Randy. >> So, so I'm just wonder I can't help but
wonder about the ADU because in the event town meeting adopts the provision saying that all ADUs need to be year round only then your client will have to um abide by that in the long run. Um did
you plan on having the ADU for year round or for just your family or do you know >> um Mr. Lopez. >> Yes. Good afternoon everyone. I'm I'm here. So um yeah, I'm rather aware with
um I spoke with CL for um today and I'm aware of that. Yeah. So we we know we're pretty concerned about but I mean we okay with that. >> Okay. So because in the event it passes a town meeting, you wouldn't be able to
rent it monthto monthth like the state law permits right this minute. You wouldn't be able to do that. You'd have to year round only. So, okay. As long as you understand that, I'd like people to just know. >> Yeah, you understand. >> Yeah. Great. Yeah. >> It's not No, you know, it's it's sort of
an esoteric topic. A lot of people wouldn't even know what we were talking about, but it sounds like you've done your homework. Um I don't have any other questions, >> Steve. >> Um I have a few questions. The the first question, I guess, is pertains to the existing house. Is that that's going to
remain one story? That's not changing. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And the only thing that's going to be two stories is the uh the ADU above the garage. >> Correct. >> Okay. I'm a little suspicious of the need for
a full bathroom in the office. Can someone explain to me the reasons for that? Was that office somehow used previously as a bedroom or something or
No, if you see the plan, we have the um the openings for that and we think to keep that as a common bathroom for even for the living room too. So yeah, we plan to use like the office that.
>> Okay. Um cuz it looks like there's five bathrooms now in this house. It used to be a two a two-bedroom house. You're adding a third and there's five bathrooms. It seems a little excessive.
Is that what your intention is? >> Yeah. Well, if you think the master bedroom have the private bathroom, the other um the bedroom have a a private bathroom, too. and the office and the living room have to share the same bathroom. So I think it's four bathrooms
and half bathroom close to the kitchen. So it's not like fully five bathrooms four and a half. >> All right. Thank you Lee. >> No questions. >> Dave each. >> No questions. >> Ed.
>> Uh no questions. >> Okay. >> I move to close public hearing and move into deliberations. David seconds and votes yes. >> Uh Ed votes yes. >> Randy votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> And Steve votes yes. >> Okay. Start with Steve. >> Um well, I guess we're if we're focusing
specifically on the addition of the garage. Um I don't think I have any issues with that. I think that I saw some place that the ridge was going to be about 25 1/2 ft high. Um, and as long as you understand the, um, the upcoming
uses of, uh, restrictions on an ADU, um, then I guess I'm fine with that. It's probably good project, >> Lee. >> Yeah, I agree. I think, um, this will be an improvement. Um, I am a fan of ADUs,
so I think, um, you know, it meets our criteria and it'll be a nice addition to the area. Dave. >> Yeah, it's I would agree with I agree with what Lee had to say. Both Emil Lee and um
Steve had to say and uh I I it's nice to have an ADU presented to us and the opportunity to approve one. Um and I it's certainly not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. >> Uh and uh it does meet our other
criteria. Um, I I understand to a certain extent Steve raising a concern about bathrooms, but we see this from time to time and I'm not sure how much that's in our purview. So, um, I will support it. Be happy to support it. Thanks. And
um I mean certainly anything's going to be an improvement uh over there. Um, I'm I'm not a fan of the twotory garage uh from a design perspective. I just am not a fan of that at all. It's
going to be really overpowering for the rest of the house. And then if you look at the grade, it um you know that steps down and but yet it's still going to be 8 feet 8 feet higher than the the single
family dwelling. But does that make it substantially detrimental to the neighborhood? No. So um not a fan of the design. Um think the garage is a bit overpowering. I'd like to see the roof line lower, but uh don't believe it'll be substantially detrimental to the
neighborhood. So, it would have my vote. >> I agree with that. I do. I It'll have my vote. You know, it's um it's how they want it to look. So, that's their beeswax. >> Yeah, I uh I understand what you're saying. you know,
it isn't going to be really compatible with the neighborhood, but looking at the neighborhood, particularly if you drive down the street, it's, you know, it's it's a huge improvement what what is there. So, okay. Uh,
so I move to um um approve the application as submitted. And uh I council I just I'm not sure if you're familiar with it, but we have uh following conditions. Um all construction activities and vehicles should be contained on site or at a
neighboring property with permission from the property owner. That's an important one on that street. Um, between June 30th and Labor Day, um, we consider no exterior construction, no work permitted on weekends, and construction between 8 and 5, if the
board thinks that's something we should do with that street. Um, what does every think? >> What do you think, Mr. V? >> That's kind of a tossup. I I mean I I
think again, you know, it's a dead end street essentially. There are a number of other houses out there, but this is not a I think this is another area where as long as they conform to the first part of that having them doing
work during the summer would not be um really disruptive to the neighborhood, I don't think. >> Can I say something about that? >> No. No. No. No. Uh, Ed, how do you feel? >> Uh,
I guess I I agree with Nate, Dave. It looks like they could certainly park construction vehicles on site or at at Nickerson next door perhaps if with permission. I mean, there's a lot going on there. So, I don't know how much more
disruptive work in the summertime could be in that area. So, I I would be okay with the exterior work in the summertime. Steve. >> Yeah, I'm okay with the I think the same as we had the uh 8 to5 during a week, no weekends and summertime is fine.
>> Lee, >> yeah, I agree. I think that area um can handle construction >> during the summer. >> No weekends. I I I think any day is fine personally, but so I'm I'm going to go along with whatever the majority. >> Okay. Could you restate it?
>> Sure. So I move to um approve the application as submitted with the only condition being con all construction activity vehicle and vehicles should be contained on the site are at a neighboring property with the permission
of the property owner and work should be between 8 and 5 that zone >> between June and 30 days. >> How do I vote? >> Uh yeah David seconds and and votes yes. Uh, Ed votes yes. >> Randy votes yes. >> Steve votes yes.
>> I vote yes. That's unanimous. >> Thank you, gentlemen. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Thank you. >> Thank you. All right, Sarah. 26-012, please. Application number 26-012,
Eastwood Hoe Country Club, Inc. Care of Benjamin Zender, Esquire 62, Route 6A, SweetB, Orleans, Mass 02653. Owner of property located at 325 Foxhill Road, also shown in the Town of Cadam Successor's map, 12M, block 5A, lot 2.
The applicant seeks dimensional variances from the required road and a butter setback for the installation of 15 foot fencing and one section of 17 foot sens fencing. The proposed setback to the road is 3.1 ft where 40 ft is required and the proposed setback to the
southerntherly abutter is 1.5 ft at its closest point where a 25 ft setback is required. The lot contains 129 12 acres uh in the R40 zoning district. Dimensional variances are required under Mass General Law Chapter 48 section 10
and section 8D2C of the protective bylaw. >> How are you? >> I'm well, Mr. Nick. How are you tonight? >> Fine. Thank you. >> It's nice to see you all again. My name is Ben Zender and I'm an attorney in Orleans and I'm here on behalf of Eastwood Hall Country Club, Inc. And on the screen with me is Sean Riley who's
from Taibond who's our project engineer. Um, this is an application for a variance under 48 section 10 and under your bylaw. Uh, and before I get into the criteria, which I have to say I like variances, the simple reason that there were only three granting criteria instead of I don't know how many you have in your special perma granting
criteria, but a little shorter. Um, this is this is really an attempt at a solution to solve a problem that is somewhat common with golf courses as you're aware. Um, those of you who have been up to the to the second hole at Eastwood Hoe, it's the one hole that's on the south side of uh, Foxhill,
Foxhill Road. And the hole leads up from the from the west to the east. And there there are a couple of houses on the right hand side of the hole as you come up and towards the back of the hole. And the natural play along that historic course leads golf balls to be struck
towards those homes in some instances. So, there is an owner of of the home at the back of the second hole and his council, Jonathan Silverstein, is on the on the line right now. If you have any questions of him and in and in addressing the concerns of that homeowner, we're trying to find a solution that will at least minimize or
limit the number of golf balls that leave the property in that direction. And when you look at the um when you look at the site plan that we prevented presented to you on the color site, you'll see the home at the bottom of the plan as well as a parking area on the right hand side of the plan. So, this is an attempt to just provide some
screening to protect those properties from golf balls that may leave the property. Um, as you're all well aware that to to grant to variance, we have to bear the burden of proving to you that we meet three criteria uh under the statute under your bylaw. The first is we have to prove that there is a
substant there's an there is a a hardship to the applicant, financial or otherwise. That hardship has to be owing or related to either or both of or more than one of uh a soil condition, shape condition or topographical condition
that is unique to the property but not uh doesn't pertain to the zoning district as a whole. And finally, we have to show demonstrate to you that the relief can be granted without substantially derating from the the spirit of the intent of the bylaw itself. And and we think that in this case we meet that criteria. Um, the
hardship is an unusual hardship. Uh, usually I stand here and I try I'm trying to demonstrate a hardship as to why somebody needs more space in their house or whatever. It's a little difficult here. The hardship is both to the applicant is for hoe because if a golf ball leaves their property, it it creates problems for the closet and and
those can be financial problems and they can be other problems, you know, either either neighborhood relation problems or or legal problems. So, um, keeping the golf balls within the within the field of play or the course is important. um to not be able to do that creates a hardship to the applicant. It also creates a hardship to the neighborhood.
Um you know, golf balls that leave the property and and potentially strike either either property or vehicles or um or people um can create a problem for other people that are outside the golf course. So, and it can also create liability for the for the players on the golf course themselves. You hit a golf
ball and you hit somebody, you're going to be in trouble. So, there's a hardship there. And that's directly related to both the topography and the shape of this particular part of the Eastwood Hill property. Um, as you know from going up there, this this hole is actually squeezed in between Foxill Road
and and the and the abuing properties on the on the south side. Uh, it's a long narrow um hole. It narrows it narrows as you get to the uh the easterly end. And then as you come to the eastern land, it not only narrows and pushes in, but it
also moves up a hill. Uh and then there's a a rising hill on one side and then it rises up at the back of the green. Um you're essentially coming uphill as you play this hole. You know, you you hit your you strike your ball, you land, you you come uphill, it flattens out, then you're coming up again to the to the hole. Which means
that in order to make that uphill grade and to make it over those hills that are in your way, sometimes you're going to strike your golf ball maybe harder than you think you need to. So the topography lends you to sometimes hit a ball that will um will leave the course, go past the end of the course or go off the right hand side of the course because
you're trying to make that grade and you're trying to make and you're also trying to hit that narrow part of the golf course. So we think that there's both a topographical condition and there is a shape condition that affects this lot that certainly is it. You could probably find it again if you looked hard enough at the assessor maps, but it's not a generally a condition that
that affects properties as a whole in this district. And finally, um, we think that the relief can be granted without substantially degrading from the spirit of the intent of the bylaw. First of all, you know, this this bylaw limitation, which requires that in certain older lots, you have a 20 foot minimum set back to a butter's
properties and 30 ft to a road is really designed to minimize the scale and the massing of structures that are too close to lot lines and too close to roads. Um, so this fence that's being proposed, and you can see from your plan is designed so that it embeds itself in the existing
vegetation of the lot. Um, and it's designed so that those fence posts are interspersed among the vegetation on the on the south and the and the east side of the lot. Uh, the top of the fence will not be higher than the tops of the surrounding trees. I've been assured by
my engineer. Um, and it's been designed to um, both keep itself out of the field of play, but also as far back as we can make it go um, as close to the lot. As you can see, as we're requesting a one and a half foot variance to the back of the property, 3.1 ft from the road and and about 11 ft at the at the very end
of the fence on the west side. So, it's really been designed to fit within an area that keeps it away from the field of play and also uh embeds the fence in a in in tree in a tree line so that it's it's minimally visible, although it certainly will be visible. Um, and and
also uh to keep it as far away from the wetlands as we can. As you can see from the plan, there's a uh there's a there's a coastal bank that's offsite, but there's a 100 foot setback from the top of the coastal bank. We could not design this without impinging in some way on that on that uh jurisdictional buffer zone of the conservation commission. But
um I can inform you that we've received from the conservation commission what's called a negative request for determination of applicability, which means they've looked at it and said this does not require further review by the board. So um we think that this that we meet all three of those hurdles. Um this will
this will help us address the concern of Mr. Silverstein's client um which we would very much like to work with our neighbors on this. the club would uh and I'm here to answer any questions that you you might have about the project and Sean can maybe help me as well and thank you all. >> Okay, thank you. Is there anyone here
today or on Microsoft Teams who wishes to speak in favor of this application? If so, please indicate right now you wish to join the discussion. >> Uh good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Um Jonathan Silverstein, as Mr. Zender indicated I represent the owner of uh
the budding property. Um and I would just reiterate everything that Mr. Zender just said. This really is a hardship particularly although my client isn't the applicant. Um it has been a hardship to him and his family. uh
they've experienced golf balls, breaking windows, uh breaking a windshield of um his uh his wife's car while driving with his child uh in the driveway. So, we appreciate that the club is uh is taking
this step toward helping to resolve that issue and we would ask that the board um favorably act on the application. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have other than that. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this application?
Don't see anybody. So, I'll read the correspondence, which is pretty limited. It is from the town of Chadam's Conservation Commission stated March 6th. The applicant submitted an administrative review on February 17th.
The project was issued a permit through an administrative review on February 17th of this year. as the project did not need to be conditioned to meet the performance standards under the wetlands protection act and the town of local
wetland bylaw chapter 272 and the regulations promulgated thereafter. That's the extent of the correspondence. Is there anyone today either here or on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak either a against this application or b
has a specific question? Don't see anybody. So, I think we'll go to questions from the board. Lee, >> um, thank you. Uh, has there ever been a fence here before? And if so, was it
lower? Did it >> I I I I think so. I I and and Mr. Soy may be able to help me with this. I think I think the neighbor may have put something up to try to address the concern in the past that but as is fair he really shouldn't have borne the burden of doing that and I
think he found that what he had put up wasn't working properly so he asked that we address the question >> thank you >> anything else that's yeah Dave >> well I I am just curious is Sarah does this um
does is this involve olved with the um the town's bylaw with respect to fences on a near a property line as well. Right. >> So fences that are less than six feet in height are allowed to be right on the
property line. Anything taller than that from existing grade needs to meet the full setback for the zoning district. >> So that's part of what they're asking for this thing. Okay. Thanks. Um I I guess the one question I have is what what was there first that green or
the houses? Because >> if the green was put in after the houses, it would be a hardship. >> I know that we just celebrated our 100th anniversary of the club. So which is 1923. So I would be willing to bet that the club was there first, but I I
wouldn't bet my mother on it. Yeah. More importantly, was the green there before the >> Yeah, they they've they historically the club has maintained its it it's its holes. I mean, there have been some minor adjustments over the years in terms of the way tea boxes are placed and bunkers are placed and things like that, but the club is essentially the
same in the same locations, all 18 holes as they were since 1923. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thanks, Randy. >> I don't have any questions. >> Indeed. >> A few questions. Um, getting back to the height of the fence, how was that determined that it needed to be 15 ft high?
>> It was it was it was determined based on the topography of the of of of the landform. Um, and so it was really sort of try to get as high enough to to solve the problem without getting it above the tree line and and and visible. Um, you'll note that um one of the panels, the one
that's furthest to the south is 17t tall instead of 15t tall. And that that has to do with the fact that the topography drops a little bit in that section. is you want to kind of get that height up a little bit to compensate for the drop in topography. >> So, it was really balancing the the topography around the hole and the tree
line. >> And what is the material that it's used made out of? >> It's a like a very fine black mesh. >> It is it's it's Yeah, it's a um maybe maybe Mr. Riley can address that question. I believe it's a it's a it's a like a it's a retractable plastic
netting. Yeah, it's it's a nylon netting um similar you see at the uh at a golf range or a practice facility. Uh but it's black, so it it uh it blends in. >> It's going to be able to blend into the foliage that's there and you're going to sort of weave it in between the the
trees that are there. >> Exactly. Yeah. There's there's several evergreen trees that it'll be placed behind and uh my understanding is the course is looking once the net is put in to add and supplement and add more uh trees. um you know it anything they can do to screen it as well they're going to
want to do. >> Okay. And is this um is it meant to be seasonal? >> Can you take it down in the event of a big storm or something? >> So it can be so that it basically uh very similar to what you'd consider like a shower curtain. Uh there's rings at
the top so it can slide and retract to the sides or it can be removed. So, uh, there is the ability to do that in the winter, uh, to remove that and and to maintain it and store it inside. Uh, I don't know that that's the intent. Uh, but for the longevity of the, um, the material, it would be recommended to do
that. >> Okay. Thank you. That was very helpful. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Well, I have several questions. Um, it wasn't so long ago, maybe it was a year ago, where this particular club
went through a major multi-million dollar rebuild of the golf course. Was it considered at that time that maybe we should cure this problem which has gone on for year after year after
year? I can tell you the club went through a number of as you well you I was before you several months ago on on yet another project they're working on they they have an ongoing group of projects you know whether it's seaw wall work or or additions whether it's um they went through the addition of a whole new irrigation system then they followed
that up with the the refit of the golf course which was which was completed last June um this is really a separate matter I mean it's this this is this was not part of the capital planning of the club so to speak this was this was addressing a concern of a particular neighbor that came up at a certain point
and we and we've actually been addressing that concern between engaging Mr. Riley um working with the neighbor working with Mr. Silverstein and coming up with a plan that we like and getting to conservation getting here. We've been just doing it as quickly as we could over that space of months but it was not something that the club identified as
part of you know for example rearranging their tea boxes and and the holes and all the things they did before. That was that was a big project but this just wasn't part of that. So I'm not sure that answered your question Mr. connection. But >> well, >> that's all right. That's all right. Um,
couldn't you just reverse that hole? >> No. >> In other words, where the green is, that's going to be the tea, and they're hitting down into woods and all that. >> Well, again, the tea boxes on the on the west side of that hole are all nestled right below a group of houses. So, you
know, I don't know if you've ever looked at where the T- boxes are, but if you were to reverse that hole, first of all, you would be finishing your first hole, walking to the end of the second hole, and playing back to the beginning of the second hole, and then walking back to the beginning of the third hole, which wouldn't make any sense. But to play that hole downhill towards all those
houses or sitting up the side hill would just be disastrous. I mean, you would be you would be literally hitting right towards the the sides of those homes. And and also, as you probably know, the historical layout of that club is very very important. um you know, right down to those of you that have watched
the club over the last several years have noticed that it's moving much back towards a lynx format, you know, in terms of the vegetation, the grasses. Um it's making this course as close as possible to what it was back in the 20s, 30s, 40s is very very important. So the short answer, Mr. Nixon, is no.
They I don't I can't see a world which they would reverse that whole. >> So all the trees that were cut down is trying to make it what it used to There have been there have been trees removed over the past number of years that they part of it is is to move towards a back to the links format that was there and part of it is to improve the pace of play which as as those of you that golf
know is is is the single biggest factor driving golf courses try to keep people moving along. This the changes that you've seen over in the last refit. Many of those were designed to to help people move faster. But um but this what we're talking about here um relocating the
hole and again this is the one hole in the course that is that is on the other side of Foxhill Road. You know the landform there is what it is. There's really no I mean you're right maybe you could play it backwards but it it it would make a lot of sense you know in terms of the land form to do it that way. So
>> his memory serves me right now. My memory isn't that good. Okay. That's all right. There was an effort by the club uh maybe five, six, seven years ago to purchase
the properties that are involved in this. Is that not true? >> It is true. There was there was well just to give you more information than anybody probably wants to give you. Um the home immediately adjacent to the to the to the second ferry was owned by some members of the club who passed on
and their children sold the house to um to somebody who then rebuilt the house and ended up selling the house. I think you know the club may have wanted to buy it. They weren't able to. So it's it's been rebuilt. It's owned by a private party. I don't know who it is. So >> you can read between the lines on that
if if you wish, Mr. Nixon. But again, you know, look, there are homes abuing this golf course in in a lot of areas. You know, when you run when you play the back nine, you know, 11 and 12 have homes along the lefth hand side. When you when you go further down, you go to the I think it's
the the third hole, their homes behind that. Um, you know, dealing with dealing with homes and golf courses is just one of those things that we all deal with, you know, as communities. you know, people buy a home, you know, hopefully they're they're they're part of the golf course and they're they're they're on
board, but sometimes people buy how homes like this golf and and I look, I I'm not going to undermine the the implications of living next to a golf course. I mean, it it can be dangerous, you know, and and at a minimum can be frustrating. So, this I think Eastwood
is fortunate that it has very few homes on the golf course. I think the community is fortunate that Eastwood has maintained that property the way that they have. And I think that their interactions with with with the Butters are relatively few and they do the best that they can. And that's what this is. This is really an attempt to do the best
job that they can to to make sure that that everything is safe, but at the same time don't don't really impact the view that people have coming up Foxill Road. So So I'd like to ask the attorney representing u one of the abutters uh
sir if you could come back on Yes, Mr. Chair. >> Yeah. Hi. Uh, so your client, uh, when they bought that home, didn't they consider that there was a golf course right next to where they're
buying and there are certain hazards and balls are going to fly over? I mean, why is it now that they're so concerned? Why weren't they when they purchased it? >> So, Mr. I can tell you that the problem
uh became much worse within the past few years um due to some uh changes to the layout of the golf course, the location of uh the
tea box. um there was a a dramatic increase in the number of balls coming into their property and causing damage. So that's why that's the answer to your question of why now. Um certainly my client was aware when he
bought that house. I I believe that there's been a house there for quite some time. Um and there's one, you know, it's one thing to understand you live near a golf course. It's another thing to have golf balls
uh landing in your pool while your kids are swimming there. Um I don't I don't think that's something that any family should have to just sort of suck up and live with. Even if there hadn't been this dramatic increase
in the incidents um and number of of ball errant balls coming onto his property in the past few years. >> Mr. Thank you. >> If I may, um, the only changes to the second hole have been the placement of bunkers on the right hand side of the fairway
coming up to try to dissuade people from >> having their balls on the right hand side. I think what Mr. Serene is alluding to is two things. One is in the refit of the golf course. There was another the tea box on the third hole was moved further back which brought some of that property into play on the
drive. And the other thing that happened during CO was the number of rounds played it increased exponentially and it hasn't dropped by the way. You know, people just changed their habits during CO into playing golf. Families are playing, younger members are playing, people have moved out here. So, um
they've gone to a tea time system they never had before. So, a lot of this just has to do with the sheer number of people playing, which something that you we don't necessarily want, but we have. Um and then the and then the T- box on the third hole. But I don't I don't think any of those issues I think
regardless of that the club wants to do what they can to protect the neighboring property from um you know these these balls are either coming off the T- box on three or they're people coming up the fairway and just overhitting the green or slicing to the right on the green. So >> um so I was just wondering how do you
know that this fencing is going to relieve the issue? How do you know? We think it will. I mean, look, again, our head greens keeper, Frank Hancock, working with Mr. Riley, you know, they they have devices that they put out
there, the track balls that come off of te T boxes. They they have an idea where these shots come from and how they hit and what they do. I I can't stand here and tell you that this fence will prevent golf balls, all golf balls, from leaving the property, but it will certainly prevent every golf ball that's
less than 15 up 15t in the air along this entire stretch of the fence from leaving the property. So that's all I can tell you. >> Yeah. No, I I understand. And then if you leave that netting up all year round and then we have a storm like we just had, don't you think if a tree falls
down, it's going to get all messed up? >> That's again, the club has intensive maintenance regimes all over the their maintenance is unbelievable. They are going to have to they're going to have to not only install this, they're going to have to maintain it. >> Yeah. >> So you're right. And then I and it's
kind of not computing that they said all of a sudden there's issues where there weren't before. I would just imagine if it was just a matter of more volume, more people playing, you know, then
they would have just more of the same kind of problem, but they sounded like they bought it and didn't think there was any problem. So is there something that the golf course did that aimed it aims it at them. Now, >> first of all, I don't I don't think I don't think the burden of this in any way, shape, or form falls on the
neighbor and Mr. Service client. I I I I I don't really like the idea of this being their responsibility in any way, shape, or form. But I can tell you, for example, and these are, look, these are all anecdotal statements I'm making here, okay? They're not scientific. You know, they just, you know, in the last several years, they they brought a a
whole host of junior members into the club who came off the junior list. These are these are people in their 40s, right? They bring their friends and they play golf. they're hard hitters, right? You know, so you know, there were again there were so many factors involved. You know, if you increase the number of rounds played per year by 5,000 rounds,
for example, or 4,000 rounds, and you put younger, stronger hitters up there, you put guests that are coming that don't know what there are so many reasons why a golf ball goes errant. I can tell you based on the total number of balls that hit on the second hole, it's a small number of golf balls, but it only takes one to hit a windshield or to hit a swimming pool, to hit a house,
that really is a problem. So, >> or to hit a person >> or to hit a You got to hope we you hope it doesn't happen. So I I can't tell you that this is going to solve the problem. I can tell you that East RAO >> from the moment that this became an issue for them has been trying to address this both scientifically
and with an eye towards the conservation regulations, zoning regulations and it's kind of you know it may be that this doesn't help but I can tell you that knowing the ground screw at East Ho they'll maintain this fence you know they will plant around it. They will they will pull it in when it needs to be pulled in. And
>> no, I get the impression that they're good neighbors. I do. >> I think they are. >> Yeah. >> This just occurred to me and I don't I don't know who this question before. Maybe Sean. And so KCOM is has
issue that they don't need to make a determination. So I'm just thinking about is there is this netting which is seems pretty extensive. Is this is there a design feature in this Sean that that minimizes and I note and I noted from
the notes that you know they keep it 6 in off the ground to allow wildlife to travel underneath. But is there anything in the design of the fencing that u uh accom doesn't necessarily accommodate but it helps with the safety for birds
for example. >> I'll let Sean handle that if the chair doesn't mind because I don't >> Yeah. No, not at all. B birds birds fly through trees through branches that are they they are very aware of their surroundings. So there really isn't a lot of concern that they are going to be
flying in blindly into the this netting. Um there's very few cases of any birds being trapped in any of the netting on any of the the practice ranges that you see um around. So there really isn't a concern and uh conservation didn't have that concern either. they were more
concerned with wildlife being able to traverse through their wildlife corridors and getting from A to B on the ground uh and not necessarily from the air. >> That's that's the answer I was looking for. I think it is true when you if you watch birds and what they fly through
how they do that. So, uh thank you. >> Any questions from anybody else? No. Okay, Randy. >> I move to close the public hearing and move into deliberation. >> David seconds and votes yes. >> Ed votes yes. Randy votes yes. >> How about yes? >> And Steve votes yes.
>> Okay, we'll start with Dave. >> Well, I think that um uh I'm swayed by the arguments that um and and find that um it does it I can find
that it meets the criteria uh and be willing to support um a variance in this case. I think uh the other another um thing that in some variances have come before us that uh others attorneys have
have presented that um we can and should consider safety as an issue as well and and so I think that applies here. Um so I I think that there's uh could be um some real benefit
to enough folks for us to uh grant this variance that I would do it. Thanks, Ed. >> Um, I I agree as well. I think the public benefit uh here is is um very um
uh I guess the word I'm looking for is it's uh reasonable and um uh you know the I believe the you know the changes the the amount of play I believe that's correct and that's probably has uh you
know made more balls to be going in this yard and so uh I I I can see myself voting in positive for this, >> Randy. >> So, um so I I think that the uh shape and the topography is certainly um different than anywhere else in the
zoning district. So, you got that one. >> Thank you. >> And then the little enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance or bylaw would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. Now certainly if they hit a person or
property um it would be financial hardship. So I guess you could look at it that way. And then the desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially deroggating from the intent and purpose
of the bylaw. If this was if this were going to be a 15 17 foot fence in a residential neighborhood, it would be a whole different ballgame. And I think that's why the the bylaw is what it is. Um because if you're going to have a fence that looks like that, you you have
to meet the setbacks. And um so I I would um go along with it. >> Thank you, >> Steve. Um well, I'm not sure if the if the neighbor the closest neighbor here had um requested this or had any input on
its installation, but uh you know, I think it's it's very advantageous to them in terms of safety. Uh you mentioned a couple of times um the cars getting hit or the house. It could certainly be someone walking down the driveway or in the pool. So, you know, I
think it's a big advantage to them to protect having their property and their their their personal um belongings protected from something like this. So, I think it's to their advantage to have this done. And um you
know, sometimes in other cases we're asked if something is detrimental to the neighborhood. Well, I think it may be detrimental to this neighbor if something's not done. Um, a lot of times we have to determine if if something is done, if it's detrimental. I think this
would be detrimental if it's not done. So, I think it's a good idea. And as far as the financial hardship, um, I think it's probably more of a financial liability um, and in in for the for the uh, for
for the club to not do something like this because they could stand many lawsuits probably over something not being done. And if they had a chance to to take some sort of corrective act action and didn't, that makes it that much worse. So I think I would support this.
>> Thank you, Lee. >> Yeah, I agree with my colleagues. I think this um makes sense and it does meet the criteria, I believe, for the variance. Um so um I'm not voting, but I would approve this um this application
for a variance. Well, I don't think it does qualify for a variance. Uh number one, uh the the idea that one particular hole is different than anything else you're going to find. Well, I don't care where
you go. This is what you're going to find on golf courses. Some are this, some are that long, some are that. So, I don't find that. But the big thing to me is the hardship. And you mentioned that maybe the uh clubs um adding members and
all that sort of thing has u you know has aspirated the situation. Uh to me this is a self-generated hardship and we're I'm leaving the neighbors out because they bought next to a golf club
and a golf course and that's the way it is. I mean, I remember going out, I think it was five or six years ago when the very the house that's the furthest to the uh west southwest, which is the house that's for sale now where you can buy a
fifth of it for a million and a quarter or something like that. Well, that big pool was there and I remember going before it was all redone and rebuilt and the owner was there and said, "Well, yeah, I got a problem with the pool because the ball has come in." Well, okay. And that's the way it is. I I
can't see that this is a new hardship that hasn't existed for years and years and years and years. And the fact that the club had a chance to buy those homes passed on it. Okay. the fact
fact that um they didn't include this in the rebuild to me u this is not a variance that I could vote for and I'll leave it at that. Okay, Randy. >> So I move that we approve the
application as submitted. I don't think we Let's see. We did have a condition recommended where I do that. What's the condition? >> Sorry. Um, all construction activity and vehicles be contained on the site or a neighboring property with permission of
the property owner. Are you going to need things like that council? >> They can do all this work from within the golf course. I mean, they they they bring their golf course up the green and install their equipment. I the one thing I would ask the the board is that not impose the hour restrictions because you
know they tend to >> they tend to work around the play and they're out there mowing lawns at 6:00 in the morning. So I would think they could install this without substantially disturbing the neighbors >> and just without blocking anyone's driveway. >> Absolutely. Okay. Absolutely.
>> Mr. V. >> Dave seconds and votes yes. >> Uh Ed votes yes. >> Randy votes yes. >> Steve votes yes. And I vote no. Uh you were successful, Mr. Zendi. You uh it was a 4 to1 vote in your I was I I I got
Mr. Nixon. Thank you very much. Thank you all. It's always good to see you. >> Thank you members of the board. Much appreciated. >> Okay, one more to go. Sarah, what do we got? >> We have application number 26-013.
Sugartown Worldwide LLC care of William F. Fry Esquire, PO Box 707 Chadam, Mass 02633, Leia property located at 631 Main Street, also shown in the town of Chadam's assessor's map 14E, block one, lot 42. The applicant proposes to
establish and operate a formula business, a formula business clothing store under section 3C 4C of the protective bylaw. The applicant is and proposes to do business as a retail establishment which utilizes a standard array of merchandise, trademark, service
mark, decor, color scheme, and signage utilized by 10 or more stores, 10 or more businesses worldwide. The structure is located in the GB1 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law Chapter 4A, section 9, and sections 3C, 4C, and 8D2B of the
protective bylaw. Good afternoon, Bill Riley on behalf of Lily Pulitzer. And you know, on that last one, I was thinking, you know, if they got rid of the uh the tennis courts down below the the hill, they'd have plenty of room.
>> Well, that's a wonderful suggestion, Mr. Why don't you try talking to us about Lily Pulitzer? Okay. So, because there was already a Lily Pulitzer store in town,
>> we we did this several years ago and it's been uh they've done very well and they they want to own their own property now. The Ben Franklin store has become available. Uh and so they've reached an agreement
with the owners. Although they were surprised to find out that the back half of the building is in the flood plane, which is which is another problem. But in any event, uh you know, prepared to
run through the criteria here. I mean, the as I say, we already have one store in town. So uh but in terms of moving it to this site, I think that the uh uh the proposed use of this man will not be detrimental to the established future
character of the neighborhood and town. It's a retail business and retail business district. So the u so the use is in harmony with the with the general purpose and intent of the zoning bylaw. It's in a GB1 zone.
adequacy of the site in terms of size of the proposed use. Uh the building they're moving into has not changed. Uh and so since it's been there since 1932, I guess we're okay with that. Suitability of the site, we're in a GB1
zone. Uh so I think the site is suitable for the proposal. Uh the uh we're one retail store among many and we already exist in town. So we
don't think this is going to change uh uh traffic flow and safety in any way impact on neighborhood visual character. You know that I think the design they're
putting forward is is attractive. You know, it's too bad we're losing Ben Franklin, but I guess that's just the way of the five and dime. You know, adequacy of method of sewage disposs items from what's there today.
Uh adequacy of utilities and other public services. All utilities and public services are adequate. We don't think there'll be any increase in noise or litter. Uh compatibility proposed use for surrounding land uses as a retail sales
outlet in a GB1 zone. We're surrounded by other uh retail sales outlets. There's Jay McGloin across the street, the Black Dog. So, it's really is fits well in this neighborhood.
impact on the natural environment including slopes, vegetation, wetlands, ground water, water bodies. Uh there are none in this neighborhood. In fact, there's not even any grass in this neighborhood. So I think I don't think
there'd be any negative impact uh and Jay impact on neighborhood visual character uh of the formal business. I say we already exist in town. We're just moving from one end of Main Street to the
other. So that be our presentation. Thank you. >> Okay. Is there anyone on Microsoft Teams that would like to speak in favor? I'll read the I don't see anyone. >> I I brought this huge crowd to support me. >> You drove them away, Mr. Right. Um I'll
read the correspondence. That's what I'll do. This is from uh Town of Chattam Planning Board. They write and it's signed by Arthur Sporch who's the chair of the planning board. >> Arthur Spru. >> Sprew.
>> Spruce. Sorry. >> Spru. >> I had Sporch. Spru. >> He doesn't he doesn't pronounce the ch. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. Anyway, uh at the request of the ZBA, uh here's what we think. The applicant proposes to
establish and operate a formula business clothing store at a new location in town. The applicant currently is and proposes to do business as a retail establishment which utilizes a standard array of merchandise trade trademark
service mark decor color scheme signage utilized by 10 or more other businesses worldwide. The new location for the business is going to be what we're talking about. The applicant's representative was notified that site plan approval from the planning board was required for the formula business
establishment. The application submitted to the planning board was heard on Monday, March 23rd with review utilizing the planning board site plan review criteria as set forth in section such and such. Bylaws were limited due to the site improvements that could be
undertaken on the site. the size of the building in relation to the size of the site were taken into consideration and a statement of conditions was issued. Then we have a letter. This is from Tim Wood. He lives at 8 Nantum Lane. On
March 23rd, I'm writing not in my role as editor of the Chronicle, but as a Chattam resident and a guide on the historic walks of downtown Chattam. The building at 631 was built in 1929. and a longtime tenant was the AMP market which moved there from across the street. My
concern is regarding the tile mosaic of the logo at the current right side entrance when facing the existing building. I believe this is a historic relic of Chadam's past from a time when there were several food markets downtown that should be preserved. The plan
submitted by Lily eliminated the two doorways in the building and show a single new entrance in the middle. Neither the information provided by the applicant nor the minutes of the historic business district commission meeting reviewing the plans mention the mosaic. I can only surmise that they do
not know or care about it and plan to destroy it as part of the renovations. I request that the ZBA include a condition should it approve this application that the&P tile mosaic be preserved. My suggestions would be to either incorporate it into the new entryway or
require that it be dug up intact and donated to the Chattam Historical Society. We are all well aware of the continuing loss of our historic heritage through demolition of old houses and buildings. Saving this mosaic would in a small way help preserve a bit of the
town's economic history. And that is the end of the correspondence. Is there anyone on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak to either observe mention an objection or ask a question? If so, this is your time to
enter the meeting. Don't see anyone questions from the board. >> Ed, >> well, could I respond to the concern about the AM logo? >> Well, sure. We'd be happy to offer the historical
society the opportunity to dig it up and take it wherever they want. >> Who's going to pay for it? >> Well, presumably they would pay for it. >> Okay. Okay. So, your offer is come and take
it, but dig it up at your own expense, >> right? Yeah. Okay. >> The offer is coming. The offer is come and take it. >> I have no questions, >> Randy. No questions, >> Dave. I have no questions.
>> No questions, >> Dave. >> Uh, no questions, Dave. >> Okay. >> I move to close public hearing and move into deliberations. >> Dave seconds and votes yes. >> Uh, Ed votes yes. >> Randy votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> And Steve votes yes.
>> Okay. Deliberations. Uh, Lee, you go first. Um, well, I have to say I think the new design for the building looks really nice. I think it makes sense to have one central door, but I feel like it's a shame to lose
a little bit of that history. Um, whether it's the AM or even the Ben Franklin honestly. So, anything that um can be done, I think, to preserve that in some way, shape or form would would
be great. But, you know, maybe maybe get some creative ideas flowing or um you know, I guess I I mean, Lily Pulitzer, the owners of this store, are going to be they own the building, correct? >> Well, they're they're in the process.
>> They've enter into into an agreement. Okay. uh for a lease until Betty Magnus passes away, then they're going to buy it. >> Okay. All right. Complicated. >> Has to do with step up in basis.
>> Well, I mean, whatever they can do to to nod to the historic, you know, piece of the that building um would would be appreciated by me. >> Dave Well, you know, they've been in town and
hasn't hasn't raised any kind of a stir. Uh and and it does look good. The new design looks good. Um um but I'm I I feel the same way Lee does in terms of the uh the mosaic and
the loss of um that. I I'd personally rather see them incorporated into the new entry, but I don't know that that's a I don't know that I want to go to a level of a condition on that. Um, again, the applicant is not the owner of the
property, which complicates things somewhat. Um, but I don't think that an offer to have someone come dig it up and take it is is really a a gesture that I think is warranted
and I don't think it goes far enough in this case. >> Ed, >> um, uh, I'm surprised that the his the business district didn't have anything to say about this. uh is
>> um >> was it covered or something? >> Yes, as the liaison to that commission um all of the photographs which I will put up what we received as part of the filing for the historic business district. There had been a map covering the AM
mosaic um which didn't come to light until Tim Wood sent in his letter um this week. I wonder why. >> I wonder why I'd never noticed it, but maybe I was just so excited to be going into Ben Franklin. I don't know.
>> Yeah. So, it had been previously when Ben Franklin was there. The the mosaic was covered with a mat. >> What do you got to say about this, Randy? >> Yeah. So, so the mosaic was covered by a mat and you'll leave it covered by a mat, right?
>> No. >> No. No. But what are you going to do? Did I miss that? >> So with the new and if with the chair's um permission with the new facade of the building um they are removing that
doorway. So if >> Yeah, I know. I got that you removing the doorway. So what were you planning to do? >> It'll be flush. So the wall will go across where the doorway was and a new doorway will be cut in in the center. >> So it would be covered by building
But it was already covered by a mat. So it would be really hard for me to say that. >> Well, I mean, what do you think? >> See, the other thing is it's a mosaic was set sometime back in the 1930s. We have no idea how you would lift it out of there or if it's even capable of
being lifted out. So, >> we're happy to have somebody come do it, but to expect the buyer to do it, the the lei to do it, and then what if it breaks apart? >> But you're not even the buyer at this
point. So, I feel like um HBDC kind of got jipped on this one because they didn't know. Um and I my my gut tells me that it should get remanded to them so that they can do it first. So, that's where I'm at. What?
>> Want me to say it again? >> Well, yeah. It's not going to make any more sense if you say it again than >> then I won't. Okay. If you want to act like that. Sure, >> Steve. >> Um, well, I guess I'm I'm glad to see that the building is going to be somewhat restored. I think that Lily's
doing a good job, I think, of cleaning that building up and making it much nicer than it is now. I would like to see something done with that uh that logo. Um I'm not really sure what they can do. There was there's a couple of reasons why they don't own it. Um but
maybe in, you know, in good faith they can help um the town or the historic society or somebody do whatever is necessary at least to give it a try to do whatever they can do. >> They're willing to they're willing to help out, but >> right, >> you know, they don't want to be responsible for it because they don't
think they can move it intact. >> I understand. I understand. but they're willing to help. >> You know, I I think this is a good project. I think it's going to help that that end of town and um you know, I'm glad to see it happen. Thank you. >> Lead.
Well, yeah, I I don't personally think it can be removed and kept together. When you look at the construction of it, those are little guys and you know, it's going to break apart. But, uh I understand Mr.
Riley's client. You know, this stuff I make Kevin about. So, uh I I I fear it's something that we can just say, well, that's the way the history and there's a nice picture of it. And I can't I can't believe the
historic folks would spend the money to do it, to try it. I I just, you know, the way money is. And what are you going to do with it anyway after you dig it up? Yeah. Well, that's right. >> Maybe Mr. Vich knows because he was on the HBDC.
>> Well, I am disturbed that they were not aware of it. >> Yeah. >> And that didn't enter into their apparently into their deliberations. So, in the sense it that you're saying, I I mean, I don't
know. Maybe it should maybe we should remand it to them and let them give them an opportunity. I mean, we're not the we're not experts on it, although I think I I do think that it's that what Bill is saying is probably correct. I mean, it's undoubtedly poured concrete
slab underneath it with a mosaic set on top, and that's not something that I I'm I'm think don't easily remove in one piece. And and so um I I'm I'm really I'm torn because
I think there's a certain practical aspect of you know what what they do what they want to do is I I agree is an improvement in the appearance of the front of the building. And I and I'm not interested in being
unreasonable in terms of the timing or or anything else, but I do I'm not happy that this didn't wasn't part of the HBDC's thing. But at the same time, they may not have known it if there was a mat
over it and and Tim Wood knew it. So it isn't that it was withheld from them in purposely. It doesn't sound like so it's at the end of the day maybe what they're
offering is the way to do it, you know, say, "Well, we we we're not going to do the expense, but we're happy to have someone else take it and and maybe they can say maybe they can salvage the um um mosaics and reproduce it in another
location and rather than trying to take the whole slab and everything." I don't know if that's possible, but it may be. So rather than us extending the process for them by trying to remand I I I I am not sure I want to
go to something like that. >> So Mr. Riley, you know, you're in front of us all the time and you know I think you have a sense of fairness. Even though if you insult me, I still think you have a sense of fairness. >> Yeah, >> I do. I do. And I think you know how we
are with historic care and the respect that we have for the HBDC. I I do a lot and also you know in the historic the you know the historic board as well and you know they have a lot of passion. Um so why wouldn't you just let them run
just run it by them and then come back to us soon? I mean why not? What do you have to really lose? Because I was going to say this is an application where I I think it's great, you know, because it would be hard to say that when you look at what's there right now that this
isn't an improvement. I mean, it's that's ludicrous. However, this is, you know, a Chattam thing and people know about it and it was in the paper. So, why why not just let them have a run through, you know? >> Why not?
>> Well, because the Yeah. I don't think the HBDC has the authority to do anything with it either. So >> what we're offering and this is going to be a long-term process the construction
here. So there's plenty of time >> for the historical society >> with the help of our you know my client will help them >> but you know >> the existing >> to say oh you're not going to get a special permit so now we have to come
back take more of your time later. >> No that's just me. I don't know what Mr. An is going to say. >> I think it's I just think it's inappropriate. You know, we're willing to help the historical society save it if they have
any interest. We don't This is Tim Wood. You know, we all just learned about this today. >> No, no, I'm not. Nobody's blaming you. >> No, I understand it, but I'm just saying so my clients shouldn't suffer costs associated with it. They're
willing. I talked with them after we got the letter. They're willing to help. >> Yep. They don't want to they don't want to be they want somebody say you have to pay for it, but they're willing to help. You know, they're going to change the front facade.
I mean, maybe it would end up on the inside of the building. I I I just don't know. And they don't know because it just came up. >> Yep. Right. >> We're willing to help the historical society if they want to remove it. Again, we don't even know if the historical society wants to remove it.
And I'm just just off the top of my head as well, maybe protect our past might have an interest in pardon. >> Protect our past. Ellie Briggs's organization. Yeah. Another one you might want. So anyway, >> Sarah, do you have money? >> Anything you can add to this protect our
past has money. >> Excuse me. >> Sarah, do you have anything you can add to this discussion about a solution? >> Um, yeah. the early if if they were to go back to the HBDC with new information, I'm not
sure what type of application it would be under, maybe a removal of a site improvement. I don't know. The sign itself is pre-existing non-conforming. It new signage that's set into the ground
like that isn't even contemplated in our signed bylaw because it wasn't part of it. So, I don't even know if Lily wanted to put down their own mosaic sign in front of the store that they would be able to.
>> Um, so >> their their rendering does show a mosaic. >> Their they they haven't applied for any signage yet. Um, and I did in speaking with their contractor let them know because I didn't know the AMP sign was there. um that that type of signage
would need sign code appeals through the ZBA because it's not permitted under our chapter, you know, 225 of the sign code. Um so it's up to >> if I could if I could if I could just So
that space is going to be inside the the building as a part of the renovation. It's not going to be outside the building any longer. If you look at the you look at the uh front drawing, you know, they're moving the they're moving the doors to the middle of the
building. So that particular area is going to be actually inside the building from now on. >> So I I So it's not a question of signage, you know, they the question is should it be removed and we'll be happy
to help somebody remove it. Could could we just add a condition that basically says what Bill's saying that the the uh if we were to approve this that the applicant would do its best to help with the preservation of that. I
mean that would work for me. >> Yeah. I you know we're we're getting involved with something that really isn't our world. It really isn't, you know, and they've offered to have
someone take it away if they want it, if they want to spend the money. I don't think we can ask anymore and I think we should move along. >> Okay. >> So, I'd move to a close public hearing and move into deliberations because we haven't done that yet. >> I don't think we argue that we did.
Okay. Okay. So, um I um don't think that there's a world where I could deny this because this project is not um substantially detrimental to the neighborhood compared to what is there now. So, that's where I'm at. So, I
would approve it. Anybody? I forget who else didn't go. >> Everyone. >> Everyone went. Oh, so a motion. So, I move that we approve the application as submitted. >> Dave V seconds and votes yes. >> Uh Ed votes yes. Randy votes yes. >> I vote yes >> and Steve votes yes.
>> That's a unanimous vote. >> Thank you very much. >> All right. And if I don't know if you're going to write a letter to the folks or whatever and said look the board approved but you know this is what you agreed to and then to give a copy to Sarah if you do.
>> We're still on. >> We're still on. >> All right. >> All right. >> Excuse me, Mr. Riley. Are the meeting still going on? If you don't mind. Thank you. Um, >> I wouldn't want to do anything. >> Yeah, I am. Right. Uh,
>> so I move to uh ajour. >> Yes, you do. >> Dens and votes yes. >> Ed votes yes. >> Randy votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> And Steve votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> Steve votes yes. And the official time is >> 5:51 p.m.