e e e e e e e n w [Music] [Music] [Music] welcome everyone to the town of chadam zoning board appeals meeting today is 711 2024 July 11th pursuant to Governor Healey's March 29th 2023 signing the acts of 2023 extending certain covid measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law until March 31 2025 this meeting of the chadam zoning board of appeals is being conducted in person and via remote participation every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided in the order a reminder that persons who would like to listen to this meeting while in progress may do so by calling 58945 4410 conference ID 716 4464 pound or join the meeting via online Microsoft teams through the link in the posted agenda while this is a live broadcast and simal cast on chadam TV despite our best efforts we may not be able to provide for realtime access we will post a record at this meeting in the town's website as soon as possible in accordance with Town policy the public can speak to any issue hearing or business item on the agenda during the meeting when recognized by the chair first we start the meeting with a roll call vote of all members um Virginia Fenwick I approve and this is to approve the uh form of the meeting Steve theor approves Lee Hy I approve Al see simple approves David S nexton approves Ed acting approves and David H Fe approves and Randy parash I approve as well if there's anybody um not on the board participating in the in the call via email I mean via the phone only online we ask you to give your name and the last four digits of your phone number for identification purposes staff will read the notice after that you are your representative will present your appeal or application anyone in favor of the application or appeal may speak for up to five minutes and there'll be a clock I will read or summarize all letters received by the board anyone against the appeal or application may speak or ask a question up for up to five minutes um the applicant will then have an opportunity to rebut board members will direct questions to anyone present if they wish the board will hear further information deliberate then we'll actually we'll close the public hearing and then we will deliberate and vote on the appeal or application votes are taken by roll call and at the end of the meeting we will close via verbal confirmation and note the time of adjournment um in order to be successful on your application you need four out of five votes a super majority in the Commonwealth of mass um voting today will be David V David Nixon Virginia Fenwick Paul simple and myself and um at this point I think we're going to see if we have any minutes June 13 2024 Paul yes I'll move to approve the minutes of June 13 2024 as published uh Dave V seconds and vote Yes and Mr Nixon yes yes yes and I vote yes as well so our first application today is going to actually be the second one on the list um just to take care of some housekeeping whenever Sarah is ready 24-39 883 Mail Road application number 24-39 EST state of Kathleen Lee care of William William F Riley Esquire PO Box 707 chadam Mass 02633 owner of property located at 83 old Mail Road also shown on the town of chadam assessors map 14i Block 17 lot 15 a the applicant proposes to change alter or expand a non-conforming dwelling and a non-conforming lot via the demolition of the existing dwelling and garage and the construction of a new dwelling the existing dwelling is non-conforming and it is located 7.7 ft from the road and the existing garage is nonconforming and is located 12.5 ft from the Easter leab butter where a 15t setback is required and 13.4 ft from the road the proposed dwelling will be non-conforming located 20.5 ft from the road where a 40ft setback is required the existing building coverage is 1,193 ft and the proposed building coverage is 2541 Square ft where 2850 ft is the maximum allowed the law is non-conforming in that it contains 22,43 ft or 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 protective bylaw this was continued from May 9th 24 and do we have anyone here to speak on this um I don't think we do but we have a letter and that is letter is dated uh looks like June 9th no actually um yeah perhaps it is uh they the applicant move to um withdraw the application so I guess we'll take a vote on that um Paul um I'll treat this as a motion to withdraw without prejudice uh I'll move to to approve the motion uh dve V seconds and votes yes I vote Yes and I vote Yes well yes as do I thank you now we will go to an actual hearing and that is going to be uh 19 Highland AV 24-28 whenever Sarah's ready application number 24- 02819 Highland LLC care of William G Lichfield Esquire 330 Orleans Road North chadam Mass 02650 owner of property located at 19 Highland Avenue also shown in the town of chadam assessor map 15E block 47 lot 57 the applicant seeks to enlarge extend or change non-conforming structures and a non-conforming lot be the demolition of the existing dwelling and garage and the construction of a new dwelling and garage the ex existing dwelling is non-conforming and that is located 21.2 ft from the road where a 25t setback is required and 9.3 ft from the Easter butter the existing garage is non-conforming and it is located 05 ft from the Wester leab butter and 7.5 ft from the north liab butter the proposed dwelling will be non-conforming located 9.3 ft from the Easter liab butter where a 15 foot setback is required the proposed garage will be non-conforming and that it will be located 8 ft from from the West Jia butter and 5.7 ft from the nor Leia butter where a 15 set 15t setback is required the existing building coverage is 1,559 Ft 22% and the proposed building coverage is 1,000 or is 2, 190 ft 30.9% or 15% is the maximum allowed the lot is non-conforming and that it contains 70 ft of Frontage where 100 ft is required and contains 7,078 fet where 20,000 ft is required in the R20 zoning District a special permit is required under master Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5 b of the protective bylaw this was continued from April 11th 2024 attorney lynfield welcome thank you chair potash members of the board Bill Lichfield here in behalf of the applicant 19 Highland LLC which sounds much more formal than it is half of the LLC is here uh Bob Gallagher Sue Gallagher could not be here today uh and with Bob or some of his friends and neighbors including the abutter from whom the garage will be8 feet and he as you know has no objection first we uh I apologize for the delay in getting you final plans and for having to subsequently submit uh corrected ones as you may recall our friend Mark zebrra was the designer for Bob and Sue and he was working on the plans until shortly uh before his death early last month uh his partner Paul McCarthy a stepped up but there were understandably a few glitches and getting things done all of which we were able to eventually addressed we were before you in April as you will recall with the plan that included lot coverage of just under 31% and you felt that we should make an effort to reduce that which we understood and which we did while it was a challenge we were able to get the number down to 27 % essentially half of the former increase and we also moved the house further back from the street so that it is now in line uh in terms of its setb from Highland Avenue with the other houses along the northern side of Highland Avenue uh we are asking still for a modest but we think reasonable increase in lot coverage the Gallaghers need some of that in order to make room for the stairs to the proposed second floor and down to the proposed full basement which the house does not now have the remaining increase is largely from the porches which I think uh one can find to be an appropriate architectural feature which softens the facade and makes for a more attractive house uh the gross floor area of course increases but that number is often as is here the case I think uh not terribly useful the existing house has a very very small basement and calling it a basement is charitable uh it's it's mostly just crawl space uh putting in a full basement has absolutely zero impact on scale or size or any of the criteria or other factors which zoning was designed to control but nonetheless there's a an increase in Gross floor area because of that um in short we're proposing with a grant of a special permit to bring the house into compliance with the street setback keeping other setbacks the same and doing so with the full support of the abutters uh you may recall from the April hearing that all of the immediate abutters had written in support of it um AB butters on Highland Avenue the holy red Holy Redeemer did not voice an opinion but they certainly didn't object to it we didn't ask the abutters to write letters again uh but some are here today in support and they supported the prior proposal uh and they certainly support this as well at the same time responsively to your request we reduced the proposed coverage significantly with an increase of only uh 350 square feet so with that I will go into the criteria as to adequacy of site all the neighborhood lots are non-conforming uh but I think you can find the site to be adequate for construction of a replacement home and garage we've eliminated the streets setback uh nonconformity moved the house further to the north and we've done so without EXA exacerbating the Seline setbacks as to compatibility of size we have a small lot and a small one-story house as revised and reduced responsively to your request on the third page of the handout you see the numbers I think it remains compatible we've moved it further from the street it's now in line with the others along Highland Avenue uh the torches are 140 square ft of that access coverage and I think that they are appropriate and I think you can agree to that the basement again inflates the gross floor area but the living area of 2,625 square ft uh is I think uh consistent and reasonably modest it's appropriate for the neighborhood uh if I don't lose my place here I can go forward as to the extent of increase in nonconformity obviously the coverage increases but at the same time we've moved it back from the street and it is compatible with the neighborhood uh there is occasionally a notion that nonconformity is not ever be increased that is not what state law or our local bylaw says and there are many many cases where an appropriate increase in non an increase in nonconformity can be appropriate based on a finding from you that it is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and I think that you can find that an increase to 27% on this lot is not detrimental to the neighborhood there is actually another point I would make in terms of consistency with the neighborhood as I've said with the exception of 101 old Harbor Road which I was told not to use as a comparison uh we have the only on story house in the neighborhood uh 23 Island Avenue is one according to the assessors 1.9 stories how that differs from two I don't know 29 Highland is 1.9 35 Highland is 1.95 44 is Holy Redeemer which is obviously much taller uh 47 is a twostory structure 54 Highland Avenue has two twostory structures 107 old Harbor is a twostory structure 115 Old Harbor is 1 and 3/4 124 old Harbor is two stories and 127 old Harbor is one and 3/4 stories so I think in terms of compatibility and consistency putting a second floor in this house is appropriate for the neighborhood as the suitability of site there's no impact on the area or the natural environment scale site exciting Mass views and Vistas what is proposed there uh is a simple and rather classic Greek Revival with the Gable end the street the scale remains appropriate it has a positive impact on the streetcape uh the 1 and 3/4 story is consistent with the street as I just indicated but at only 24 feet tall we are not maximizing height and of course the garage shown in that two-dimensional Visage is far far at the rear of the house as to compatibility of use there's no change adequacy of sewage and water the health agent has reviewed and approved we have three uh bedrooms and we're not proposing to increase that if the board is interested in some sort of a condition in regard to The Loft you know there's no plans to have a sleep in couch or a pullout couch or anything there similar to that uh the overall the other criteria are not an issue the issue however is as you know is whether this proposed house architecturally appropriate and providing for additional but still modest and I think reasonable living area with a garage large enough to fit a modern automobile is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current non-conforming structure there is another n aspect of the neighborhood to be considered though the Gallaghers live across the street from a very large parking lot approximately 16,000 Square ft or more of asphalt but it's also effectively open space uh which lessens the impact I don't think there is much of an impact but to the degree that there is an impact of putting a from putting a second story on the fact that you've got that broad Horizon lessens the impact of the proposed house Bob and Sue bought this property from a couple that used it only occasionally and rented it frequently they addressed significant deferred maintenance on the outside of the house upgraded the Landscaping installed the picket fence they care about the the appearance of the neighborhood and about being good neighbors which is why their neighbors are here in support of them they written in in support of them they want to improve the property to continue to enjoy it albe it as part-time residence for years to come they began the process by Consulting with their neighbors as to the to the design of the impact and received strong support as I said for the prior larger proposal this board obviously makes the final determination of substantial detriment on the neighborhood but I think that you can find unanimous AB butter support to be instructive as to impact on a neighborhood W with which the residents the immediate abutters are intimately familiar so the proposed changes are consistent uh with other upgrades on Highland Avenue but are of a more modest scale appropriate for this end of the street I think you can find it to be an attractive design the house is reasonable and consistent with its surroundings the footprint increases by 350 square ft removing the porches would reduce it by 140 square fet but I think that serves no good purpose parenthetically at least one member of the board said to come back this time with the larger expanded garage uh the numbers didn't allow us to do that however the applicant would readily accept approval of the originally proposed garage which would increase coverage by 97 square ft uh what we propose to do consistent with the bylaw is to build a a shed of less than 100 square feet which we can do but if the board felt that a 97% extension of the garage was preferable to a shed in the backyard we'd be happy because we like the original design of the garage the changes that we've made are responsive to the hearing the comments made at the hearing on April 11 the footprint has been reduced the house moved further back from Highland Avenue to completely eliminate a non-conformity so in light of the criteria and the plans in this neighborhood in particularly with the support of the abuts I think that you can find the proposed change as modified is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood thank you is there anybody here or on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak um in favor of this application if so please raise your hand okay this is the owner I believe that wishes to speak in favor of his application noted yes good afternoon um thank you uh Bob Gallagher my wife Susan and I are the owners of 19 Highland unfortunately she couldn't be here today um you know we wanted to well first of all I want to thank Sarah because I think we all know she's the most important person in this room and dealt with all those last minute changes that uh that uh Bill spoke of earlier so thank you for that um and thank you all for your service on this board we really do think that your role is extremely important to chatam in in its residence you know one of the things that all of us I think most of us probably appreciate about chadam is the aesthetic of chatam and that's very very important to us and what you do is is critical to that so so thank you for that um and we understand you have a really difficult job right by Nature uh decisions you make are in some some large part uh subjective and you're going to be subject to you know second guessing and and I know that makes it difficult um you know this current house is less than 1,200 square feet um and it's really just not functional even for our small family we we live here full-time for several months of the year um and you know our goal is to for a modest expansion uh that creates a house that's functional and attractive and and modestly comfortable um and so this is about for us creating a a forever home and Cham and being prod productive members of this community uh for a long time to come um yeah one of the challenges of your job I think is navigating that substance versus form and yes if you look at just the form you know 27% lock coverage yeah it's a high number right but I think each project needs to stand on its own and in substance I believe this project is is a very thoughtful attractive design it's going to fit in nicely with the neighborhood um and we have you know support from from our abutters so um just wanted to introduce myself and and thank you for that well thank you is there anybody else here or Microsoft teams that wish to speak in favor yes sir please step up to the mic and state your name afternoon everybody I'm Steve West uh 124 old Harbor Road I'm the immediately to the west of butter that uh Mr Lichfield has referenced uh We've owned owned that house since 2005 my grandparents owned it since 1962 and their parents owned it since 1946 so we're on the corner of old Harbor and Highland and we've been there since 1946 uh I've grown up in chadam as a summer person uh I've lived here full-time for about 10 years from or eight years from 2011 to 2018 uh and I'm currently living here in the Summers for the most part and we have uh had numerous neighbors to our immediate East um and I think part of the problem has been the design of the the house and uh um while we enjoyed all of our neighbors um they were not able to uh have their families there uh because of the small lot size or small small house size um and to what Bob and uh Mr Lichfield have said the current owners have taken great strides to make significant advances to the house and to the property which we are very appreciative next door we have nice window boxes we have nice uh Landscaping ourselves and and uh and we're very appreciative of Bob for that but the bottom line is um we think that it's an appropriate addition as has been sarily said by Mr Lichfield uh the porch we have a similar porch at our house it fits in very well uh we are a two-story house our house is 1880 vintage um and I know that Mark zebr uh does a great job in designing and I know the building would would fit right in with the neighborhood quite frankly probably more so than some of the other house uh recent uh upgrades that were further down on Highland Avenue so I strongly support this and I hope the board will as well thank you sir anybody else here our Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application please indicate seeing none um there are no new letters so I will not read that and now I will ask is there anybody here are on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak against the application or has a specific question raise your hand if so no okay questions from the board Dave each I have no questions Ed uh no questions David Nixon Mr lynfield uh what's missing in your third page and to me it's an omission and maybe I understand why but you didn't list 124 old Harbor nor 132 old Harbor and to me that would be critical in your comparison list I I can can respond to that uh my fault I there's always a question of where you stop and where you start uh 124 and 125 are further north I was looking more at the Depot to just beyond this uh that I don't have those numbers in front of me but I can certainly provide them uh uh those houses are I believe twostory houses one well 12 uh yeah 124 is is uh maybe there's for whatever reason isn't shown there but 124 was shown and I I'm not sure why it says 127 I apologize I think that's a typo it should be 124 that is Mr West house well it's and also 115 is down there so it it's a natural progression to go 127 it's just the two that are closest to 19 Highland the 124 and the 132 to me uh 124 is listed that's simply a typo and I apologize for that4 is shown so where it says 127 is4 I see how about 132 uh didn't didn't go that far nor did I go to use the former Ellis property across the street mhm the town property okay okay uh secondly I presume in the process of coming up with the plan you submitted that you tried something that kept it at the 22% could you tell us us about that process and what that would have looked like Mr Gallagher may be able to speak to that I I was not involved in that although that does sort of go to the question to which I on which I touched a little little while ago and if I could expand on that I will um it's been suggested a couple of times that nonconformities not be increased the statute doesn't say that our bylaw doesn't say that and I don't want to go back to the history of zoning in the town of chadam but I can say that every time there has been a zoning change the voters have been told that they would have the opportunity to go to the zoning board of appeals never were they told that an increase wouldn't be allowed they were simply told that it would then take review by the zoning board of appeals under the rubric of substantial detriment we spent I think Mr V was here but we spent years trying to increase the new minimum lot size or the minimum lot size from for New Lots from 10,000 to 20,000 square fet that took many many efforts at town meeting that was in the 80s and every occasion when that occurred the voters were told that if you're non-conforming if you know if the coverage limit is going to 10% and you're currently at 12 it doesn't mean you can go never Beyond 12 it means when the circumstances are right and are found to be appropriate by the zoning board of appeals that you can go to 12 or whatever the number might be the same discussions occurred when commercial projects when when we downgraded or upgraded depending on your point of view when zoning was changed along Route 28 to eliminate the old limited business District so if if the question is why didn't we keep it at 22% part of the answer is that we wanted a second floor and that we needed some some expansion in order to have room for a Stairway up and down also to make it more livable as Mr West discussed in terms of the history of the house I don't know Bob if you can respond to the specifics of Mr Nixon's question if I could Madam chairman sure sure I mean it's just starting out with less than 1100 are just less than 12200 ft there're just first of all the the the way the house has been built with crawl spaces and additions and pieced together the foundation won't support a second story so you have to start over um and so when we started uh looking at a design with with Mark um we said what can what can we reasonably you know put forward to the zoning board that that um that is in spirit of of of the rules and and be a practical functional home and we just needed we just needed to increase it not only to make it functional and to have a Stairway and and to you know just have rooms of adequate size um to the the um Greek Revival um style um Mr B zebr said is going to give us more flexibility in a small footprint and the porch really adds architectural it softens the softens the mass of the building and and um it's not only nice to have a porch but I think it makes makes the house fit in and and and look nice as well so that's you know part of the increase so so you know we would love to have kept it at 22 and made you know saved us all a lot of time and uh but it just it just we couldn't find a way to do it I think part of part of the further response is that if if there is a a statutory or policy basis that all houses that are non-conforming cannot increase that non-conformity that would be something of which I'm not aware rather the issue is not whether or not there is a 1% or a 0% increase in nonconformity the issue as you know is whether there is substantial detriment to the neighborhood which I think here you can find that there is not Mr Nixon anything further on questions yeah it didn't really answer my question but um I think the question the answer might have been no yeah yeah is that fair yeah what was their thought given to limiting it to 22% oh is there a product of that I think he was look I think Mr Nixon was looking for a product of that you know was there an iteration that didn't go over not of which I'm aware right so that's why I meant no make sense okay thank you anything further no no not for now you can always come back um Lee questions um just a quick question um since it is a small lot and how it's tight um has there been any thought to placement of the AC condenser or condensers and or generator there is an existing uh exterior mechanical Appliance system on the east side which is proposed to remain there okay yeah I see it no generator there is no generator and and and I spoke to Mr Gallagher about that because Sarah being Sarah raised the question several months ago and I talked with the Gallaghers and they're proposing to put the AC unit where it is now yeah and I I would just ask and I'm not picking on you Mr Gallagher but if anyone has a comment they have to go to the mic and be recognized by the chair and I'm just going to take this moment to say if anyone has any cell phones that are on or any kind of gadgets that make any noise or vibration whatsoever please shut them off so okay back to questions pleas no thank you that answers my question sometimes we come in you know run into issues with generators and stuff yeah and Paul I didn't mean to skip over you I apologize I have no questions Steve questions I have no questions and vinia Fenwick quick question Mr uh Lichfield so 23 Highland is the smallest lot on the street on your chart and they have uh you know a smaller footprint obviously um their coverage is 188 which is a little bit over the 15 and their gross floor area is really substantial I mean no I'm I don't think anyone's ever objected to the increase of the height and adding more square feet to the small home um so my I guess my question was and maybe you don't know the answer but uh maybe Mr West does as as our um or the applicant that house looks like it's been relatively newly updated it's got a second story it has the smallest lot it's clearly added square footage um do we know when that I I know a little bit if I could Madam chairman to respond to miss Fenwick the that property was before this board in 2019 and at the time uh the coverage was actually decreased uh from 19.1% to 18.8% I have to make the Assumption and and my numbers for the other houses are as you know and as noted at the bottom are based on the Assessor's Records I can only make the Assumption uh do we know if the if 23 has a full basement partial I'm hearing Bob Gallagher yes sir that lot is is quite a bit bigger than our lot no it's actually small really yeah I did a smaller okay I think the the the decrease I know is there was a large Garage on that lot and they eliminated the garage I know so can I Sarah may have the answer whether there was a basement there or not the Assessor's field card reflects that there is 340 ft of crawl space and 880 ft of basement okay so if i' I'd have to get start the math over again to give you the number Miss fun way no that's fine um and you're proposing a a basement of what full basement uh roughly 1,200 sare ft okay so this isn't really a question but something that does stand out to me when I look at the gross floor area and again I'm really not focused on Gross floor area because we we're talking footprint primarily here with the coverage um but it is the second smallest lot on your chart and it has the highest gross floor area so I'm just trying to reconcile you know why can't we find more room you know for the coverage well I I I would I would be happy to well gross Flor area of course is not living area it also includes the garage right the the gross Flor area number is something which I will probably never again use in a chart uh but H having said that this board requires it it's in your rules you don't require for the chart you don't even require a chart but you do require provision of gross floor area I as I've said today and as I've said many occasions it's kind of a nonsensical number because a full basement has no bearing on the size of the house uh the the living area of this house is 2600 Square ft slightly more than the house next door 300 and some odd square feet more than the house next door the house next door is 4 or 500 square feet the lot is four or 500 square feet larger it's not inconsistent you know we're talking in absolute numbers relatively small numbers agreed but to your point good point about the grow floor area let's look at the living area it's the second largest home on the living area with the second smallest lot that I'm just pointing out the the reconciliation I mean no no question about that uh we I'm the one even with my typographical error and I typed these myself unfortunately uh even with that error there's no question that's why we're here yes I because as the Gallaghers are looking for a slightly larger home with somewhat more living area which we think again based on the neighborhood reaction those who live in the neighborhood we think that you can find is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood okay thank you okay so um I just want to point out that you know we we understand that applicants can come and ask for to go over on the over on on anything we understand that but the issue for the um criteria like number three is the extent of the proposed increase so if we thought it was you know negligible or di Minimus or not particularly um large increase then you know that's a great thing but when some of us think that it's excessive then that's when we start to make noise no we understand that the issue is as you said and more specifically the issue is substantial detriment y y but I would simply respond that we also eliminated a non-conformity you did and that I I like the fact that it's there you know there there there's a lot siiz non-conformity Frontage non-conformity we can't do anything about any of those and they're applicable to every house on the in the area and then and then number one the adequacy of the size of the site for the proposed you know project and I think we talked about that last time too so when I was like to do is when Sarah has a chance to put the South elevation up can I I'll have a specific question so I like the way and I'm looking at it on my computer because I can't really between my contacts and everything I can see it better right here but there's a a gentleman standing there um see right there so I'm thinking about the mass of this house and I like it a lot the house um and I love the fact that most of the bulk for lack of a better term is in the back but part I just can't help but asking have you thought about cutting that pot off where the where the gentleman is standing I don't think he'll mind um and if that was you know essentially shaved down a little I noticed on the floor plan that it would basically just make a couple of these particularly large rooms somewhat smaller so that's my question have you thought about that is there a universe where you might want want to do that if you know things don't go your way today Mr McCarthy is not here today I think we would be talking about looking at that elevation of sarapi or well that one's fine um the gentleman was standing just south of the cursor where the cursor is now so what you see where he was standing is the porch and the porch going north from there is 4 feet then we would be talking about the kitchen I understand that that's so could the be reduced by 4 by 12 something it would be approximately 50 sare ft so I noticed that that's a nice open area with a kitchen and um a living area and you know it's very attractive and so is you know the house in general it it's certainly beautiful but I'm just thinking that that may help with the issue of mass and it doesn't look like it's impossible uh it would be 65 the net would be approximately 65 s feet because instead of me trying to look at that I'm looking at 12' 9 in by 4 feet uh would the board like to give us uh one 30 seconds or would you like us if the members of our board are okay with that then sure yeah I know it's a little um unusual but that's where I'm at for and just so you know Mr V wants to weigh in on that too probably thank you madam chairman we I'd be happy to listen to Mr Beach unless you'd like me to respond no you probably should listen to him first because he might be helpful to you um yeah I just you know in in looking at that I I'm uh my my first reaction is that this that that porch returning that porch like that number one provides a covered entryway which you you don't really want to leave an exposed door on that on that uh Gable end there necessarily so it's traditional to have coverage covers over over a doorway and um that return that return of the porch is I find architecturally important I mean I I can walk around my neighborhood and see any number that was a pretty classic that's a this design is a really good adaption of Greek Revival styling and so I I would I mean if if if that's what it takes to get this over it but I just don't think I I really would don't think that going there is really going to serve the the purposes that we're trying to do thanks okay um yes would you like to ask one know uh thank you I I of course always defer to someone with nearly half a century of building and design experience as I'm happy to do to Mr V uh but having said that uh very simply put if it is necessary to take to in order to acquire four votes for approval uh the kitchen would be reduced by approximately 65 square feet I did not subtract any numbers for the porch which would continue there okay you think still stick so the porch would still extend out yeah the the the the number and it's dangerous for a lawyer to try to do be an architect even on the fly but danger for a lawyer to do many things even be a lawyer but 12 feet it's 12' N9 in by 4 in is that portion of the kitchen Sarah if you go to the elevation again it's that portion of the kitchen behind the little man right I see yeah well we'll see what everybody thinks I just wanted to produce that idea no we appreciate that and and we appreciate you're giving us the opportunity it's it hadn't been contemplated it could be done is there unbridled enthusiasm no no of course okay so at this point does anybody else have any questions on the board I think I've gone through everybody but just in case looks like no so Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations uh David second and votes yes yes yes yes and yes so deliberations um Dave V you might as well go yeah well I I think I was willing to support it the first time around um I think they've you know they sharpened their pencils and went back and found some areas to eliminate that were part of the original proposal um I mean I know I mean you know we're trying to square numbers and things here but but I this just I first of all this I just feel this is a really perfect design for this neighborhood I mean I'm I'm sitting here looking at on the street view on my Google Maps and especially with Mr West's house next door this this this is going to fit in perfectly so I I mean I know I I'm I'm Con in the in the in the the overall given what's being proposed for this neighborhood and looking all around the neighborhood I'm I'm con my concern is that we're we're I think we're just maybe a little getting off base a little bit in in getting in looking at the numbers there's no way that this building is substantially more detrimental to that neighborhood I I can't even imagine that it's it's going to sizewise everything else is going to fit in once again I guess my perspective is colored by the the neighborhood that I live in where there are many many many old houses ju opposed against each other in small lots and everything else and it's one of the most Charming parts of town so I I I think I I I guess I say I'm enthusiastically in support of it and I hope that we can do it thank you um Steve deliberations well I have to say that originally I had some reservations about this because just because of the amount of increase um you know but sometimes uh you know there's a saying that you have to you have to play the cards that you're dealt and I think this applicant was dealt um relatively small lot compared to some of the others um and sometimes you you you have to deal with that um I think it's an excellent design I think it would fit in very nicely um as far as the garage you you mentioned uh um you know that you'd like to revert back to the original design and if you couldn't you'd be adding a shed um and a shed is going to be the same size as as as what you took off the the design of the garage if if even if it was an 8x12 shed um it's 96 feet and they took off 97 so it's kind of a mute point um I had some reservations about the the the uh the setbacks and the amount of increase but I see that you've corrected at least the the U the setback from the road and I think you've done the best you can in in addressing some of the other U points that we had so I would probably be in favor of this if I were voting thank you Virginia Fenwick your thoughts on deliberation uh yeah um so there are a lot of good things um the parking lot in the front I think is a really great point that you made Mr litfield on the southern side it's not a gives that open openness um the porches I like the porches um as well it's a great design and you eliminated the non-conformity improve the setback those are all really good things the coverage is still a problem um and this is where and I I'll admit you know I'm struggling with it because I really like it and I'd like to but the lot size is what it is and it is already over 7% today now that doesn't mean you can't go up and that's why I brought up the property next door 23 it's you know it has a much more you know much more space and and they worked with the smaller lot and I'm looking at your current sheet they're at 18 coverage which is a little bit over uh and that to your comment you made they actually shaved off a little bit so the detrimental part to the neighborhood it it's not the look of the house it's the fact that it is too big for the lot that's there that's my view I I I'm sorry I um I look at the April the current coverage is 22% the April proposal was 30.9 it was almost actually was more than 2x what what's allowed that that was a non-starter so to come back with 4% less is is good but it's at 27 today and that's 12% more than what's allowed that's where I'm struggling with the detrimental it's not the what's proposed um so I'm interested to hear what um the rest of my colleagues think but I I I think the coverage is is remains a problem thank you we um well I agree with um actually I agree with Dave V on this one um I really appreciate the reduce the reduction in the building coverage um from the previous plan um I appreciate the reduction and height um and uh moving it back from the this um Street side um setback so um I I agree with you Mr Lichfield I agree that an increase in um um the building coverage to 27% is not substantially more detrimental to this to the neighborhood and if I were voting today I would be in favor I think it's a great design and I think it will be um great for the neighborhood thank you Ed deliberations sure uh well I I think Mark did a did a nice job with his design I think it's it's going to fit in perfectly with the neighborhood I think it's consistent with the neighborhood I don't think it's substantially detrimental and I I feel like we're getting caught up in numbers a little bit too much it it's 350 square F feet if you built that house 350 square fet smaller and you built this same house 350 S 350 square feet bigger next door I don't think you could tell the difference I mean it's it's a really a modest I know the percentages look big because it's such a small l lot to begin with but a 350 square ft in a in a house is is really modest and I just don't I don't think you'd really even notice it if we were to make you reduce it by that much so um I I'm not voting uh but I I really approve uh of this project I think it was very thoughtful planned thank you and Paul well I uh I agree with uh with Ed and with Dave V uh and Lee the uh it seems to me that we're getting hung up on these uh percentages and losing perspective of the house in its setting and when you look at the house as it's designed including the parking lot across the street and you look at Mr West house next door to it um it seems to me that this is certainly a house that would fit into the neighborhood um I don't see it as in any way being substantially detrimental um overall and um I think we're getting a little too hung up on the percentages and numbers as opposed to what the house would actually look like in in its setting so um and hopefully they can maintain window boxes as well as Mr was does or his wife does or two of them do it because they're beautiful every year uh but I will support the application David Nixon well uh I disagree with what some of my colleagues are saying uh numbers do matter but how much and that's really what I'm struggling with in this my big disappointment is that there wasn't a plan produced that showed what it would look like with the second floor and with the various changes closer to the 22 it might have been 23 might have been 24 but it seems to me that what happened is that well let's make some changes and bingo it's 27 okay so be it and that's what we are dealing with um do I like it no I don't is it detrimental to the neighborhood I think it is when you compare like Mr West house is 12% something like that but it is not substantially more detrimental and that's a criteria that I need to vote on okay um Jenny did you want to say anything else on your deliberation whether you're in support well um I did say that I was struggling with that piece she did yeah and um I wanted to hear what the rest of my colleagues thought and I've just heard that so uh I mean I uh what are you asking me if I'm asking you if you want to weigh in on how you're going to vote oh um well I uh I I do think that it's not that I'm hung up on numbers although I will admit that I'm a numbers person but it's it is a baseline for which every application applicant in chatam has to adhere to and to have such a big increase I'll address this to the board in in the in the ask it it CAU you know it more than caught my attention I wasn't comfortable with it um but if everyone else is and I do love the design I do think think um Mr V's comment about the houses downtown are very close together some of them are very large most of them are large and there and and there's a Charming aspect of that the reason I have spent so much time on this in my thought process is because this important Street Highland Avenue is a very important Street and I want to make sure that it's right and it's it's hard to you know it's hard to tell from drawings what it's going to look like in in um in in actuality but um I I could get comfortable I I guess I would say that okay so I'm just going to point out that I'm going to vote no um I think it's too big for that spot I think it's a really important spot in chadam we're going to go buy it hundreds of thousands of T God knows how many times we're all going to go buy it and so um I would be more comfortable if it was a little bit smaller I think the mass is a lot for that tiny lot the applicant bought a small lot a small house and it's reasonable to try to expand it but it has to be reasonable and in my mind I would vote no but I still think you're going to be okay so um we'll take a vote I could if I could Madam chairman sure uh before you take a vote if the board would give us the courtesy of a straw vote because we yes don't like surprises no and I would not do that to you thank you and that's why I asked Virginia Fenwick how she' probably vote okay so let's do a straw vote Jin I would support it well I will support it Dave yes and Dave I will support it okay and I will not so we'll leave it with that and uh now we'll do a real vote close the hearing all right I'll uh we've closed the hearing and moved into deliberations we did that yes we did at this point move to approve the application as submitted with conditions I guess I given the location and so forth I would say uh the normal conditions would apply that all construction activity and vehicles would be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner that between June 30th and Labor Day there would be no exterior construction Allowed no work will be promoted on the weekends and construction activity between 8:00 am and 5:00 P p.m only um I don't want to be out of order you're not out of before I second um I'd just like to to um raise the question about the um garage the original proposed uh shed addition to the garage that they originally proposed as opposed to them putting a shed on the site uh I personally think that um you know rather than jumping through the Hoops of putting a separate ched on we're not going to even we're not hardly going to see that ched Edition that was originally proposed to the garage so I i' just as soon approve that as well as the the drawings that we have I'm sure that's not going to break Mr no no if I could Madam chairman that's completely within the purview of the board obviously it increases the numbers which is why we didn't drop it but why we didn't present it but we'd be perfectly satisfied with the original design for the garage which we thought was attractive and legally it's still below the Ambit of the legal ad so that's not a problem yeah does anybody want to take back their vote no no I want to say that um uh I think we should definitely go back to the original absolutely um I like garages okay maybe that has something to do with it but um it it adds something to the property that would be taken away by shed I know Mr lville is very in favor of sheds but not this time so I would highly recommend that we support Mr V I'll I'll move one my my motion to include the uh uh revision of the garage to its original proposal and I think that will that be clear enough Jay for you to know what you're looking for yes it will okay and I'll amend the motion to that extent and so Dave be will second that and vote Yes okay Dave Nixon yes jny yes and Paul yes and I'm going to vote no thank you thank you very much appreciate your time and consideration thank you good luck all right so so I don't sign it you do I do there we go so whenever Sarah is ready we're going to do a sign application something different 24- 064 Anthony zombus no 1589 Main Street application number 24- 064 Anthony zombus 84 circuit Avenue hyanis Mass 02601 owner of property located at 1589 Main Street also shown on the town of chadam assessor map 9d block 43 Lot 12 the applicant seeks an appeals permit under section 22519 of the town of chattam sign bylaw to allow the placement of 7 in by 36 in 1.75 ft ladder board on the existing ground sign the existing ground sign is 18.96% acres in a GB3 zoning District the proposed sign requires an appeals permit under section 22519 of the chadam signed bylaw sir welcome just please state your name good afternoon my name is Anthony zombus I'm the property owner of 1589 Main Street in West chadam I had the property since uh 1981 and um and we had a sign there and uh since then and um and I watched the streaming uh that was done in U on May of or April of uh 17 only in 17 the Dave 17 and um and I thought the sign was approved and now I feel that that it's it's came back again and I guess I guess it must be that U that I'm 71 um 71 square fet over you may have been talking about a different board the historic business District board I wasn't talking no well I wasn't here I just I just okay yeah and uh so I I asked Sarah what is this all about you know and she told me well he says I think it's the criteria and then and she sent me the criteria and I have it and um and the sign has been there since 1981 okay I doubt very much if after 45 years uh the criteria is wrong but if you say it's wrong but it's been there such a long time we're not saying anything wrong so why don't we just go through the four things want me to just guide you right through make it easy for you yeah you're looking you're looking for 7100s of an inch of a square what are you looking for so why don't you just agree with me that the specific site is appropriate and it's an appropriate location for that sign do you agree with that yeah okay is that what you're trying to say yes okay and the proposed sign or signs will not be a nuisance will they no no and they're not a hazard to vehicles or pedestrians either no and the sign is not uh adversely it won't affect properties adversely or the neighborhood and the special requirement for the permits are in accord with the general spirit and intent of the b art aren't they yeah so you have anything else you want to say no well well not really not really you know the thing they they want to he it's a it's a tenant that I have and I don't know how I get connived in here but I hear this tenant and he want put a little sign underneath it 7 Ines by 30 or something right okay and it's going to hang out by U by IH hooks on the bottom okay and um so that's that's the permission that the thing that he's looking for and I told him he say make the meeting because he didn't want to show up sure and it seems silly because it's such a small thing but we have to go through the motions okay okay all right all right so at this point is there anybody here in Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this sign if so make it known seeing none which is that's okay though um I will read the correspondence from hbdc all right which was from a meeting that took place indeed on April 17 2024 the historic dis business district commission met and rended the following decision the commission voted 5 to Zer to unanimously approve the additional L sign to the existing ground sign with the standard conditions any changes or alterations um would require additional approval of the hbdc and that is from Chantel K Kenny um we don't have any other correspondents now is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that has a question or wishes to speak against this little sign seeing none questions from the board are there any did you have a question no questions sure Dave you know you have a question go ahead it's not really a question it's it's I have some familiarity with the sign code more than I wish I did but um Tony I think what happened here and nice to see you again by the way um what happened here is that because of the proximity to the road the sign is supposed to be 20 square ft or less now adding this last rung takes it over the 20 square feet thus needing the appeal to us to Grant permission to have it that size so all right thank you um Virginia fck you had a question well that is um it's kind of a rhetorical question but there is a size limit for a reason I'm assuming because of the proximity to the street um and so you know the total the total grounds that there's was specified many many years ago that it should be the certain size and you're going over it a little bit and that's why you're here it's only a 3% change it's not material but it's the principle that signs right next to the street that list all these things can be a problem for I think one of the criteria if it's too busy and I I'm not saying this is but but the question was really why uh again it's kind of rhetorical wh why is there a size limit to a sign in the first place probably for the reason of it needs to be readable and legible and there is a like like so for example what if a ninth sign wanted to come up you had another tenant and they wanted to hang one more at some point it starts to look like all those like like the dentist signs where you're driving in dentist and you you can't read where you're going you're trying to figure out where you're going and then you crash your car because it's too that I'm not saying this is the problem but that would be the point that I wanted to bring up about what what size somebody determined that size was important right there it's right near the roundabout um and so I don't I don't even know now my question was really what is the point of having a size limit do do we know well you know the what I I guess what I'm looking for is it's how how many inches are we looking for uh well it's 7 ft it's 3% of the total sign 3% three what if I make the sign 3% less would that would that then you would have wasted your money coming in your time I I actually I actually like the uniformity of your you know it's it's just everything would be in uniform all it's there but but if you want to a little no no don't nobody's asking you to do anything no everything is fine we're just chatting about signs and right now I have that song in my head from the 70s about signs blocking up the scenery you know whatnot is a song and I can't stop thinking about it right now so are you going to sing that for it I'm not I am not some of us know that song yep so there's reasons because um signs can drive you crazy um okay so Steve questions I every time I try to cut this short I I lose so go ahead I don't have any questions and no questions I can I can cut short I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations D second votes yes yes J yes yes yes and yes okay so um deliberations jeny um yeah I I think it's fine I I I wasn't trying to be a contrarian but but it was a question about the concern is there a concern with it being still close to that rotary and then at what point are too many too many uh businesses noted on a sign to get to be too much I see you have like maybe room for two or you know two or three more on there so but no I I don't have a problem with what's proposed Steve deliberations well to me it seems like there must have been one more business uh in your facility than there were signs and so you're just I think the Bungalow uh doesn't have a sign on this ladder so they're probably the ones that we're missing I think just just puts every everyone you know makes a a level playing Ground everybody there now in that complex has a sign and I don't have a problem with it wait deliberations I agree I have no issues with the sign well no problem with the sign Dave Nixon you good um Ed deliberations uh well done and Dave it meets all of the criteria and it was a fun application it was a pleasure to meet you so we'll take a vote I think mck wait wait we have to take a vote oh you're not done yet I'll I'll move to approve the application as submitted D seconds and votes yes yes yes yes and yes now it's unanimous you win the only thing I wanted to say is everything was fine before the roundabout came along and he changed everything so I want to thank you very much and great evening and I hope this my meeting was uh my uh time was a little bit less than the previous one was it was very pleasant thank you thank you very much we'll see you again I'm sure I'm sure whenever s's ready we're going to go 509 Riverview Drive application number 24- 067 Scott a Barrett and Kimberly Summers car of William G litfield Esquire 330 Orleans Road North chatam Mass 02650 owner of property located at 509 Riverview Drive also shown on the town of chadam assessors map 7j block 8 lot C60 the applicant seeks to construct an elevated stairway and landings under section 4 a3a of the protective bylaw the lot contains 47,1 ft in the r60 zoning District a special permit is required under masterer Law chapter 48 section 9 and Section 8 d2b of the protective bylaw okay Mr litfield welcome back good afternoon I will uh try not to go any longer than my first hearing this afternoon uh or actually emulate Mr zombus and try to be out of here relatively quickly for a very simple proposal I'm here in behalf of Scott Barrett and Kimberly Summers who were at the rear of the room who would like very much to be able to get down to Muddy Creek from their home on Riverview Drive uh it is and I know that most if not all of you went out there it is sort of a challenge to do so without stairs and that's something of an understatement uh this is a what we'll call a straight special permit the criteria are a little bit different from those for a change of nonconformity as you know our bylaw has specific Provisions allowing stairs in Conservancy districts and uh their property abouts muddy creek and depending on how you measure it the uh top the 100 feet back from the top of the Coastal Bank either goes halfway up the proposed stairs or cuts through their living room we're not quite sure which but in any event we need your uh approval for stairs at a Conservancy District so we go straight into the criteria as to adequacy of the site we have a 47,000 sqare foot lot entirely adequate for the use they have 165 ft of Frontage on and the right to use lot 136 which is the common Park area so-called running along Muddy Creek the stairs as proposed are to be sighted 50 ft from the Northeast Easter leab butter 80 ft from the southwester leab butter where only 25 ft is required as the suitability of the Scythe proposed use given the topography the precise location where the stairs are proposed is suitable for little other than stairs uh the steep slope make stairs a necessity rather than a desire especially for launching kayaks which they would like to do as to impact on traffic flow and safety it's the neighborhood visual character excuse me it has none it is a large lot the stairs are to be located in a heavily treed area trees are going to remain uh and it will have no impact the neighborhood visual character even from harch uh and actually people in harch on the Isabelle Smith conservation land are more likely to see these stairs than will anyone in shatam even next door neighbors uh there were no sewage issue no utility issues no noise and litter as the compatibility of proposed use with surrounding land uses an accessory residential use a handful not too many but a handful of homes along river viw have elevated stairs necessitated by topography uh most others however have a much more gentle slope some have paths or walkways some even have golf carts because it's so gradual that they can go down via golf cart but again it's an un excuse me an unintrusive accessory residential use and the stairs are completely compatible as to the impact of natural environment slopes and wetlands it will actually have a positive envir environmental impact because it is preferable uh and also safer uh than wearing a pathway into the slope by attempting to climb up and down the hill it has been reviewed by conservation there is appropriate mitigation involved the layer that the letter of the chair will read from conservation suggest sort of a generic letter it suggests that we we would be considering some suggestions that conservation had made the two were uh one to install a kayak rack uh at the bottom which we are perfectly willing to do and if the board wants to acknowledge that in its decision because it isn't shown on the plan that's fine by us they also suggested that we give uh some thought to making uh access ADA Compliant uh the only the only way to do that is to do a ramp the entire back and forth back and forth and unfortunately that isn't anything that we can Undertake and it would be disastrous for the environment to have a ramp the entire area but we did consider it so that goes for the criteria as you know a special permit uh which we are seeking requires a finding by you that the use will not be detrimental to the establisher Future character the neighborhood and the town it will have no impact the neighborhood or the town and that the use involved will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the bylaw which speaks to Recreation as a positive goal and it also treats stairs favorably so under these circumstances in this location I think that you can readily make a finding that a special permit is warranted for the construction of the stairs we'd be happy to answer any questions thank you is there anybody here are on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application please indicate seeing none I will read the one correspondence that we did receive from Crystal Keon the wetlands permitting uh coordinator cons commission uh representative we received this on July 9th 2024 and it states that the applicant submitted notice of intent was heard by the commission on June 6 the project was continued to June July 24th to review requested revisions the project will be revised in conditioned to meet the performance standard under the wetlands protection act is there anybody here are on Microsoft teams that has a question or wishes to speak against this application seeing none questions from the board we will go through counterclockwise da each I thought it was the monoy river for people who live we we are concerned uh we are concerned about keeping taxes low so we refer to it as Muddy Creek when I when we sell houses it's mono River I see okay thank you makes sense uh no questions da isn't it possible they uh their neighbor to the right could uh provide them with this access at a far lower cost Mi Mr Nixon's question is whether an a butter to the right who is very enthusiastically in support of this proposal M allow them access actually considered that uh the neighbor to the right with whom you're familiar has a fenced in backyard with three dogs and it would be hazardous not that the dogs are unfriendly but it would be hazardous Mr M Miss Summers to walk through that backyard uh for reasons into which I won't go uh so I would suggest that while they're welcome to having their own stairs would be preferable okay and Paul uh just clarify for me for a minute the kayak uh storage concept the uh Conservation Commission suggested that we build a kayak shelf for lack of a better word and append it to the the stairs is that a fair characterization that's my memory of the hearing it's not shown there because when we filed with you we hadn't been to conservation we are willing to do it I think their thought is it would be better for the environment to put the kayaks on a fixture rather than leave them on the ground and that's fine with us I can understand that but you're not looking for approval of that now I don't know if there's separate approval required I've disclosed to you that it may happen Mr Briggs would you have any concerns if the bill building permit included a the kayak rack if I could Madam chairman I would not Sarah do you have anything to apparently Mr Briggs likes kayak Rags that's not a problem that's good um now the only other observation I would make is what is designated as a fish pond is is a treacherous looking spot uh if you were if you were walking back there in any kind of Darkness you were in big trouble the uh the the uh M Mr Barrett and Miss summers only purchased the house relatively recently uh the former owner had a fish pond back there with koi or goldfish or barracudas I don't know quite what yeah yeah well it's it's uh it's empty and not uh blocked off at all I would be a little concerned if I if I were the owner but I just mentioned that no other questions all right and Lee no questions um Steve um I have a couple of questions there's uh on the plan there's um at least two benches that are noted what's the access to those benches now and is that going to remain those are existing benches right they're they're not I don't think they're used if I could ask do you have any plans for the benches and if I could Madam chairman he's very compliant with my uh request that he walks up thank you appreciate Dr Barrett is is an educated by profession so he's used to listening to teacher okay thank you very much um the um your name if you could oh sorry my name is Scott Barrett yes yeah so the first point on the on the pond by the way we did just move in actually and uh we're looking to transform that so it won't be a pond anymore um the um the question what was the question benches ex the existing benches right we actually um uh there are two benches that are there I don't the people that used to own the house passed away I don't know how long ago they last used that area but I can't find any Trail even leading to those benches but there are two benches there and as part of the um mitigation with conservation we're going to remove those too sounds good thank you thank you and then I was going to ask you about the mtig ation plan but I see it's it's on the plan here I think it's pretty well described the last question I have is what happens when you reach the bottom of the stairs what uh there's steps to a beach or or no it is it is a a varies from as you go along Muddy Creek but it's it's a flatter area which everybody in River Bay has the right to use uh but nobody spends any time on it the goal is to put the kayaks in the water and go to East har wit are out to Pleasant pay okay and then is any of is there any part of the lower the bottom of the stairs removable or for no but that's not in a flood zone or anything like that what there they're actually it's curious because there are two Banks Sarah if you could scroll down the other way I'm sorry the site plan portion there is a a top of the bank with the the dotted line at the top um further up down to or up toward M sorry I think that's the 100 foot yeah no all the way up let me get the cursor there's a dotted line there uh that's the top of the bank okay uh there's another top of the bank way up at the top but I've never seen I've been there 20 something years and I've never seen flood waters at any higher than elevation 10 and that's even after the the opening at the new opening at Pleasant pay Jack okay okay thank you and Virginia F questions clarification Mr Lichfield you mentioned um I did watch the conservation hearing and I don't know that it was clear uh what is your proposed tread length is 41 in and you mentioned you were or were not going to make a compliant which is 42 in yeah the the exterior is 48 we'll do what can't build anything wider than the Lesser approved by the two boards if you approve what's proposed and they want it to 42 the overall dimension of will be no no wider than 48 48 post outer post outer post outer post no I I'm fine either way I just wanted to know what it was and again this may be something where we may beg Mr Briggs comment if conservation requires why in and we end up being at 48 49 in is that going to be an issue I wouldn't think so no so you're going to address it at conserv yeah it'll be addressed at conservation thank you okay and I do not have any questions so Paul I'll move to uh close the hearing and move into deliberations dve second and votes yes yes yes yes as do I so deliberations Dave Nixon it's a real steep you know I don't think I when I was out there I mentioned I I hadn't SE anything quite that steep in anyone's backyard and so good luck because that's a construction project and I certainly support them if they're willing to do it and uh throw in the money God love you all right Ed deliberations um yeah I'm not voting today but I'm in support of the stairs I think I think um everything I've read it's it's much better than you know trumping through the woods so I I think it's a good solution and dve yeah um you know it's it's I agree with previous uh um and I think that the kayak kayak rack is a good idea so they don't need to leave them on the whatever and I I I can't even imagine trying to put a a one and 12 pitch ramp what it would take to get I can't even imagine uh yeah it would yeah but anyway this is this is a reasonable proposal and um I'll support it great Jenny so um I you you know how I feel about stairs in a Coastal Bank we we don't need to go there but in general you know there there I have expressed concern about suitability of site and the impact on the natural environment but um every property is different and uh this is not an eroded Bank this is not visible um from the water uh it's heavily treed um and uh you know I I think that it makes uh makes a lot of sense I I also wanted to point out that uh at the hearings that I was referring to earlier um I I while I didn't agree with those proposals again every property is unique you know four um out of five of of my peers thought that those stairs were fine so I I really think if if my peers think that stairs in General on a more vulnerable Coastal Bank were um not detrimental I don't know why why these would be so I would support it and Steve I think this is a is a much needed project uh rather than trying to climb down that that um Through the Wood and and down that slope so I think uh it's just make things much easier kayak rack is probably a good idea so you're not dragging them up to the house or you know leaving them on the bank so I think it's a good idea and we yeah I agree with my colleagues I think um one of the nice things about living there is being able to access the Muddy Creek so um I'm not voting but I'm all for it yeah and Paul I think it meets our criteria I certainly we vote for and as to do I and uh I I think this is one of those cases where they probably wouldn't try to venture their way down without these stairs and I when I went there I tried to ring the doorbell but they didn't see me and so I'm that creepy person that was trying to get down there myself and uh you know I think it's great you have all those kayaks and all that outdoor stuff and you move to chadam and you're going to get to use it and uh I would never get in the way of that especially because it's not eroding Coastal Bank so I'm going to be in favor Paul uh I'll move to approve the application as submitted I guess the question is in terms of construction is there any issue of uh conservation I suppose might impose a springtime limitation but this is this is not a lengthy construction project so we would I think we I would suggest deferring to conservation because they might not want during the bird all right I'll move I'll move to approve the application as submitted Dave V seconds and votes yes Dave Nixon yes yes PA yes as do I it's unanimous thank you very much conations and whenever SAR is ready we're going to move along to application 24-65 289 cine Road application number 24- 065 289 cpan Road nominee trust care of D Michael Collins Architects 21 Elliot Street NAC Mass 01760 owner of property located at 289 Seine Road also shown on the town of chadam assessor map 12K block 6 lot hc21 the applicant proposes to change alter expand a non-conforming dwelling and a conforming lot be the demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a new dwelling the existing dwelling is non-conforming and it is located 15 ft from the coastal con consy District top of bank and 20.5 ft from the West trilia butter the existing non-conforming Barn will remain unchanged the proposed dwelling will be non-conforming in that it will be located 21 ft from the coastal Conservancy District where a 50ft setback is required and 21 ft from the West Chia butter where a 25t setback is required the existing building coverage is 2788 ft 6.9% and the proposed building coverage is 3545 ft 88.8% 10% is the maximum allowed the lot contains 5853 ft in the R40 zoning District a special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 4A section 6 and section 5B of the protected bylaw Mr Norcross welcome thank you good afternoon Jamie Norcross representing Janine Hoy uh Janine is in the audience this afternoon uh with me is Michael Collins who is the architect for the project um this proposal is a demolition rebuild um the house has been been in Janine's family for a number of years um and while it's a good condition um it's in need of updating and so uh Janine started working with Michael a couple years ago and coming up with a design and if you had an opportunity to read The Narrative that Michael submitted with the application um he really did a great job I thought of outlining a lot of their goals and thought process in terms of coming up with the design and just to highlight a couple of the points one was to try and pull it back from the Coastal Bank a bit uh a second goal was to uh not uh increase any further into the encroachment uh on the west lot line um and sort of a third overarching goal was they wanted a design that was um really in keeping with they thought was the neighborhood um that was appropriate for the property they weren't trying to use every square foot in terms of what they wanted to build they wanted to make something that was a little bit more thoughtful which I think they certainly achieved uh with this design so just wanted to touch on a couple numbers then and then Michael's going to go through the design with you just to explain the new build um um it's a conforming lot it's uh 58,000 Square ft over 40,000 sare ft of buildable Upland so it's a big property uh it's over 150 uh feet of Frontage uh the existing house is non-conforming it's located uh just over 20 ft from the West lot line and is located 15 fet uh from the Conservancy District which in this case is defined by the top of the Coastal Bank the existing Barn that you see on the bottom of the site plan uh closest to to se Pine Road is also slightly non-conforming it's 24 ft uh where a 25t setback is required and that Barn is proposed to remain as is as part of this application um the proposed structure is going to essentially be the same to the setback on the west it's going to be 21 ft and it is going to be 6 feet further back uh from the U Conservancy district there was thought of of pulling it further back and perhaps pulling it um a little bit further away from the West lot line but there's an easement that runs across the pro property um it's a little hard to see on coastal's plan but essentially from the southeast Corner uh you can see the outline of the eement um and so you cannot put a structure over the area of the easement um so that was a limitation in terms of some of the site design uh so with that I'd ask Michael just to go through his design and then I can touch on the criteria thanks Jamie uh as Jamie just pointed out the uh the uh easement sort of gave us a pinch Point uh as to where the house could be cited uh it turns out that it's very close to where the original house uh is cited it's not that much different in size uh we're about a 2% U increase in in law coverage uh the biggest difference of course is the a new garage an attached garage which the rendering shows here uh uh the easement which zigzags across the pro property created although it's a 58,000 ft lot created a a very small wedge that we could build in so we pulled it back as described uh from the Coastal Bank and from the Western property line as much as we could and we are just hugging the edge of that um uh of that easement the property is uh excuse me the building is um uh similar in scale uh slightly larger than the existing home that's there but uh much more uh um functionally uh efficient uh the current house is multi-leveled and uh and in areas of of some disrepair in the uh concrete blot Foundation uh we will be using traditional cedar shingles Cedar Shake roof uh true divided light uh windows and uh stone veneer on the foundation where the grade slides away alongside the easement uh we've uh done this double Gable with a asymmetrical pitch to uh try to Anchor the house down to make it appear uh as as di Minimus as possible um and I need not say more the pictures tell it all thank you Michael uh moving along to the criteria uh number one adequacy of the site in terms of size um this site is I believe and applicant believe is adequate for the proposal as I mentioned it's a large lot almost 60,000 Square ft um the building coverage is increasing by about 750 sare ft um but our total building coverage percentage excuse me is still only at 88.8% so there's actually an additional 500 square fet that you could add to the property and still be in compliance with a 10% maximum allowed um number two compatibility of the size of the proposed structure with neighboring properties if you drive around uh uh this area you see that it's a neighborhood with large lots and large homes um the gross floor area analysis that I provided um shows that this lot is C excuse me this house is certainly compatible in terms of uh what is being proposed today and I think really represents a essentially a modest increase from what's there now as opposed to some of the neighboring properties that I'm sure you saw when you visited the site uh number three extent to propose increase in non-conforming nature of the structure or use um as I mentioned the health will remain non-conforming to the West lot line and to the Coastal Bank but these non-conformities have been slightly reduced to the extent that um the applicant can given the limitations imposed by the easement uh I should mention here that um uh my client received an email from the abutter to the West uh on Tuesday who uh expressed his support for the project that is [Music] two 275 cine Road uh number four suitability of the site um the site is suitable for the project will have no negative impact on the neighboring Properties or on the natural environment uh has been before conservation uh and who indicated um it was reviewed favorably by conservation they had a couple of minor changes and uh so um the applicant will be going back on uh July 24th uh for an order of conditions to be issued by uh the Conservation Commission number five impact of scale setting and Mass on neighborhood visual character uh certainly don't think it's going to have a negative impact on neighborhood visual character and in fact a positive impact um based on the sighting of the home Topography of the LW and the extensive vegetation along Sea Pine Road the house is really largely hidden from view from the road and from the abing properties uh it is um going to be uh visible from the uh water side of course but um it's set quite a ways back and again such a modest increase in size it won't have a negative impact is viewed from the crow Pond area either uh number six it's a residential use in a residential neighborhood therefore compatible uh number seven method of sewage disposal source of water and drainage uh has adequate water and drainage uh currently the main the house is serviced by a Cess pool and the barn is serviced by a um Title 5 septic system So the plan is to get rid of the cess pool get rid of the title 5 and install a new IIA Title 5 system that's going to connect both property so that's an added benefit for the environment as well uh no negative impact on traffic flow and safety no issues with noise and litter and adequate utilities and 11 and 12 are not applicable so um just a quick sum up we think it's a really a great project very appropriate for this neighborhood and certainly not substantially detrimental thank you thank you so much is there anybody here or Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application if so please raise your hand seeing none I will read the three correspondences um the health agent Judith Georgio wrote on 79 2024 I have reviewed the proposed plan for this property the lot has over four 40,000 square fet of Upland area and therefore May apply to the Board of Health for a fifth bedroom with an IA septic system as proposed the Board of Health will review the detail FL plans and site plan at a future hearing next we have a note from the Conservation Commission uh Crystal Keon and she tells us on uh July 9th 2024 that um 289 cine um applied uh a notice of intent It Was Heard by the commission on May 22 2024 the project was continued to July 24th to review requested revisions the project will be revised in condition to meet the performance standard standards under the Wetland protection act um and next we have a note from Christina Basset from the um historic commission and she tells us on July 11th 2024 that the commission found the home not to be historically significant and did not impose a demolition delay way with that if there's anybody here or on Microsoft teams with a question or wishes to speak against this application please indicate seeing none questions from the board Dave Nixon have none Ed um yeah I have a few a few questions um regarding the right away how many people have rights to that right away sort of an unknown answer at this time um it it might be the um part of the uh entire subdivision over there of Harbor Coes I know Janine's done some research in the past in terms of possibly expunging the easement it's not in use as you can see from being out on the property but it's on the the title and it's landc Court property so it it's more difficult to expunge than in other circumstances okay and do do any people still use that right of way no no um so no anyone who has a easement no one was contacted about the easement not as part of the project this application no the reason I ask is um when I was out of the property there's sort of like a grass area where the the easement is and I was curious of how people if anybody used it because you you have a stone wall That's encroaching into the easement now mhm so I didn't know if somebody has a sunfish or something like that that and was going to be bringing it down to the beach if people actually used it that would be somewhat of an encroachment onto their use no it's it's one of those sort of a it's it was created I believe when the subdivision was initially done it was just one of those um sort of creatures of old title reviews that it's still on the title but it's not currently in use by anyone okay Janine H I presume Janine H yes thank you and I'm not going to get this exactly right but there's um there was a lot of research done by my father-in-law in the past relative to the usage and exactly how that easement was proposed and how it is able to be used and I should have brought the paperwork with me but um it's my understanding that boats are not allowed it's only for foot traffic to fish and fowl and um nobody you're not really even supposed to be sitting on the beach it was just for water access um so and to my knowledge nobody comes to on that path yeah thank you thank you um Dave I have no questions Jenny questions just a quick clarification Mr Collins um your narrative which was excellent I agree with Jamie very helpful um you had noted in there the building height was 292 but I see in the site plan and in the applicate the ad that it was it's 28 uh 284 according to the site plan 284 34 um so I just I just wanted to clarified that yeah uh that the site plan from Coastal is the one to go by which is 284 yes okay perfect thank you Steve questions uh no the questions I had have been answered and Lee questions no questions well what's the name of the dog the dog is a vicious Hound there very very friendly no I have no questions and I don't have any questions either so Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into the liberations Dave V seconds and votes yes and Dave Nixon yes J yes yes and I vote Yes as well okay deliberations Paul I think the narrative that the architect provided and the renderings that uh he provided really excellent and are very helpful um and uh it seems to me this meets our criteria uh so I intend to support it very good um Lee um I I'd like to Echo U my colleagues Paul thoughts regarding the narrative and the three-dimensional renderings those are really really nice and very helpful um yeah it meets all of our criteria the it's um the site is suitable um the size and scale are compatible with neighboring structures it's a very private lot um so if I were voting I would be supporting it and Steve well originally I was a little disappointed to see that um you know you know you were going to um demo the house and rebuild a new one but not really move it out of the Conservancy District further than you did um but you've explained why and I can now understand that so um other than that I think it's a very nice project um and I wish you a lot of luck and Jenny agree with my colleagues um I did want to acknowledge the the meeting and actually improving the setbacks especially the one in CCD 6 feet I think is pretty significant so thank you for pulling that back um the Western of butter while a modest change was still better um building coverage is is you know under um it is a large lot I agree with Lee meets our criteria suitability and adequacy of the size of the site compatibility uh with the size of the proposed structure and that the scale inciting and mass in that neighborhood is certainly not more detrimental and Dave spee certainly not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood it's quite an improvement actually and um I'm happy to support it um yeah I I I I asked the questions about the right of way just you know to see if it looks like there would would have been an opportunity to perhaps pull the house back if if that wasn't there and um but the fact that the right of way is there and there's a number of people who perhaps uh have rights to it you know that's something that can't be done we did we did pursue that Janine in quite some depth and the time and the cost sure was beyond our LIF time and Way Beyond her pocketbook so uh we we worked to fit it as best we could and and I think he did a nice job thank you and Dave Nixon well I'm very happy see that the percentage here makes sense to everybody being less than the max yeah and I think it's a great project um it's it's a beautiful location and um I'm going to be in support of it it meets all the criteria and I appreciate your everything that you submitted I would say that I agree with all of it and um I won't go through it but I'm on board with all 12 criteria and the explanations you gave so with that Paul I'll move to approve the application as submitted uh seems to me this is a fairly isolated spot I don't know that we need any summer conditions unless someone feels that we do anybody I'll move to approve the application as submit uh and Dav seconds and vote Yes yes yeah and you vote Yes I approve and I vote Yes I'll vote Yes as do I it's unanimous congratulations good luck and uh now I just think we need one more motion whoever wants to I'll move to adjourn dve V seconds and vote Yes Dave oh actually Ed how do you vote on to adjourn I approve yes yes Steve I vote to adjourn Lee yes all yes as do I and good night chadam official time official time 4:48 p.m. all right n [Music] [Music]