Heat up here. Thank you. Welcome everyone to the November 6, 2025 5 meeting of the Cadam Zoning Board of Appeals pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28th, 2025, signing of chapter 2
of the acts of 2025 extending certain COVID measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law until June 30, 2027. This meeting of the Cadam Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted in person and via remote participation. Every effort will be made
to ensure that the the public can access the proceedings provided for in the order. People who would like to listen to this meeting while in progress may do so by calling the following phone number. 158-9454410 conference ID 922441
325 pound or join the meeting via the link on the Microsoft Teams uh posted agenda. This is a live broadcast and Simocast on Cadam TV. But despite our best efforts, we may not be able to post a live uh time real real time access. We
will post a recording of this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible. In accordance with town policy, the public can speak to any issue, hearing, or business item on the agenda during the meeting when recognized by the chair. Let me just take a moment to say
that our policy is hats off and all gadgets that make any noise in any fashion off. Um any long conversations, please take them to the hall and if you are going to speak once recognized please approach the microphone over
there and don't talk till you get there or you'll get knocked at um not by me but okay. So the first thing we do is we take a roll call vote of all board members uh affirming that they um agree
with this form of meeting. After that, anybody that is going to participate via the call, just make sure we know who you are and what you want. Um, then you or your representative uh will present your appeal after staff reads the notice.
Anyone in favor may speak up to five minutes. After that, the I will read um or summarize all letters that we receive. Anyone against the application or appeal may speak also up to five minutes or if you have any questions.
There'll be a clock on the board um showing how much time you have left. Then the applicant can rebut anything that they heard and or anything that was in the letters. Members of the board will ask questions to anyone present. We
have further information, close the public hearing, deliberate and vote. All votes are taken by roll call and at the end of the meeting we close via verbal confirmation and note the time of adjournment. So first we start with that roll call um of our board members. Mr.
V. >> Yes. Uh David H. Vich and I approve of this meeting format. >> Uh Ed Actton I approve. >> David S. Nixon I approve. >> Paul C Simple I approve. >> Lee HVY I approve. >> Steven Dborne I approve. >> Virginia Fenwick I approve. And Randy
Podash I approve as well. Okay. Do we have minutes, Paul? >> Yes, we have minutes for two meetings. Uh the first being October 2nd, 2025. I wonder if there are any additions or corrections to those minutes. >> Yeah, there's a couple minor changes. Um
on near the bottom of of page one, um actually it's the second line up. Uh we want to change this. It reads change to to a single one-sided sign. we want to
change that to a single two-sided sign. Um and then on page four um under um the um third grouping of bullet points about halfway down the
page um we want to starting with the uh it starts with a bullet point saying starting with Mr. Dbor. Uh the next one, two, three, four bullet points uh
indicate that he asked these questions, but we want to put in that Ed act uh asked questions on bullet points number um well there's intervening ones but on any further where it says Mr. Dbor it
it's ed act and okay straighten it out. I'll move and so yeah. Right. Do you have more on that one? >> No, I'm all set. >> Anybody else have any changes? No. Okay. Go ahead. >> I'll move to approve the minutes for uh October 2nd, 2025 as amended.
>> Uh Dave seconds and votes yes. >> Yes. >> All votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> As do I. Okay. Second set of minutes. >> Yes. We have the minutes for meeting held on October 9, 2025. I wonder if there are any additions or corrections
>> there. Yes. Um um I wasn't present for the meeting, but I appear as being present and not present uh in the opening paragraph. So we just want to strike my name where it's listed under members. >> You're always in our thoughts. That's
>> Thanks. I I really appreciate that. I And so I I don't think I don't know that I should vote on these, but I guess I can second if you can >> second it. >> So I will second with that. I'll move I'll move to approve the minutes of uh October 9, 2025 as amended.
>> Um you second it. >> Oh, I second. Yes. >> Okay. And Dave? >> Yes. >> All votes? Yes. >> Jenny votes? Yes. >> As do I. I think that's enough. Um votes. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. Good enough. So I guess uh we will start with the
first application that we're going to do is um 202 Lime Hill Road. Application number 25-065 the Lime Hill 22 Trust Care of James Morcross Esquire PO Box 707 Chattam Mass
02633 owner of property located at 202 Lime Hill Road also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 12E block 4 lot B6. The applicant seeks to create an unpaved footpath unpaved footpath and construct an elevated walkway under
section 4 A3A of the protective bylaw. The lot contains 31,100 square ft in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 4A section 9 and section 8D2B of the protective bylaw. This was continued from August 28th, 2025.
>> Welcome, Mr. Norcross. >> Thank you, Jamie Norcross. On behalf of the Heiser family, uh we are asking uh for a continuence until your January 8th meeting. Uh we are going back to conservation the beginning of December with uh revised plans. So we'd like to complete that process before coming back to the zoning board.
>> Okay, Paul. >> All right, I'll move to continue that hearing from uh today to January 8, 2026. >> Dave each seconds and votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> All votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes >> as do I. It's unanimous.
All right. What's next? >> Application number 25-101. Town of Cadam care of Katherine Ricks, 549 Main Street, Chattam, Mass 02633. Owner of property located at 784 Orleans Road, also shown on the Town of Chadam's
assessor's map 11J, block 6, lot 6. The applicant proposes to relocate a non-conforming structure, antenna tower, on a conforming lot. the existing structure is non-conforming and that it is located 4.5 ft from the Coastal Conservancy District. The relocated structure will be non-conforming and
that it will be located 45.6 ft from the Coastal Conservancy District where a 50-ft setback is required. The lot contains 164,000 square ft in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law Chapter 4A section 6 and section 5B
of the protective bylaw. >> Welcome. Good afternoon. Katherine Ricks. I'm the coastal resilience director with the town of Chadam. >> Welcome. >> And I'm presenting >> Good to meet you. We haven't met you yet. >> Yep. My first time here. And we're presenting the relocation of one of the Maronei Towers, the one that's closest
to the uh Ryder's Cove Boat ramp. So, I'll go through the section uh 5B one, the adequacy of the size of the site, including but not limited to maximum lot or building coverage and setbacks. The proposed project will improve the setback by moving it 40 feet in the
landward direction away from the coastal bank. Two, compatibility of the size of the proposed structure with the neighboring properties. Uh this is definitely a structure that is non-conforming. It's a structure that is a historic maronei tower. Um and that's why we're
requesting the the permit. Uh number three, extent of the proposed increase in non-conforming nature of the structure use. Uh there will be no increase to the non-conforming but an improvement by the 40ft shift landlord.
Four, suitability of the site including but not limited to impact on neighboring properties or on the natural environment including slopes, vegetation, wetlands, groundwater, water bodies, and storm water runoff. By moving the structure 40 feet landward, we're actually improving
that and bringing it away from the coastal bank and away from the wetland resource areas. Five, impact of the scale, sighting, and mass on the neighborhood visual character, including views, vistas, and streetscapes. Uh there will be no change to it. It will be the same tower just
relocated. Six, compatibility of the proposed use with the neighboring uses. Um it is one of three of the historic towers in the area. I think you've probably done what you need to do. >> That's what Yeah. The rest of them are not applicable. >> Yeah. I think you you've achieved the
goal of meeting the conditions uh at least on your argument. Um okay. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor of this project? Please raise your hand. Seeing none, I will read the two
correspondences that we received. Christina Basset from the CHC tells us the structure is historically significant but moving it does not material diminish the significance of it. The structure is also a contributing structure in the national registered
district but did not constitute as a substantial change. So there's no reason to refer it to the Cape Cod Commission. We received that correspondence on November 4th, 2025. Then we have um a note from the
conservation commission received October 16, 2025 and the project will be conditioned to meet the performance standards of the wetland protection act. That concludes our correspondences. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that has a question or wants to speak
against the application? >> No. Okay. Questions from the board? Are there any? >> Yes. Yes, please. >> Could you give us an estimate of what you believe it's going to cost to move it to 40 ft?
>> We don't have any estimates on that yet. We want to make sure we have all the permits before we go out to bid. >> Do you have any wild guess? >> I don't at this time >> and don't know what that >> She's a new employee. >> Well, I I know. I thought she might have
some answers that all employees wouldn't have. We haven't looked at that yet. Yeah, I don't have that yet. >> I only asked that because you're not going very far. >> No. And >> but they are going to remove a lot um some of the trees in the way and then
it's a pretty big crane that they have to bring in to move it. >> How about a big helicopter? >> Haven't thought of that. That >> right up and down. Well, anyway, uh I just like to ask that question. when thing when the town wants permission to
do something. So, gee, if any of us were doing it, we'd have an idea, you know. >> Okay. >> Yes. Virginia Fenwork. >> Yeah. I just had a question about the location. Um,
moving it landward 40 feet. Totally understand that because it's four feet right now from the cliff. Um, but why not like closer to the parking lot? like why there it just because I did notice you have to remove a lot of trees and you still would remove trees but they're not as nice as they get closer to the
parking lot. Just curious about the location. >> So to keep it kind of far away from the bank, how the bank comes around actually before the parking area. So trying to keep distance from that as well as from that part of the bank >> on that side. >> Yes, from both sides. Yeah. >> Okay. All right. Thank you.
>> Yep. >> I I had some somewhat along the same line. uh you're relocating it, but you're still going to be non-conforming. It's going to be 45.6 ft where a 50- foot setback is required. Why not comply with the setback?
>> The way that this was designed was so that it would be moved, but not removing as many trees as if we were going to move it back further and keeping it away from the bank around the whole structure and keeping it from the edge of the parking lot as well. And you can't do
that and comply with the 50-foot setback. >> Not from what the engineer had done. This was to get the foundation in there and keep away from the bank. >> And I guess my second question is um
I kept thinking to myself, what what is this being used for? I guess it's not being used for anything. It's just to preserve its existence. >> Yes, correct. >> Okay. I have no other questions. >> Anybody else questions? No. Okay, Paul,
>> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> Dave V seconds and votes yes. >> Yes. >> They Paul Paul votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> As do I. So now we deliberate. Jenny, we'll start at your end. >> Um I'm happy they're preserving it. Um
it's important. I mean, it's historic to the town. I personally thought that it could be a little closer to the parking lot. There's one really significant tree on that null and I just thought that there's a nice bench there and I just
thought if they're moving it, move it a little closer to al a line with the one that's closer to the road. So, it that's why I asked the question, but but I um would not not approve it. >> You you would approve it? >> I would approve it. I would not not approve it. Yes.
>> Got it. All right. double negative. Mr. V, what say you? >> Um, well, I I don't think um I think it meets all the criteria and I I don't think that moving it is substantially detrimental to the neighborhood. Um, it
is an improvement in terms of moving it further away from the resource area. Um, and as far as its purpose, I I I suppose as long as these are there that the ospreys could and they do sometimes take advantage of that. So I think that's a
good thing to have it uh still available for them as well. So thanks. >> Okay, Ed. >> Um yeah, I mean I don't find it will be substantially detrimental
moving it that space. Um if it was up to me, we have three. We only had two left. I don't I don't know if anybody would notice. But uh um they would know. >> That's all I have to say on it. >> Mr. Nixon.
>> Well, I I wish I know what the cost because as Ed just say, you know, we have a couple. Do we need the third one >> and Paul? >> Well, I uh I'm glad Frank Msina isn't here. My my inclination would be to say,
why are we doing this? This is crazy. I mean, it seems to me it's the location that is of significance, not so much the the tower itself. And if you're moving it and you're still not complying with the bylaw, uh why not just get rid of it? Uh, as I say, I'm glad Frank is not
here. Um, but um, my inclination would be to say comply with the setback requirement if you're going to move it. >> Okay. What do you think, Lee? Um well, I think that um I'm not really u clear on the historical significance
of the towers, but there must be something. Um and um I'm okay with moving it. I mean, it's getting awfully close to the coastal bank and it looks like there's probably a little erosion going on. Um but I kind of agree with Paul. I mean, if you're going to move it,
move it back so that it's complying. But I'm not voting today. No. >> And Steve, before we get to you, um Sarah has an explanation. >> Um the historical significance of the tower is they were used for the station.
Um there is a certain triangle that they need to maintain and this is a national register property. So the removal of it could affect the national registered designation of the site. and Steve. >> Well, I'm glad to see it's being
preserved and maintained. And um as far as the setbacks, I think this is probably further from the setback than some of the other applications we have today. So, I'm not really too concerned about that. And um I'm glad to see it's being u being preserved. Thank you. >> And I'm just going to say I agree with
Steve because that most of my reasoning would have been the same. Plus, if you had to take down any more trees, then that's never going to be a good thing for me. So, um Well, Sarah's explanation certainly makes it clearer to me, too. So, on that basis, I will end up supporting it. But I'll move to approve
the application as submitted. >> Uh, DV seconds and votes yes. >> I vote yes. All votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> As do I. It's unanimous. Congratulations. You're one for one and zero now, right? Yeah. All right. Very good.
>> All right. Moving on. Application number 25-056 Markd D Pearlman Revocable Trust Car of William G. Lichfield Esquire 330 Orleans Road North Chadam Mass 02650
owner of property located at 42 Bay View Street also shown in the town of Chadam's assessor's map 10D block 72 lot D45. The applicant seeks to enlarge, extend, or change a conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a new dwelling. The
proposed dwelling will comply with all bulk and dimensional requirements of the bylaw, but is considered a substantial alteration and under the second accept clause of section 6 of Mass General Law Chapter 4A requires the grant of a special permit. The existing building coverage is 1,160
ft, 6.5% and the proposed building coverage is 2,292 ft, 12.9% where 15% is the maximum allowed. the law is non-conforming and that it contains 17,821 square feet where 20,000 square feet is
required in the R20 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw. This was continued from August 14th, 2025. Welcome, Mr. Lichfield. >> Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. and Bill Lichfield here on behalf of Mark
Pearlman who is in the rear who is uh trustee of the trust that owns the house but with his wife Pam who is here uh electronically uh they are realistically or really the applicants uh we appreciate the board's uh
indulgence in continuing this from last August. We came to understand after the plans were developed, I'll talk to you a little bit about that, that while what was originally proposed and filed with you was an attractive house, it perhaps was too large for the neighborhood. So,
we redesigned the house and I'll give you more information about that, but I'll tell you briefly about uh the applicant. Mark became uh started coming to the Cape some half a century ago. Fell in love with Chadam as a place in which he could readily indulge his
passion for fishing. Uh they purchased this home approximately four years ago, but with four children and so far one grandchild, they realized that expanding the house might make sense and putting on a second floor was their goal. They
engaged uh Don Pouyant and Eastward Homes to look at it and in turn worked with Karen Keaptain or the architect in four different designs and their engineers uh then advised that the existing old block foundation wouldn't
readily support a second floor and that even with that very significant additional cost, the house renovating the house wouldn't really address their needs. So Karen designed a home that we submitted to you. Uh but in talking with
our neighbors, Mark and Pam realized it wasn't appropriate for the site. So you graciously allowed us time to come up with a new plan, which is there on the board or on the screen. Also designed by Karen Kemp. The house is dramatically
reduced from what you first saw. It now has just over 2,000 square ft of living area. And even with the basement, a gross floor area of about 3,400 square feet, which is much more in keeping with the neighborhood. Uh they talked with a
number of their neighbors uh and there seems to be universal support. The chair will later read some letters that I didn't write uh in regard to support for the house. And I think that neighborhood support is a reasonable indication,
although you make the ultimate decision that there is no substantial detriment. In fact, no detriment at all. I don't know that Karen is with us right now. Uh so I'll go directly into the You're nodding as she is. Karen, if you are,
would you like to speak to the house plans? >> Um sure. I can give you a brief history which you've somewhat already gone over. Uh was hired in 2022 to add a second floor to the house. Um but we discovered
that the foundation like Bill said was a block foundation uh and couldn't support a second floor. Um in addition, this 1970s house had a ceiling height on the first floor of 7'1 in which does not
meet today's code. So, we were before you in August with a half cape uh design that although the main portion of the house was a half cape, uh the additional massing of the house had a garage, a farmer's porch,
and a first floor um primary suite. Uh so, after hearing the concerns of the neighbors uh that the house was too large, it was 82 ft long on the street side, we made a more compact house like the one you see now. Uh the street side
length of this house is 50 feet. So a reduction of 32 linear feet and that was achieved by removing the farmer's porch, the first floor primary suite and the um yeah and the making the garage somewhat
smaller. Um so the existing the proposed house is in the existing area is in the area of the existing house and is in similar footprint size. Uh this plan gives the Pullman's a twocar garage which was lacking in the existing house
and the primary suite is located over the garage eliminating the bonus room that we had proposed before. The second floor bedrooms are modest in size, 11 by1 11 and 13 by 14. Uh, and the coverage has been reduced by over
600 square ft. The new proposed coverage is 1551 square ft of which 172 square ft are the front porch. We think the front porch is important for the streetscape um to soften the look of the gamrell
from the street. So we are calling out the maximum building height um just as a precaution uh so that we don't have to come before you again uh so in case there is a construction area but the the the ridge
height will be lower than what is allowed. Uh most of the second floor ceiling is under the pitched roof of a g of the Greek revival and the first floor wall ceiling height is 8'4 in where 9 ft
1 seems to be generally accepted these days. Um there is a small dormer on the right hand side of the house um visible from the street but other than that the second floor is pretty much under the um
Greek revival roof line. Most of the increase in the gross floor area is due to the modest twocar garage and the full foundation below the house and that is counted towards gross floor area. But as I mentioned, the existing house does not have a garage and has crawl space below
which doesn't count towards the gross floor area there making this one larger in gross floor area proportion. But we hope that you agree with the neighbors that this is an attractive addition to their neighborhood and is
not substantially detrimental to this area. And I'll be here for questions if you have any. >> Thank you Karen. Madam Chairman, given that you have a lengthy agenda, I assume you'd let me go directly into the criteria that apply >> exactly >> uh as to the adequacy of the site,
including building coverage and setbacks. We have a prezoning neighborhood subdivision was created in a 1924 plan and nearly all the lots are non-conforming. Actually, we have three lots uh three 6,000 square foot lots. Uh
this was a much smaller subdivision. We are currently non-conforming as to lot size and also to an exterior mechanical appliance system on the sideline. If you approve the special permit, you can do so based on a finding the site is adequate for the replacement dwelling.
It's compliant as to street and sideline setbacks height and coverage as the compatibility of size. On the third page of the handout, you can see the comparison. We have a relatively large lot with relatively low uh coverage
footprint of 1160 square feet 6.5%. It's the second smallest in the immediate neighborhood as gross floor area and living area. As Karen and I have both indicated, it's been completely redesigned from what was before you in the past. The cover sheet
that Sarah prepares showed an original gross flurry of 4879 square ft. We're now down to 3430, much more in keeping with the neighborhood. Proposed coverage is well below the maximum, even with the attractive porch and the uh the garage.
The size obviously increases because that's what the family needs, but the gross floor area and living area are consistent with uh but still lower than some of their butters and the house remains compatible. Extent of increase and nonconformity, there is none. We meet all bulk and
dimensional requirements. A second except clause or Bjorkland hearing is why we're here as the suitability of the site. There are no wetlands or environmental issues involved as to scale sighting mass views and vistas. What was there now was built 55 or 60
years ago. Think it was built by the father of the individual uh on uh Milh Hill Road who was had some cleanup in his neighborhood. Uh so we're going to be doing some cleaning up in this neighborhood. Obviously, it's a
different situation, but we think that the proposed house is an improvement. Uh the u existing house has no particular distinguishing architectural details. It's without impact on views and vistas. What Karen has designed and what Mark
and Pam would like to build is cited to more than meet our current requirements. the traditional design uh the shed dormer and garage wing rather a shed dormer on the garage wing the it has neighborhood support and again was
designed with deference to prior questions as well as the topography of the lot. It's completely compliant as to dimensional requirements. So no views or vistas uh com residential use remains compatible as the adequacy of water and
sewer. We currently have town water and a title five for two bedrooms. The chair will read a letter from the health agent indicating that due to the pending sewer connection we will be allowed to have a third bedroom. So as you are aware the question that you have to decide was
whether the proposed change which is compliant again to street and sideline setbacks coverage and height and eliminating one our only dimensional nonconformity or whether that will be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. As as Karen and I have
both said, Mark and Pam started this process three years ago. Three years ago this week, as a matter of fact, and in discussions with their neighbors, they decided that the prior submission was simply too much. It was compliant, but it wasn't ideal. So, they worked extensively with Karen to design
something that met their needs, but which is also in keeping with the scale of the neighborhood. They talked at length with their neighbors. They revised the design to develop plans which has support uh from from the abuters. The abuter to the south is
completely shielded by that large row of evergreens. He's in favor. The abuter to the north is in favor and the butter to the rear is in favor. It is of course a relatively isolated site on a dirt road. Yet we're cited almost 40 ft back from the street. And again the southerntherly
side the most uh it while compliant is closest to the Abutter and that Abutter has written in support. So in light of the criterion the plans in this location on that location is shown there. I think that you can find the proposed house that Karen has designed which meets all
current requirements of the bylaw and has neighborhood support is not substantially more detrimental the neighborhood and we'd be pleased to answer any questions you might have. >> Thank you. Is there anybody here are on Microsoft Teams that wish to speak in favor of this project? Please raise your
hand. Seeing none, I will read the correspondences. There are four. First one, as usual, from our health agent received on 114 2025. Our records indicate that this property is currently approved as a two-bedroom dwelling. The
proposal is re to reconstruct to a three with a connection to municipal sewer. Please note, the property was ordered to connect to town sewer in January 2023. The proposed three-bedroom design is acceptable with the condition that the
sewer connection is completed as part of the project. Next, we have a note from Christine Steiner of 42 Bay. No, I'm see where is she? 52 >> 52 Bay View Road. I'm writing in favor of the proposed work to be done on the
property adjacent to mine at 42. I have reviewed the plans and intentions with the owner, Mark Pearlman, and I have no concerns regarding the scope of work and I feel it will not have any negative impact on my property or to the street in general. That was received on October
27th, 2025. Also received that same date. Peter Fraser 45 vineyard a tells us he's writing in support of the application. The revised request is being heard
November 6, 2025. Um, Mr. Pearlman has graciously showed and met with us uh regarding the site plan which I feel which I feel as an abut located uh at 45 is an appropriate size and
architecturally uh fit for our neighborhood. Next, John and Margaret Lorden um write on October 14th, 2025. They the owners of 63 vineyard av are writing in support of the project. They've been impressed with
the level of concerns the promans have demonstrated in making sure the abuters and the neighbors have been fully informed during this process. They reviewed the plans and the promans have answered questions. They've had several conversations and um they understand
that the owner wants to build a house that meets the needs of his family and fits with the neighborhood. So, thus they are confident that the proposed plan uh meets his goals and will be an asset to the neighborhoods. They're good neighbors. Um and we ask that you permit
this. That concludes our correspondences. Is there anybody here with a question or wants to speak against or online? Nope. Nobody. Very good. Um
no rebuttal needed, I take it. And now we'll do questions from the board. Steve, >> um I Well, I have just two very minor questions. Um on the I guess it would be the right side of the house. Is there is
that a retaining wall or something that goes off to from the side of the house? >> There is there's a I believe Karen can correct me, but I believe there's a partial walkout basement on that side. >> Yeah. And there's it seems to be a wall seems maybe a rock wall or stone wall.
>> Yeah, there is a wall for topographical reasons. >> But the height of that might be >> uh less than three feet, but I can't tell you. Karen, do you know the the height of that wall? Uh >> at the front of the house, the front corner that one. Yeah.
>> Yeah. The other one's labeled and I don't know the answer to that. I'm sorry. >> Okay. You might want to just get that documented. So, um, other than that, I don't have any other questions. Thank you, >> David Vch. Questions.
>> Yeah, I um I had a I had a few and I'm just and I it's a great looking house. I think it's an improvement over what you brought in the last time. But I started looking at this and I and I just had some questions that maybe you maybe Karen could answer or I don't see that
Dave Clark is here. But one one of the things that I that I know I noticed and I certainly trusted Karen and indicated they're they're hitting the max the um height at 30 feet and we'll be able to come in under that. But one of the
things that I noticed was that the proposal I is to raise the first floor of the house by a foot and a half. Um, and when I went out there and looked around and I looked at the grade and everything, I I didn't
really understand the reasoning for that. Uh and I don't know if Karen might be able to offer why that would be because then because we have some then some subsequent filling taking place and and all. I'm just wondering why the reason for that.
Um, the second part of that question was I noticed that the uh it's there's 10 ft between the basement slab and the first floor uh and an 8 foot 10 in pore for the basement which is a little unusual in a way um
especially considering that's I mean I understand it's a walkout um basement but it doesn't look like they're using it for storage or or I'm curious and that's not a serious zoning issue. But I'm curious about these how
the house got set higher uh on the property. >> Karen, can you respond to Dave to Mr. V? >> Uh I believe it was done so that they would be able to have walk out on the north side as the sl the lot does slope
down in that direction. Um, we do have a 9- ft pour uh so that in the future they are able to finish that space if they wanted to. Um, keep in mind with the duct work and steel beams, you know, there might be a reduction in the ceiling height, you know, down to 8t.
So, generally what we've been doing these days are 8 foot 10 pores with 9 foot forms. >> We we recognize that even if it ever became finished, it could not be a bedroom because our limit is three. >> Right. Right. Right. Yeah. No, I I was just curious about that. And then the
other probably the only other thing that I thought of was perhaps they were elevating it to uh make sure that there was a pitch from the driveway to to the road, which is another reason I suppose could be applied. Um,
no, I have no other questions. Thanks. >> Ed, do you have any questions? >> No, no, no questions. >> Mr. Nixon, >> I have no questions. >> All right, Paul, >> I have no questions. >> Lee, >> no questions. And Jenny, did I ask you yet? >> You didn't ask me, but I have no questions. >> All right. Very good. Very good. Then
Paul, >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> Dave Beach second and votes yes. >> Yes. >> All votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> As do I. Okay. Deliberations. Uh Lee. >> Um well, I think this looks um very
nice. I think it fits into the neighborhood much better. Um I think it meets our criteria. Um, as always, uh, the designs by Karen Kempton are very attractive. So, I am not voting, but I would absolutely support this.
>> Okay, Steve. >> Um, I feel the same. Um, I think it'll fit in that neighborhood very nicely. The the neighbors seem to think so also and, uh, I think it's a good project. >> All right. And Mr. V, >> I agree with all previous. It's a nice looking house. Certainly not
substantially more detrimental. >> Ed, >> I agree. >> And Mr. Nixon, >> this is such an improvement over the initial. It is really uh everybody did a wonderful job and thank you >> and Jay. >> Yeah, I agree with that. I want to point
out I mean the redesign I think is very impressive, Mr. Lichfield, you covered it well. The um reduction of the building coverage um it was 98 it was an increase of 98% and now it's an increase of 44 um which is really it's only a
total of 518 square feet. that that's a substantial reduction. So, I agree that the um the feedback was was um was responsive. Also, 38% reduction in gross floor area. It is taller, but it's the
Greek Revival, which is very attractive. The previous design was attractive, but as Karen mentioned, it was 82 feet long. It just was very massive looking on that on that um the original plan. Now, it's been reduced to 55 feet as Karen
mentioned. So, the I I wanted to go through those because they are really substantial improvements to it. And so, now we have a very impressive redesign and it is um I love the porch, not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood.
>> And Paul, >> yes, this is clearly a much better proposal. It really responded well. >> Yep. And at the end of the day, what we're really looking at is what's there now compared to this. Um I can't help but say that. I'm just one of those people. So, yes, it is uh an improvement
indeed. So, Paul, >> I'll move to approve the application as submitted. I guess that I would suggest that we need our normal construction conditions. Does that make sense, Mr. Lichfield? >> We would not be surprised by that. >> Okay. Uh, I'll move to approve the
application as submitted with all construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner that between June 30th and Labor Day, no exterior construction will be allowed. No work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. only. >> Uh, Dave seconds and votes yes. >> Nixon, >> yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> As as do I. It's unanimous. Congratulations. >> Thank you very much. >> See you next time. Thank you very much. >> Of course. Thank you. Thank you for coming.
See where we're going now. We're going to 170 Vineyard. Application number 25-091, David Briggs, Care of James M. Norcross, Esquire, PO Box 707, Chattam, Mass 02633. Owner of property located at 170 Vineyard Avenue. also shown on the town
of Chadam's assessor's map 10D block 4 lot D114. The applicant seeks to enlarge, extend, or change a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot be the demolition of the existing dwelling in the construction of a new dwelling. The existing dwelling is non-conforming in that it is located 13.9 ft from the
Westerly butter and entirely within the coastal conservancy district flood plane elevation 11. The proposed dwelling will be non-conforming and that it will be located within the coastal conservancy district where a 50-foot setback is required. Also proposed is the reconfiguration of an existing driveway
and installation of exterior mechanical system appliances, generator and AC condensers. The proposed general generator will be located within the coastal conservancy district and the proposed AC condensers will be located 2.4 ft from the coastal conservancy district where a 50ft setback is
required. The existing building coverage is 1,276 square feet, 68% and the proposed building coverage is 1,718 square ft, 91% where 15% but not more
than 2,800 ft is the maximum allowed. The lot is non-conforming and that it contains 1,877 ft of buildable upland where 20,000 ft is required in the R20 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 sections 6 and 9
and sections 5B and 8D2B of the protective bylaw. Welcome back council. >> Thank you Jamie Norcross on behalf of David Briggs. Uh with me this afternoon participating remotely is Gordon Clark, the architect for the project and Kieran Healey from the BSC group who is the
engineer. Um we were here hard to believe uh last December uh end of last year uh with a different proposal that was not viewed uh very favorably. And so um Gordon and Mr. Briggs uh met to look at some revisions
significant revisions to the plans we think in terms of the design and the overall project. Um I'm going to ask Gordon in a moment to run through the design changes so you can understand um the new plans or have a better understanding of the plans before you and the changes that he made. But I did want to highlight a couple aspects of
the uh new application. Uh the building coverage numbers that you heard Sarah read are are um I want to say deceiving, but they're it's confusing because we only have 1,800 square feet of buildable upland. So that's why our numbers for build building coverage look so high. The the
size of our lot is 15,000 square feet. So using that as a metric, uh the existing building coverage based on the size of the lot is 8.5%. We are proposing an increase to an 11 and a.5% so it's about a 440 foot increase in the footprint of the
existing house. Uh about half of that is a result of the porch on the front of the house facing Vineyard A that now has a um a roof over it which is part of what Gordon's going to talk about. So that counts toward the building coverage. And so that is the half of the
increase and the 440 number u for the overall footprint for the project. Um, we have reduced the gross floor area by 464 ft, which is about a 10% reduction from the prior application. If you include the basement, uh, the gross
floor area is 4,200 ft. If you exclude the basement, it's just shy of 2,800 square ft. Unlike other cases where you look at the basement for gross fuller area as a as a space that could be finished in the future, in this particular case, that space can never be finished because it's in the flood plane. So, it's going to be an
unfinished basement forever. Um, you could use it for storage at your own risk in CA in terms of potential flooding, but it can never be finished. It can never be used as living area. So, we can include it, but it's not space that can be used by the applicant or the homeowner in the future for actual
living area. Uh, another aspect I did want to touch on is the height. Um, this is a reduction of about half a foot from the prior design. The ceiling heights, we have 8 feet on the first floor, 7 feet 6 in on the second floor. So, I don't think the ceiling heights are um
anything extravagant from what we see nowadays. Um I'd also note that if we're measuring because we're in the flood plan, we have to measure from lowest adjacent grade in order to determine our building height. So, that's the 28.67 is our building height. If you measure from uh average grade, which is 90% plus of
the projects that are before you, our building height is 26.37 ft. So again, I think the the lowest uh adjacent grade calculation can make it seem like it's a taller structure than it actually is compared to what you normally see in and looking at applesto apples comparison.
Uh lastly, I'd mention that the structure does meet all dimensional setbacks other than the conservancy district. It's impossible for us to meet the setbacks of the conservancy district because just about all the properties on the flood plane, but we meet the road setback. We meet the utter setbacks. And in fact, for the setbacks on the north
and south, we're well outside those setback uh lines of 15 feet. And we are uh removing the one existing non-conformity to the west lot line as part of this project. Uh so with that, I'd ask Gordon to run through the design, please.
>> Uh can you hear me now? >> Maybe a little louder, Gordon. >> Yeah. Okay. Um what we're looking at here is the rendering that we did of the proposed house. Uh we made some major design changes to the house. We changed the roof line from a gamrell roof uh to a
gable standard cape style with dormers on the front and rear. We we reduced the size of the dormer on the garage side. We also reduced the width um as seen from the street from 24 ft to 22 feet. I
mean uh from 20 yeah 24 to 22 the width of the garage uh went from 26 to 24 uh we reduced uh the size of the garage door opening to a single garage door uh
16 ft garage door. Um other changes, there was uh push back on the fact that we had a balcony that went across the porch. Um it was actually a an entire roof deck up
up on the second floor. We uh we removed that. Um we reduced it to a very small uh little balcony in the front. Uh there's a hip roof uh over the porch. Uh we also reduced the height of the porch
from the grade to further reduce the mass of the house. Uh we were allowed to do some a little bit of filling in there um to allow us to reduce that height difference. So that that kind of brings the house down and nestles it um to the
ground better. Um, we feel that this house is is really in keeping with the neighborhood. It is a Cape style house. Um, we have just the single bay window in the front there over the garage area.
Uh, we reduced a large four window area and a triple window over that which was before. So, I think the overall massing of the house um is much less visually than what it was before. in the rendering I think demonstrates that. So
if you have any questions I'd be happy to to answer those. >> Uh Gordon I think it'd be helpful if you could just explain the change looking at the elevation facing the garage door just to show that in terms of the dormer
on the second story. >> Well the dormer on the second story um was much wider before. Uh we reduced the width of that so that steps in quite a bit more now. and we stepped it back from the outside to, you know, make the mass of the dormer much smaller. And you
can see the the single garage door with a little lid over it. Um there's a little decorative landscape wall there. Um and that's essentially the changes to that side. >> Thank you, Gordon. Um so I'll just touch
on the relevant criteria uh before moving along. Number one, adequacy of the size of the site. Uh we believe the site size of the site is adequate for this proposal. As I mentioned, we're going to meet all dimensional setbacks in terms of a butter and street setback. Um our setback is listed at 26 ft to
Vineyard A. I did want to point out that's measured to the stairs coming off the porch that you see. The setback to the porch itself is about 30 ft and the set back to the house beyond the porch is 38T. So, um, just to demonstrate, the house will be set back quite a distance
from the street where our required setback is 25 ft. Um, and then as I mentioned, our our building coverage is non-conforming due to the fact that we're located within the um, flood plane. If this was a 15,000 foot lot, outside the flood plane, we could have a building coverage
as high as 15% and we're only proposing 11.5% for building coverage. Number two, compatibility of the size of the proposed structure with neighboring properties uh suggests the home is comparable and compatible in terms of size with neighboring properties. Many of the homes along Vineyard AB and the surrounding areas were originally built
in the 1950s, but a number of them have been renovated or rebuilt in the last 20 years. I included uh gross floor area analysis at the end and I think you'll see that our numbers are not out of line with um neighboring properties in terms of gross floor area size. Um, I'd also
mention, as I did before, that we did reduce from the prior application by 10% for our gross fuller area number. Um, if you were out there recently, you saw they are doing construction on the home across the street at 169 Vineyard Avenue. I did look that up and that was approved by the zoning board, I think it was June or July of 2024. And that has,
in terms of comparison for size, that was approved for a footprint of 2200 square feet. And according to their numbers, the gross fuller area was just over 5,300 uh square feet of gross fuller area. So from a a comparison right across the street in terms of size that would be one example extent of the
proposed increase in non-conforming nature of the structure or use again we are increasing the uh building coverage that is non-conforming um but we are maintaining all other dimensional requirements and we are uh removing the existing lot line non-conformity to the west lot line.
Number five suitability site uh include but limited to impact on neighboring properties and natural environment. We believe the site is suitable. Uh conservation uh if we ever get there uh has been continuing for quite a while uh and are ready to issue an order of conditions to allow the project to move
forward. Number five, impact of scale sighting in mass. I'd suggest there's no negative impact on neighborhood visual characters. Excuse me, neighborhood visual character. I think the proposed design of a traditional cape is significantly improved from what you saw last time. uh it's able to mitigate the additional height and mass for the use
of dormers on the second floor and the fact that the house will meet all dimensional setbacks. The um I think the porch is a nice element because it helps to break up uh the massing of the structure that you see from the street there. I think Gordon's design where you have a break
between the house and the garage with that area set back is also a nice feature. And again, the dormers on the second story as opposed to the Gambrell feature before uh reduces any issues or alleviates concerns relative to massing. Uh skipping ahead to number seven, we
are going to be connecting to town sewer. Um this is in the flood plane. So I will touch on number 12 and 13, excuse me, number 12, the extent of the lateral expansion proposed. Uh we are proposing a lateral expansion of 442 ft for the
footprint. Um this expansion is largely a result of being unable to use the basement area for any living area or the placement of mechanicals. Uh B under number 12 is the extent to which lateral expansion impacts the impervious area of the site. Uh we think the lateral expansion will have a negligible impact
on the impervious area of the site. Other improvements including the reduction of the existing gravel driveway and the use of a flood compliant foundation offset this increase and I would suggest result in a net benefit. So, just to sum up, um,
again, it's different. It's bigger than there than what's there now. I think the numbers are a little confusing when you see them written out in terms of what we're actually proposing, but we have something that complies with the requirements of the bylaw and we do not think is uh substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. And so, be happy to answer any questions.
>> Thank you very much. Is everybody here on Microsoft Teams and wish to speak in favor of this project? If so, make it known. Seeing none, um I will read the correspondences. There are four and uh
from neighbors and two from uh staff. Judith Giorgio tells us on 114 2025 as the health agent. Her records indicate the property is currently approved as a three-bedroom dwelling. The proposal is constructive for and with a connection
to municipal sewer. Please note this property was already ordered to connect um in 2023. The proposed fourbedroom design is acceptable with the condition the sewer connection is completed as part of the construction project.
We have a letter from the conservation commission uh from October 16, 2025 and they are going to meet again and it will be conditioned to meet the performance standards uh when they meet again.
Next we have a note from James and Janet Heatley and they live on 172 Meadow View Road in Chadam received November 3, 2025. We are the the original owners of 172 Metav View Road Cadam for over 56 years.
We're writing to response in response to the plan being presented for 170 vineyard a after receiving the specs and discussing with neighbors. There are numerous issues with Mr. Brigg's proposal. Number one, the it's 15,000
square feet in a zone that requires 20. Number two, it's in the coastal conservancy district, which requires a 50- foot setback for the generator, the house, and the HV uh HC units. The building setbacks are
roughly half of what's required as the outdoor utility units are either in the in the conservancy district or less than 3 ft away. Number three, the site has 877 square feet of building buildable
upland where 20,000 is required. We are very concerned about the precedent it would set by allowing a structure with so many non-conforming issues to be permitted since we built in 1968. The preservation of our wetlands has been a
top priority to the conservation commission by denying a couple of our own requests for significantly less violations removing a native scrub bush near our pond. We would hope you are continuing to make this a top priority
for our community. In stating the above reference concerns, the goal here should be to uphold the standard set for foot by our town's zoning board and conservation commission for the security of the environment as well as the protection and consideration of surrounding neighbors. There is a shared
integrity in to maintain our environment, our homes, our charming streets. So, we request the zoning board to turn down the application. Uh it would be prudent that Mr. Briggs um submit another proposal um to satisfy
the codes and the neighbors. Next, we have a note from Larry Paul Merton from November 3, 2025. The letter is response to the revised proposal for 170 Vineyard. The new architectural design
still portrays an effort by the developer to maximize the size and subsequent profitability by proposing a non-conforming structure on a non-conforming lot in a flood plane at the expense of neighbors zoning board standards and the environment. The
inappropriate size of the house is demonstrated by its 91% coverage of buildable upland area. The size of the building is also 51% larger than the existing structure. A large deck in the rear will be will bring the living space
to 15 foot 3 in of lot line on this non-conforming lot. It is further questionable why a five- bedroomedroom 4 and a half bath structure would be proposed with the adverse metric mentioned above unless there is
substantial disregard for the neighborhood and community as is further demonstrated by the developers absenteeism and minimal maintenance. As an aba the ZBA is encouraged to decline the application. If a follow-up proposal is
permitted, it should be reflect an earnest attempt to conform to the norms and standards in Chadam. Next, we have a note from Tom Benavville, 150 Meadow View Road in Chadam. And this is received on November
1, 2025. I am receipt I am in receipt of your letter from October 16, 2025 concerning the application of Mr. Briggs for a special permit. Um, I have reviewed the material provided online. Once again, like last December,
I must express my strong objection to the project as as it's currently conceived. The site is non-conforming for multiple reasons. And then he lists those. Um despite being hugely non-conforming in these multiple ways, the applicant is proposing a house where
the gross floor area less the basement is 51% larger than the existing house. The gross floor area with basement is 41% larger than the existing house and the total building coverage is 35% more
than the existing house. From every angle, the massing of the house is simply too big for the lot and not in keeping with the character of Vineyard Avenue. I urge the zoning board to invite the applicant back to the drawing board in order to a submit a more
tasteful plan in keeping with this beautiful street. Next, we have a letter from Allison Carr received on October 30th, 2025. This letter is to oppose the grant of a special permit for David Briggs for the
property at 170 Vineyard A. I am a neighbor living at 116 Vineyard A and object to the size and mass of the current proposal. While the new property proposal for this property has shown a roughly 10% reduction in floor space
compared to the last one, he's still asking to build an enormous house with five bedrooms, four and a half large bathrooms. This house dwarfs other homes on the street. It's out of scale for Vineyard A. The front elevation of the new proposal is more consistent with a
street full of Cape Cod houses, and I appreciate that improvement. However, adjusting the gable does not solve the problems of overall mass. Neither does it solve the problem of lot coverage moving from 68% of Bill Bllin to 91%
is aggressive. Mr. Briggs is an investor, not a potential resident. He gets some credit for mowing the lawn in the summer twice. However, the designs he has submitted have shown great insensitivity to the street, neighborhood, and town. I oppose
granting him a special permit for a non-conforming dwelling in order to allow him to maximize his investment. The town does not owe him that favor. Is there anyone here? from Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak against the
project. Oh, I has a question. Yes. Go ahead, sir. For the record, Brian Phillips, 372 Orleans Road. Um, it was actually a really nice looking house, but I think the letters covered it. Um, building in a flood uh zone is bad. Um, it seems
like it's a substantial increase to what was there. um doesn't allow you know it can compromise our entire coastline if you keep on allowing you know an increase in permeable surfaces on these projects in flood zones uh to mitigate the flood waters if there is a
flood. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anybody else wants to speak against a has a question? Yes sir. Please go up to the mic. That that's no you cannot do quick questions. You have to go up to the mic. Maybe you weren't here at the beginning when I boked out
that order. >> Yes, Larry Palmer. I submitted a letter earlier and I'm just questioning why there's a difference in some people quoting four bedrooms versus five bedrooms. I believe the your first letter from the
health department said four bedrooms. >> Um I'm going to let Sarah explain that. >> Uh yes. So the health agent um we noticed yesterday that her letter said four bedrooms. Uh she's at a conference so we couldn't get an updated
letter from her to reflect what's shown on the floor plans. Um it will have to comply with board of health regulations no matter what. And that might change her letter then. >> It's possible >> her opinion. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um, anybody else has a question or
wishes to speak against? Now is the time. You know what to do. >> No. Okay. Mr. Um, no one cross, please rebut. >> Sure. Um, again, we do appreciate the concerns. I
think some of the numbers I I question a little bit of the accuracy. We we meet the sideline setbacks. We meet the street setbacks. We're under the height requirement. Uh I understand we're over building coverage, but it's impossible for anybody on this property to meet the building coverage when only have 1,800
square feet. So you need to look at the overall lot size, which is 15,000 square feet. And our proposed building coverage is 11.5% and 1,700 square feet. It's not an overly large home at all. The gross floor area numbers is very consistent with the neighborhoods. consistent in
fact well below a project that was approved a year and a half ago uh for this street which I don't know why that didn't seem to have the same objection but notwithstanding uh the design I think it is I understood the concerns with the last design I think this is a much more traditional design uh Gordon
submitted some photographs of neighboring properties in the area along with uh our application that we submitted and I think you see it's you know all kinds of different styles and designs and I don't think what we propose is out of character with what you see in those photographs and when you drive around the neighborhood. So,
with that, we would happy to answer any questions. >> Yep. Thank you. Um, okay. Questions from the board, Mr. Vch. >> Yes, I have a few, I think. Um, what is the, uh, lowest grade? I don't you know I don't I mean I kind of looked
over the site plan and I didn't see that information anywhere. >> Kieran, could you address Mr. V's question, please? >> Correct. Yeah, the lowest adjacent grade is at the garage drive on the slab which is elevation 7.5.
>> So 7.5 is the lowest adjacent grade. Okay. Um and so then what? So then just translate for me the proposed uh ridge elevation. >> The I have it written on the top left of the uh site plan. Uh we got building
heights above the average existing grade and I got building height above the lowest adjacent grade. The building height above the lowest adjacent grade is 28.67 or 28 ft 8 in. >> I I see that on the drawing. I'm I'm I'm trying to
I'm trying to tra So what I do see on your site plan is the existing um what I'm trying to do is compare to the existing building. So I see in the site plan, it's faded somewhat but
readable that the um we have a a number for the peak elevation of 31.9 which is an elevation number. I'm looking for the elevation number for the
proposed ridge for the new building. So I I guess that's if I were doing math, which I'm not inclined to do right now, that would be adding 20 if if the information you have is correct. 28.67
being the 28t 8 in you've shown. Uh and plus the 7.5 is that correct? >> Yes, that would be the elevation above sea level. >> Right. That's what I'm looking for. So that I could So that would be So then
how >> Karen could you give us that total so we have the number? >> Yeah. So >> right now the the elevation is 31.9 the existing ridge right.
So now we're getting to what? 35 elevation 30. What >> I'm going to go to our building commissioner. >> Yeah Jay. Thanks. >> I did the math for you Dave. Thanks. It appears to be 36.17. >> So 36.17. So about six feet higher. Plus or
>> four feet, right? >> Four feet higher. >> Four feet higher. Okay. That's what I was trying to get at. I I couldn't, you know, >> No, I Yeah. >> The numbers here, numbers there, I couldn't put it all together. the um
uh with respect to the um building design, I think this is is an improvement definitely, but I'm a little concerned still uh by the um the proposed roof
pitches on the dormers. Uh the the plan shows roof pitches of two and nine two and 516 inches and 12 which is a relatively shallow pitch. Um actually
Jay maybe you can answer this. Can can architectural asphalt shingles be used on a pitch that shallow? >> I think they would need ice and water underneath it. I think they'd need some sort of membrane structure under on three under a three pitch. >> Okay. Yeah,
>> we we would plan to do that. >> Yeah. Well, I guess so. I guess I'm I'm just kind of I'm curious about the choice here. Um I I I applaud the what you've done by pulling in the dormer cheek walls on the
garage, but I noticed that we haven't done that on the main roof. Um, and so I my question would be how wide a portion of roof are you showing on either side of those dor of the dormers on the main
building? >> Uh, you hold on one second. I can give you that number. >> Okay. 2 foot 4 in >> 2' 4 in. >> That's correct. >> On the garage that No, on the main building I'm asking about. >> Oh, on the main building.
>> Yes. >> 10 and a half inches. >> 10 and a half inches. Okay. Um, I too wondered about the five bedroomedroom versus fourbedroom thing, but we'll get there, I guess. Um,
okay. Um, yeah, I think that's all I would have for questions. I may have some comments about it, but thanks. >> Ed, questions? >> Yeah, two questions.
um gross floor area. I I guess this for Jay or for Sarah. Why if the basement's it can't be habitable space or isn't habitable space because it's a flood plane, why is it included? Because we
wouldn't include a crawl space or I mean the only thing a gross floor area pertains to is the applications before the ZBA. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. It wouldn't be able to be finished. were a crawl space, we wouldn't include it on a normal application that was outside of the
flood plane. >> And would would we be included if um if it was just crawl space, would it be included as gross floor area? >> No, it would not. >> So just the fact that it's a height is
making us at this point included as gross floor area >> probably likely. Yes, >> I can answer that. That was I included those numbers just trying to be for the sake of clarity. So, you're trying to look at apples to apples, but I don't think it that's just what we included on
the application. It wasn't at the request of the building department or anything. >> Okay. It just seems >> that area cannot be used either. It cannot it cannot be used. There's no utilities in that space at all. Uh there is a utility uh room on the first floor. So, none of that space is occupied by
can it cannot be occupied. I think uh Jamie uh indicated before, you know, you can you could store things in it at your own risk, but it is in the flood plane. >> Okay. Uh and I guess my second question is um >> you did. Yeah.
>> I thought I heard Mr. Clark say uh that there was going to be some regrading on the property, which if this is a flood plane, I I I don't believe we allow any grading that portion. I checked with the building inspector and he said we were
allowed to >> that portion of the lot is outside the flood plane. >> Oh, okay. >> It caught my attention, too. >> Okay. All right. >> Yeah, >> that's it. Thank you. >> So, we we just did that. We added that that fill in there just to to reduce the visual massing from the street of the
porch. >> And I think it works well. It it it drops that height difference between the top of the porch and the uh the grade at the street on the street side. So to be clear, the part with the fill is not in the flood plane.
>> Correct. >> Okay. All right. Translation. >> All right. Mr. Nixon, questions. >> I have no questions. Thank you, Madam Chair. >> All right, M. Paul Simple. Any questions? >> I have no questions.
>> Lee, no questions. Steve, >> the uh the landscape that you're proposing there in the corner, I guess that would be the northwest corner. Is that something that you um are proposing or something that the consom
is requesting? >> Uh probably a combination of both. It was mitigation for the for the project >> for being in for the project itself. And is there anything else along the the rear of the of the property, you know, um that adjoins to the Oyster River
Hills Association? Is there anything else there? That's just lawn. >> Kieran, is there anything any other plantings proposed than what's shown on the site plan? >> There are no plantings that were required by the conservation commission. Uh there may be some plantings done by the owner, but it wasn't a requirement
of the conservation commission. >> Okay. There is um pretty extensive vegetation along the back. currently. I wouldn't note the shed is uh belongs to the Briggs property, but it's on the association property, so that has to get >> Yeah. >> demolished >> and they're asking you to remove that, right? Okay.
>> Um other than that, I'm glad to see that you're retaining, I guess, the the GL the gravel driveway for uh >> Yes. to keep >> changing the size of it >> perminal permeable as possible and along in the front there also. >> Okay. Thank you.
and Jenny Fenwick. >> So Jamie, the shed's going away, not being relocated. I didn't see it anywhere on there. Is that right? >> It doesn't look like it's in any condition to >> or I mean like another shed being >> Oh, I Gordon, are is there any shed proposed? >> There is no shed proposed. That that
shed is in deplorable condition and it will be removed. >> Yeah, I remember I do remember seeing that. Um, so while we're on this page, I just wanted to confirm that the proposed roof deck, do you see the roof deck proposed, which is off to the front of the Okay.
>> Yes. >> No, I want to go back to the other one. >> Sorry, the site plan. >> Site plan. Yeah, >> too loud. Can we change it? >> Leave it. >> Um, I just want to make sure. So the
house the outline of the house is um in the double line. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And then you can see the outline of the the current house in sort of a very faded but the hashed lines. Right. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And you see the proposed roof deck
is a single line. >> Yes. >> The I just wanted to make sure that that is included in the coverage number and it's not just the outline of what's in the double line. Yes, that is included in our and that's part of the that it accounts for half of our increase from the current coverage.
>> That's about 240 square feet. >> Okay. All right. I think I think you did say that. I just wanted to make sure because I didn't um you know know why that wouldn't have been also a double line I guess visually. >> Yeah. >> Um okay. And then I too had a question about the roof pitches. Thank you for
clarifying that the impact of that the flatness of the um the dormers and also the actual the roof the the the top uh of the main house that roof line is very short because of the short and it's also
um it appears flat in the I didn't do the calculations that Mr. each did. But it appears that appears flat as well. Maybe not as flat as the dormer pitch roof pitch. >> The the dormer facing vineyard a >> right
>> is is not as steep it sounds like as some folks would like to see on that. But yeah. >> Okay. Um that's >> the reason the reason for that was we needed it could be dropped a little bit but um we needed clearance for those uh doors that open out onto the balcony
>> on the second story. Yeah. Yeah, the current house right now has a ceiling height which is not within code. No, it's 6' 11 and a half inches. >> Um, and the first floor I think is only 7 foot 7'4.
Um, the finished ceiling heights in this house would be like 610 on the first floor when you add strapping and and the sheetrock and second floor is going to be around 76. So, these are not unusually high ceilings. um they're certainly within uh standard practice
for a cape. Uh so we were just trying to get something that's within code and that's why those you know in keeping this uh the height of the building down because of our limitations >> where we could not average the grade. Um that's why those dormers are a little
flatter. They could be reduced a little we could reduce that slightly >> if that's if that's a real issue. I mean, we could increase the pitch. >> Okay. So, can I just repeat that? The first floor height, ceiling height is 610. >> No, I think you meant 710 finished.
Okay. 8. >> Yeah, the sixth floor. Yeah, it's 710 approximately. Finish height. 7 710 and 1/2. Um, the second floor is around uh 76 76 and 1/2. Okay. >> That's the finished ceiling height. >> Okay. I maybe I misheard you. I thought you said 610. Okay. Um, thank you for
>> Yeah, 610 was what I mentioned. That was the existing house >> and that's one reason why you you can't even look out the windows without almost being on your knees. Yes, >> it's really a so the comparison between one house and the other that that is really a short house
>> as far as a height. >> Thank you. That's all I have. >> Mr. Beach, please. >> Yeah. So, just to follow up on that because I did realize that I I had a further question in in the same regard of Jenny's.
So I wanted to ask given the extremely shallow pitch on the dormers as presented here and given that you've also reduced the height of the house somewhat. there is
still room to raise that the main ridge and given that you've got room for headers and things there along that that that front wall over those doors and windows I would think and as indicated there is room to so I'm just curious you
know how you came to the decision with all of those variables to come up with the roof pitch that you're showing >> well because of the headers and the and We didn't want to we didn't want to be right up against the 30 foot limit. Um
so that's one reason. >> So you've got a you you are So what was what was the elevation of current ridges? >> It's 28. It's 28. >> Well, we got to add now let's get to let's go let's go from let's go to elevation here.
>> It's 36. So the and you have up to if if the lowest Jason's grade is 7.5, you have to 37.5 before you exceed what's allowed in our
bylaw. So I'm just looking at all that information and and saying I would think that there's some room to I'm trying to get you to a better looking building honestly in my judgment. You know, we don't all have to agree on that. That's
that was my question. >> Can I just clarify a better looking building or one with more room more ceiling height? >> A better looking building. I mean, there's there's room that Well, we can get into >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> If that's the wish of the board, we certainly can drop um the plate height on that uh and and get a steeper roof pitch. That's that's not very difficult to do. We can push the headers up into the into the rafters into the rafter framing. So, we can drop that down.
>> We haven't gotten that far yet. So, hold on. Um Ed, did you want to help? >> Yeah, I I think what Dave is getting at is um and I'm not sure that this rendering is all that accurate because the pitches I'm looking at, especially
on the garage, are much steeper than a 2 and a half inch pitch that's represented on the actually building plans. But the these dormers are are very flat, which is, you know, not historically uh
appropriate, I guess, or uh >> that's helpful. Yeah. >> I was just trying to figure out because I I didn't think the ceilings look that extravagant. >> No. >> At all. So, I thought you were trying to help with that. >> No, no, the ceilings are not extravagant. They're reasonable. They
are reasonable. um you know they don't really need to uh drop their their ceilings and they I'm trying to say they have other places and ways to gain room to have more of a pitch on the dormas. >> Okay.
>> And and at the same time I I get well no I'm not okay good enough. Um so I have a different kind of question. H how come you can't give us a site plan that has the dotted lines to show the difference
between what's there now and proposed? Are we just spoiled that we get that? I >> there there's this is very faint. You're talking setbacks. >> It's not obvious to me because it's not red maybe. >> Yeah. So you can see there are there are numbers and lines like off the if you
look at the setback from the corner to Vineyard AB, you can see a 31.9. >> Yeah. It's not really like the kind I maybe Yeah, in the future it's nice when you makes it obvious, you know, idiot proof for me anyway.
>> Okay. All right, good enough. Uh, if no one has any more questions, we'll go into deliberations. Paul, >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> Uh, Dave seconds and votes yes. >> Yes. >> All votes yes. >> Jenny Jenny votes yes. >> As do I. Okay, deliberations. Um, let's
see. Steve, >> I know you always >> Well, I I think this is a much better looking project than the last time. Um I I I guess I would have liked to have seen you had a lot of um comparisons here of
the other surrounding areas, but maybe a comparison of the ridge height of the other houses would have been helpful. >> Yeah. Um, but I think it's a much better project than than there was before. Um, I'm a little concerned. I don't I don't
know how we handle what do we have to wait to hear from the health department or do you >> We don't because they won't be able to get a building permit unless she's happy. >> Unless she's happy. >> Yeah. >> Um, I'm glad to see, you know, you're keeping this as permeable as possible.
Um, you know, I think as Dave was saying, you could maybe go up another six or eight inches or even a foot higher than it is now to to achieve a a steeper pitch on the u on the dormer. So, it's it's not so flat. Um,
I think I'm fine with it the way it is. Better than before. >> Okay. Uh, Mr. Vich, why don't you go ahead? Well, that's uh yeah, I I mean it's definitely an a vast improvement over
what they presented the last time. Um I as in terms of the questioning about the pitch of the dormers, I I I think it would look much much better if they can get those to at least over a three to a four pitch or so would be much nicer.
Uh, I also think that um, you know, you know, we've seen we've seen this from time to time, especially on smaller somewhat smaller buildings, uh, where they line the the second floor walls line up with the first floor walls and,
uh, and but you have the look of a dormer because you've got the rakes and things on the sidewalls. But I I 10 and a half inches is getting close to beginning to look like it's tacked on
there to to to um disguise a two floor two twostory building. you know, I I mean, I would but when it comes to and and they do have room to increase the main the height of
the main ridge, I I mean, I think that the choice to present it to us as being shorter than a previous is certainly worthy, but in this case, I'm not sure that they they really covered all their bases. You know, I
think it'd be better. So, I I'm on the fence because when it comes to these architectural issues, I I think it would be much look better if they had at least a foot of um roof showing on
either side of the that front dormer on the second story there. And I think they would be better if they got the roof pitches down. I think it would be a much better looking building. I'm wrestling with the question of is
that substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood? >> We'll let you think about it for a moment. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Nixon. What do you think? >> Well, I don't like it. I don't like it to begin with. And and Jamie, just so you know, the house across the street, there
was one no vote on that. As Mr. Singer be happy to tell you or unhappy to tell you, it was me. >> I saw that. Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. You did see it. Okay. So, I'm going to be consistent here. And uh granted, I was the only no vote. There was nobody else. Um
so, I am going back to what's existing and what you're proposing here, not comparing it with what you had to begin with because this is going up like the footprint's going up 50%. the mass of
the structure is still out of whack. Particular with all the restrictions on this lot, you know, it's it just is too much. The masting is too much. The neighbors have some great points. Uh so
I would consistently vote no. >> Judy, um yeah, I um appreciate the redesign. Um, I think it is better. Losing the gamrell from last time. Um, you'll
remember mass was an issue last time. So, this is um is an is an improvement, but the the boxiness of the dormers and the flatness of the main roof. Um, it does go back to that massing. Um, I I do
like that part of the house is the recessed. that's helpful. But I mean, just looking at this, you know, this rendering, this this is more attractive. But it it's very boxy. So I I agree with Mr. Nixon. Uh this is a
large house on 18 1,850 square feet. And 442 square feet is the increase in building coverage that you're asking for. That's an increase of 35%. and you only have 1,800 square feet. It It's too
much. Um, so I I think that I know the current house um was also in the flood plane, but this house remains in a flood plane and you're increasing it in my opinion to
too much. So I am struggling with criteria one which is adequacy of the site given the building coverage and 12 the lateral expansion in a flood plane. It's 100% in um the flood plane. The the
current house was two but this is and you're you're proposing to increase it. So I um am not comfortable with the increases but the the design is is better. Paul. >> Well, I agree that the design is better,
but um I'm somewhat on the same page as Mr. Nixon and Jenny that uh this is still uh substantially more than the lot should be handling. Um I look at the criteria 12 which proposes a lateral
expansion of 442 square ft in the uh flood plane and I look back at when this criteria was uh adopted uh and it basically revolved around the fact that uh as these houses were being
elevated in the flood plane, they needed the ability to expand their footprint slightly in order to have access and egress for stairs and things like that because they started with a proposal that you couldn't have any expansion in
the flood plane. So to go to 442 square ft uh it seems to me is excessive. And um the reason why the uh this was left to the zoning board was in part because the zoning board could exercise
some discretion over what made sense as opposed to saying you could only do 20 feet or 50 feet square foot expansion. So I think we need to exercise that discretion in in terms of uh what makes sense here. And I think this is too
much. And I agree with the concepts that I think that the the uh the colored uh depiction shows a pitch on these uh dormers on the on the garage which is substantially more than is actually being proposed. So I combined all those
I would be inclined to vote no. >> Enley. >> Um well I think that um I agree with Mr. speech and his um suggestion that the pitch of the dormer on the house be be
steepened I guess is the right word and the dormer be um narrowed I guess a little bit to have a little bit more of an increase on the the roof the roof um the side portion of the roof >> just say oh >> um
um I'm also going to talk and I do like the new design. I think it is helpful for sure. Um, but I wanted to talk about the different porches because I think that adds to the mass as well and kind of the overwhelming
kind of busyiness of the house. I love a front porch. I think a front porch is great. I think the front porch alone would be a really nice addition. the extra stair railing on the ground level adds just it adds
too much. And I think that the up upper deck on the front of the house adds too much as well. Um I think if with the increase in the um conservancy district I think some of that was the front porch.
I mean, as I said, I I like a front porch. Um, but I think to maybe eliminate some of the other porches and to change the roof pitch and even if it means increasing the
height, I think would be okay. And who do we have left? Ed. >> Yeah, >> I I don't have anything else to add. Pretty much everything's been said. >> I don't either. I don't think it would I don't have anything else to add. I agree with all my colleagues. Um and um so I
think you have two choices. Ask us to vote or withdraw. Okay. I will not be asking for a vote. Uh so we would ask to uh please withdraw without prejudice. It seems like we're on a better path at least. So I think some revisions will be
back soon. >> Yep. Okay. Sounds like a plan. Paul, >> I'll move to grant the requested uh withdrawal without prejudice. >> Uh Dave seconds and vote yes. I vote yes. All votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> As do I. Thank you very much. >> Okay.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Now we're going to go to what? 297 Shore Road. Is that gonna be a long one? >> Kind of. I think we take a five minute break before this one. This might be a
long one. Uh, wait a minute. Hold on. 297 Shore Road, right? That's next. Yeah, we five minute break. Very quick. Oh, we are back. Okay, Sierra. Next application. >> Application number 25-092.
CBI owner LLC care of Paul Maldune, 693 Main Street, Chattam, Mass 02633. Owner of property located at 297 Shore Road, also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 16E block 26, lot F12. The applicant proposes to change, alter,
or expand a non-conforming structure on a conforming lot via the demolition of the existing structure, Bay View Cottage, and the construction of a new structure in a conforming location on the lot. The existing structure is non-conforming and that it is located 25.4 ft from the
road where a 40ft setback is required. The proposed structure will comply with the setback requirements of the bylaw. The building coverage will remain 47,463 ft 20.8% where 10% is the maximum
allowed. The lot contains 229,685 ft of buildable upland in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protected bylaw. >> Welcome. >> Thank you. Good afternoon. For the
record, my name is Andrew Singer, attorney Dennisport. Here on behalf of the applicant, with me is Paul Moldun, the project architect. And in the audience, we have Tom Jennings, who is the director of engineering for uh Chattamarin Resort. Um we are here as
you read for 297 Shore Road. The property is located in the R40 district and this is part of the pre-existing non-conforming Chadam Barzin Resort property. Uh Bay View Cottage as you can um if we pull up the site plan um is one
of two structures that are within the front setback to Shore Road and you can see it uh on the site plan here. The that shaded one where the cursor is is Bay View. That's the building today. Excuse me. That's the building today. Um what is being proposed is to uh remove
the building from there. It's a one-story building to rebuild it further in the center of the property where it's kind of an orange color down there in the center there. The footprint of the structure is going to stay the same. There would be a second story. Uh but the footprint is going to stay the same. So there'll be no change in sight coverage which is pre-existing
non-conforming on the property. But the encroachment into the front setback from Shore Road will be eliminated. the where the existing cottage is. Now there is equipment in the uh basement there. What they were proposing is to just uh put a patio extend the patio over that
foundation uh where the existing equipment will remain. Um there will be as I noted no change in the pre-existing nonforming building coverage. There will be two units in the replacement building instead of one. However, there will be no net change in
density, sewage flow, or parking because they're removing a unit elsewhere in the resort. So, they're working with the border, they're going to work with the board of health to, you know, um not change the room count. Uh although this building itself will have an extra key, the whole property will not. Um building
height uh will be conforming. It's going to be well conforming under 24 feet. Uh so even with the second story uh is going to be um a conforming height. The found the setbacks of the replacement structure are going to be completely conforming as well. Uh in order to
complete the work we've applied to you for a special permit under 5B and 48 section 6. The legal standard you're looking at is uh if the project is substantially more detrimental than what is there today and uh reviewing the findings that are in the zoning bylaw.
Before I discuss the findings, I was gonna ask Mr. Moldun to just go through the building itself and then I'll come back and discuss those. >> Welcome, sir. >> Thank you. Um Sarah, if you could put the site plan back up. So, the the architecture here is taking cues from
the 11 other cottages on the property. Uh we've tucked the structure between uh Primrose and um uh Bloom Mist so that you can see that there is this we're up a bit of an elevation. We're between Primrose and Blue Mist and we
have a a a really beautiful framed water view from both the first floor of living space and the second floor of bedroom space. The architecture itself is made up almost as a as a duplex where it's one side one key, the other side another key and you have living space on the
first floor, access to a patio as every other unit does from uh the 11 other cottages. Um and then a bedroom space on the upper level. Um it's a it's a cape, you know, it and the material structure uh is going to mimic exactly what's
there with with regards to the uh 11 other cottages. White cedar shingles, painted trim, um wood uh roof lines. Uh this is the 3D view is here looking at that water view. So we have a couple of large doors uh glass doors from the
living space and a couple of large doors onto a Juliet balcony uh on the second floor. Um the Juliet balcony is enough to to lean out the door, not step out. And um and then the railing systems themselves, both on the Juliet balconies and on the widow's walk, are uh in tune
with with the the railings around the the main hotel and some of the other cottages on the property. um bay windows here on on either side. A couple of um awning windows uh strategically placed all within a a grid
frame that is similar to what you'd see throughout Chattamar's in property. Regarding the uh findings that are set forth in the zoning ball, we respectfully submit that uh we do not believe that the project will be substantially more detrimental or detrimental at all to the neighborhood
and that it will not adversely affect the public health, safety, convenience or general welfare of the town and that it satisfies all of the specified criteria. As for the adequacy of the size of the site, the property has been developed and used for a resort for more
than a century. uh we're not changing uh the size of the property. We're not changing the footprint of the building itself. We're improving the setback to eliminate the nonconformity for the setback uh for the shore road setback. Density, parking, and traffic will not change. So, we would submit that the
site remains suitable uh and adequate for the continued use. Compatibility of the size of the proposed structure with neighboring properties. Um, in this case, um, as I noted, the front setback is being eliminated, so it'll become conforming. With the replacement cottage
being in the center of the property, it's actually more conforming with the structures right around it. We don't believe it's it's it's in we believe it's in keeping with more broader neighborhood as well. Um, with the with the houses that are up and down Kettle Drum Lane, principally, because it's closer to Kettle Drum than it will be to
Shore Road. Uh, the building coverage is not going to change at all. uh visibility is actually I think going to be improved from removing the cottage uh that's right um uh at Shore Road. So we would submit that uh the same size
footprint structure even with the second floor is compatible with the uh size of the with the neighboring properties. As for the extent of any proposed increase in non-forming nature, there actually should be none. We're we're eliminating it. So site coverage is staying the same. That's pre-existing non-conforming. the use is not changing
which is pre-existing non-conforming but the non-conforming setback to shore roads being eliminated. So rather than having any increase we have a reduction in non-conforming nature. Um as far as suitability of the site uh and impact scale sighting and mass in the
neighborhood I'm kind of repeating myself but again uh we believe that uh all of those are going to be satisfied and we don't think there's going to be any um uh negative impact to uses. There is no change of use. Utilities are all remaining the same. Traffics remain the
same. One thing I would like to just note, you have a letter from a neighbor who had doesn't have an objection to the project, but they did request um that there not be exterior construction during certain months in 2026. I wanted to say for the record for you and in case the neighbors here are listening is
that the applicants proposing to do do the work after the 2026 season. So, no work is going to be done, you know, before Labor Day of 2026. And your standard construction conditions is what I would expect on any approval. That's
acceptable to the applicant. >> Okay, good to know. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wish to speak in favor of this? Yeah. In favor, please go. Yeah, >> I do that to you all the time. >> I know. >> This might be a first for me and Mr. Phillips.
>> Yes. And Mr. doing. I pick on both of you guys. Uh for the record, Brian Phillips 374 Orleans Road. Um Chattam Bar in is one of the nicest resorts in the entire world. I think they do a great job down there and I, you know, have trust in what they want to do. Um
even though I don't really understand the plans. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank good to know. Um anybody else want to speak in favor here are on Microsoft Teams? Seeing none, um I will read the uh
correspondences. I think there's two if I'm not mistaken. Yes. Judith Giorgio on 114 2025. Our health agent says the proposed reconstruction of the cottage will lo will relocate the existing hotel room cottage into two separate suites
with two rooms in each. The first floor area do not meet the definition of a bedroom as there is no privacy. Therefore, the cartage will remain classified as a two-bedroom unit. The property is served by private wastewater treatment facility. Any additional flow
to this facility is regulated by the Mass Department of Environmental Protection. I have no concerns regarding this proposal. Next, we have a note from Carolyn and Richard Comfort received on November 4th, 2025. This letter is being written in response to your notice um
for application 25-092. We're in a butter of interest since we own two houses directly next to Chattam Bars in 28 Kettle Drum Lane and 221 Shore Road. We are writing this letter not in as objection to the application but as a request that you specify
certain restrictions about uh demolition construction um since we'll be occupying the property during the entire month of April 2026 and not be either occupying or renting our property from June 1 to September 15th. We request demolition
construction not take place during these time periods. Um, and that pretty much concludes her correspondence. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak against or has a question?
No. All right. Questions from the board. Um, Mr. Dixon, questions. >> Just had one. you've added the widow's walk or whatever we want to call it, which was not on the existing cottage.
Uh it seems to me to be out totally out of place with what you've done below. And uh Mr. Singer, in your comments about the great views from the first floor, second floor, and all that kind of stuff, isn't that enough? I I don't
understand the need for that or why you would think it improves the appearance. Question from a legal point of view, I'll respond that um I I don't think that it's conforming. So, I don't think
it is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. But as to your specific question, since Mr. Maldun had said what you just said, I'm going to let him respond because I can't answer that. >> Okay. So similarly to the to the hotel, this provides an outdoor private space for each user. So they they can go to
this upper level, experience the view from a a very strategic location and have a private space that's just their own. >> Okay. Questions? Uh Mr. Actton? >> Sure. >> Uh the plans don't show access to it or am I missing that?
>> The stairs are >> the stairs. stairs stacked. >> Yes. >> Okay. And it shows fireplaces. I assume those are gas fireplaces. >> Uh you're looking at the existing >> Oh, I'm sorry. So, there'll be no fireplaces. I was wondering where you were going to vent them.
>> Um Okay. And then, uh Mr. You mentioned the existing foundation of the current building is being saved because there's equipment equipment in it. >> Yes. Excuse me. Um actually I might have can ask Mr. Jennings. He can tell you
more about what it is but there is it is used and so what they're proposing is rather than ripping it all out they were going to put just extend the patio on top of it but he could address that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Tom Jennings, director of engineering for the uh Chattam Bar in um we have
it's mostly data lines that we're running um that attaches to other cottages and so on. So it'd be um a lot of work and demolition to have to rip up a lot of the property to move all of those lines. >> Okay. >> Hope that answers your question.
>> So the intention is to put like a wood wood deck wood structure over it. >> It would probably we would probably um just expand the uh the blue stone that's currently next to it. Okay. >> Bring it around so it looks like it's part of the facility and not change the whole makeup of the area. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Welcome, >> Mr. V. Questions. >> Uh, no questions. Thanks. >> And how about Jenny? >> Just a quick followup to that. Um, and what do you plan to put there? Not equipment or nothing. It'll just be open on the
>> on on the extended blue stone patio. >> Yes. >> It would just be um possible chairs. just just like a decking area similar to what we have next to it and just complete that area. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome, >> Steve. >> I don't have any questions specifically
about the project. I think it's a good project, but I wanted to commend you for putting the existing and the proposed elevations on the same page >> so that you can see them in one view instead of having to flip back and forth between 12 pages of of printout. So, I
appreciate that, but I think it's a good project. Thank you. >> Lee, no questions. Paul, questions. >> Uh, I'm still trying to wrap my head around the uh the question of the existing uh cottage and the foundation
and capping it over. Um, when you when you do that uh and then you build a new cottage, you're not affecting coverage in any way. It does not affect building coverage uh
because building coverage is it's the same there. There's no roof on it, so it's outdoor space, but there's no building coverage. So, the building coverage that's we don't have the site plan up, but the building coverage where the building is now is relocating to uh the new location.
>> But what about the the the roof you're putting on the existing foundation? Doesn't that become additional coverage? >> No, there won't be any foundation. Yes. >> Nothing built on that structure. >> You have to talk into the mic. >> Got it. I was getting closer. I remember
what you said earlier. >> I did. >> Um there'll be nothing changed. We'll be just removing the actual structure from that foundation. So that concrete piece will still be there. >> Right. So you So you've got a structure there.
>> There'll be nothing creating a new structure that's the same size. Mhm. >> So, isn't that increasing overall increasing building coverage? >> No, because the the putting the patio over the foundations there would submit is is not a building. There's nothing
above grade. >> Uhhuh. >> So, we weren't seeing that as building coverage. >> I'm going to go to our building commissioner just confirm that. Paul, would that help? >> Sure. I don't know if it'll help or not. >> Interesting to hear what Jay says. Yeah,
>> I was under the impression that when they said it was going to be raised that it would be completely removed and that, you know, there wouldn't be anything there. Um, and then I heard that they were going to extend the patio. So, if leaving the foundation there and and
doing a structural slab over the top of that to put a new patio, that might be considered additional building coverage. I mean, this is this is right next to the area that's used for uh cocktails for everybody before going into dinner or or locals coming over for cocktails
and looking out over the harbor and so forth. It's that whole seating area and uh it sounds as if what's going to happen is that there's going to be a patio cover to that and then that's going to be used for seating. Um,
so I'm trying to figure out how there isn't an impact on coverage andor the environment in the sense that you've already disturbed the environment with the first cottage and now you're building a brand new one
>> in an area that does not have that building. >> As far as that disturbance, it's not floodplane land. So So we're not it's not it's upland, you know. So from that point of view, all the work whether where the cottage is now or the new location is is just is regular upland. I
know we don't have that all that often, but that's what it is in this case. As far as the separate issue that you've asked that, you know, could be a question as Mr. Jennings had noted the the the desire to leave the if there was no foundation just a hypothetically
carry this through. If there was going to be a patio, let's say we're going to extend the patio on grass, right? you know, so there's no exist the foundation under it. That wouldn't be building coverage, >> correct? Because it would just be site coverage, but that's that's fine. Um, so
the question you're the question that has been raised and again where I was seeing it as I I again I'm not an engineer, so but I was just looking at it is since it wasn't above grade uh and it was just capping what was there, I had not been looking at that as building coverage.
That's just my answer and my response to the question being raised. >> And it's going to be more like a vault for us to keep our equipment that's in there now presently. Just keep it there so we know where it's at at where it used to be for years. >> Yeah. How deep is it?
>> I don't know off the top of my Thank you. >> Well, I guess >> about five feet. >> So ju just for the just so you know, it's not So I I said foundation, but Mr. Maldun saying it's only it goes down about five feet. So, it's not it's not a crawl space, but it's not a full foundation either.
>> Paul, go ahead. >> Well, I I guess I'm going to defer to Jay Briggs as to whether there's an issue there or not. It seemed to me as if when when I looked at the proposal, I thought, what's going to happen to that foundation? And I read that it was going
to be left there uh and I guess be used for for uh equipment now. Uh but >> what happens there? It seems to me you're you're taking one cottage and moving it to another location, but
you're still using the land that the first cottage was on. >> So that's what's confusing me as to whether it's appropriate. Go ahead, Mr. >> So the access would be through the bulkhead that currently exists. Is that correct? >> Essentially. >> Okay. And I think there I mean I think it's higher than 5T. I've been in there
for inspections. I know there is equipment in there. Um but so you wouldn't really be eliminating the non-conformity to shore road then I guess right if the foundation is going to remain >> um well again I think it comes back to whether or not it's considered a
building or not for for for your analysis purposes from the point of view of the applicant and that's why I just asked Mr. Jennings Mr. Moldun if the board uh you know if the board said if the building inspector building commissioner determines that you know
it's structural then it can be removed as Mr. Jennings said they'd have to move the sprinkler main, they'd have to move the the lines, there might be more disruption, you know, throughout the property below grade, but it could be done. So, um, if the board, since it's not really what we're talking about is
not necessarily a zoning issue so much as a building issue, um, if the board wanted to, and I'm because we may not be able to answer that whole question. The reason why I'm about to say this, we may not be able to answer the whole question while we're standing here today. Um if the board sees fit that the building
itself, the relocated cottage is is acceptable, um maybe the board could could vote to approve with a condition that if the building commissioner determines that >> the um existing foundation vault is structural in nature, then the applicant
would remove it. >> So I was going to ask, so there is a way that you could take everything out and leave it permeable. Um is that >> well they could move all the wires in the sprinkler man you're saying >> and then just have dirt grass there you
know leave it per you know better we're talking about the environment which is in our in our criteria it is >> the answer is yes. So, you could do that, >> a full raise, the full foundation, all of the plumbing work and wires would would be removed to a major disturbance
to the property and and then whether it's grass or whether it's permeable patio that goes back over um we're not that far along yet, >> right? So, we could condition it as such. Perhaps maybe
>> you could I I would ask you to only entertain that if if the building commissioner ultimate ultimately determines that there's a zoning reason for that because again the the question looking at is something substantially more detrimental is in this case you have a cottage that's there now you see
it from Shore Road at the end of the day forgetting what we call this thing you'll be seeing ground you you know the building will be gone from that location so we'd submit that, you know, from a visual point of view, from an environmental point of view, there's going to be no negative change nor
detrimental change to the environment or the site in that particular part of the property. Um, so that's why if the board is willing to let let us ultimately work about it with work at it with with the building commissioner, but if he ultimately says to your point, Madam
Chair, if if he says no, it's got to come out, then as you've heard, it can come out. I don't know if he wants that on his shoulders, but do you? >> I don't want it on my shoulders at the moment, but you know, >> I will give it some serious consideration. I mean, buildings and
structures need to meet setbacks. Yes, it's not a building any longer, but it's still a structure. So, >> it's still a structure >> and then the you know, it it may be considered roofed area and count towards coverage. So, it's something I need to I need to think about, >> but it's still a structure. Yes, >> it would still be a structure. >> Okay. Well, I think that's all we need
to know in my limited capability here. I think if it's a structure, you you agree, Paul, that if it's a structure? >> Well, I I think what I what I agree is that it would make sense to me if we deferred this and let Mr. Briggs look at
the question and let them come back and tell us whether there is or is not an issue here. >> I was actually going to suggest the same thing and maybe continue. Let let us offline discuss this question. >> Yeah, that's a good idea. Especially get in the light the fact that you're not
going to even start any of this u for a while. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah, we're not planning on that. That sounds like good. So, a continuence would work. You want us >> That would be fine. >> All right. So, you're asking us to to continue it? >> Uh well, I'd ask if there's any other comment from the board before you
continue, but if not, >> no, we could totally do that. Um, does anybody else want to add anything before we kind of get back to this? I don't think anyone does. >> No. >> Great. >> All right, good. So, um, we have to just figure out what day >> to figure out a day
>> in January, February. >> Uh, I was hoping that it would be sooner than that. Um, because it should just be a vote as we are in >> Oh, no. We're only in questions. We haven't started deliberations yet. Um,
we have seven on November 20th, nine on November 4th, eight on November 18th, five on January 8th right now. So, it's up to the board as to how much discussion you think you're going to need for this. >> We We have a slot January 8th, right?
>> We have space January 8th. We have space January 22nd. It's >> Why don't we let Mr. Singer pick, please? >> January 8th is fine. >> Okay. >> All right. I'll move to grant the requested continuance to January 8th, 2026. >> Dave V seconds and votes yes.
>> Yes. All those yes. >> Jenny Jenny votes yes. >> As do I. Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. We'll meet with Mr. Briggs and >> yes, of course. Thank you. >> All right. Now we're going to the penultimate. Uncle Levi's second to the
last application. 23 Uncle Levi's Lane. >> Okay. Application number 25-094, the Chattam Sanctuary LLC, care of Jeffrey Klein, 17 King Phip Road, Sudbury, Mass 01776.
Owner of property located at 23 Uncle Levi's Lane. Also showed on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 2B, block 21, lot E9. The applicant proposes to change, alter, or expand a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the partial demolition of the existing dwelling and
the construction of additions. The existing dwelling is non-conforming and that it is located 6.4 ft from the easterly of butter. The proposed addition will be non-conforming and that the will will be located 12.5 ft from the easterly of butter where a 15t
setback is required. The existing building coverage is 1,085 ft 12.4% 4% and the proposed building coverage is 1,38 ft 15% where 15% is the maximum allowed. The law is non-conforming and that it
contains 8,724 ft where 20,000 square feet is required in the R20 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of protective bylaw. >> Welcome. Just state your names and uh tell us what you want to do. >> Uh Jeff Klein,
>> Jessel, >> welcome. Yes. Uh, you know, we've been, uh, since we've met, we found out we've both been coming to Chattam for the summers for about 20 some odd years. And, uh, we have a small family that we want to keep coming down to this
wonderful place. And, uh, you know, >> is just a little small for two toddlers running around that we didn't know the first four years we were there, but we love the neighborhood and, um, love the location so much. So, hoping that we can expand just to have more living space. Not looking to add more bedrooms, just
expand the living space in the in the home. >> Yeah. Um I know we're improving on existing non uh conforming conditions on the back uh the back of the house and we're just very excited for the project. And
>> did you get a copy of the uh special permit criteria? You want me to just go through it with you just make sure that we touch base? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So adequacy of the size of the site including but not limited to maximum lot of building coverage and setbacks. So you think the site is adequate for what you want to do?
>> Correct. Yes. >> Yep. And uh pretty compatible with other structures in the property in the neighborhood. Yeah. >> You look drive down Wsworth and Woodland, you'll you'll see. >> And what's your viewpoint on the extent of proposed increase in non-conforming nature of the structure?
>> There is no increase. We're actually decreasing. >> There you go. suitability of the site including but not limit to impact on neighboring properties, the natural environment. Um what do you what do you say about number four? >> There's no no impact. >> No. Does it improve it at all in any
way? >> Um just wondering >> I I don't know the the >> sometimes you're going to take out some invasives and things like that. >> If if there are any invasives, I promise we'll take them out. >> That's good. Um and poison ivy just
>> Oh god. Yeah. Get out of here, please. >> Now, impact of scale sighting and mass on neighborhood visual character. You're pretty tucked in there. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Um compatibility of the proposed use with neighboring uses. Same, you know. >> Yep. >> Yep. Um and then you sewage disposal,
source of water and drainage. You're all set with that. >> Yep. >> Um noise and litter, no change, right? >> Yep. impact on traffic and safety. >> Then there's only two houses down the lane. >> I couldn't even find couldn't even find your house.
>> Those people that >> Yep. Okay. It looks like you certainly reached out to your neighbors because now I have to read all these letters. Um, >> all right. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wish to speak in favor of this project? If so, please
raise your hand in favor. No. Okay. Um, now some of these are are forms. I think this is the one with the forms that I don't have to read them all. Uh, >> we did have one neighbor here that wrote a letter, but she didn't know if she was supposed to. She already spoke, but
>> I I asked if there's anybody that wants to speak in favor. >> No, that's great. Okay, very good. Um, so our first um note is from Christina Basset received on November 4th, 2025. The um CHC found that this home not
historically significant. So they did not prop propo impose a demolition delay. Next we have an usual note from our health agent Judith Giorgio 114205. I reviewed the plan to add an addition to the dwelling. The existing dwelling
is approved for six bedrooms. The proposal includes converting one of the first floor bedrooms into a playroom in accordance with the board of health definitions. The entryway to this room must be widened to a minimum of 5 to six feet to ensure it no longer meets the
definition of a bedroom. The plan also includes relocating the septic tank. The septic permit is required prior to any work related to the relocation of the tank. Um next we have a note from let's see
Tom and Jane Ley from 27 Pleasant Place. We, the undersigned residents of 23 of 23 Uncle Levi's Lane, wish to express our support for the proposed addition to the property owned by Jessica Real and Jeff Klein. We understand the project
seeks zoning relief um to construct an addition that will improve and modernize the existing residence while reducing the improving the current non-conforming conditions. Based on our review of the plans and understanding the scope, we believe the proposed work is both reasonable and appropriate for the
neighborhood. In our opinions, the addition will be consistent with scale and character of the surrounding homes and enhance the appearance and value of the property. Uh, for these reasons, we support the approval for 23 Uncle Levis's. Did I? Okay. So,
>> now you just read the name. >> Okay. So, the names also include Karen Pogi of 342 Pleasant Street and Deborah Harry of 305 Pleasant Street.
Nancy St. No, 19 Uncle Levi's Lane. John White 19 Uncle Levis's Lane. Christopher Yotides at 335 Pleasant Street. Peter Hogan at 310 Pleasant Street.
Alice Webster at 52 Forest Beach Road Extension. Um R. Renate Pogy and Caroline Pogy. H Bernard Pogy Trust. And um okay, let's see that. Do I have to?
>> Good enough. >> That's it. >> Yep. Very good. Very good. So now is there anybody that wishes to speak against this application or has a question anywhere at all online here?
No. Okay. Um Mr. V questions. >> I have no questions. Thanks. >> Uh are your kids at Noise or Nixon? >> Uh okay. >> Raised my kids in Sudbury as well. >> Yeah.
Good question. >> It would appear that someone has been using property behind your house that isn't exactly within your plot plan. It wouldn't be the two of you, would it?
Maybe. Huh? >> Oh, >> that might have been the previous homeowners. >> The You're talking about the behind the bushes area like >> I'm talking about I think I saw a swing set. Yep. Yeah. >> And that sort of thing. >> So, do you have a
Did you rent that from your neighbor? Do you have a >> I after the historic meeting, I actually took Nol out. We uh sat over coffee for about an hour and we agreed that we will move the swing set. Once we improve the nonconforming uh existing conditions on his property
line where we remove that structure, that's where we're going to place the swing set. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Yes, Lee. >> Thank you. Um, yeah. I actually have a question regarding the patio. First of all, I think this looks like a great plan. I think it's going to give you,
you know, everything you want. >> Thank you. >> And it's a great creative way to reconfigure stuff inside. Um, but the actual deck with the um the patio with the deck above, >> the dripthrough deck, does that count as
building coverage even though it's a drip through deck? If it if the water can get through it, then it wouldn't be included in building. >> Oh, all right. That's awesome. Okay. Um I think I think that's it. Thank you.
>> And Steve, >> I think it's a good project. I don't think I I really have any questions, but I I guess I want to warn you about you're right up against the 15% maximum coverage. Yeah, we we've had conversations about that >> members that are becoming less
sympathetic about >> going over that 15%. So have your contractor be very careful. >> Good advice. >> We've had the discussion of wherever it's staked out bringing an inch in. >> Yes, that's the same thing. Yeah. >> Jenny,
>> um question follow-up question to Le about the patio with the drip through deck. So it's and to Steve's point, so that today is not considered a structure because the water can go through. Is is that literally going to be the the bottom part is maybe patio like slate or
something? >> We're planning on con uh concrete paper. >> Concrete. Yeah. And then the top is going to be like regular decking. >> Yeah. Like Azac. >> Okay. But just so just making sure you understand if you ever said, "Oh, you know, it'd be nice to not have the water running through this," that then would
be a problem. You you would be over your coverage. Okay. Okay. Just wanted to >> No, understood. >> Point that out. Um, >> so I just wanted to just understand what the what the flooring situation was of that of that top rack. Okay. Thank you.
>> And Paul. >> Um, yeah, you're going to you're going to be careful with the coverage. I guess you've been hearing that quite a bit. >> Yes. >> Um, and hopefully we won't see you back here for that. Um, I walk past that area frequently. I didn't realize Uncle
Levies went past 19 that you actually go in there and hang a right and go. So it's it's it's certainly isolated. I have no other questions. >> Yeah. Yeah. So the reason why everybody's wanting you is because it's not the same criteria that you have there if you had to come back and you went over. It's a variance. Are you a
builder yourself? >> I I work in remodeling in >> Yeah. >> Yeah. your neighbor g showed me where your house was and and everything and she said that you you know you were going to do it or that you you knew what you were doing basically and uh and that's great. Um and uh okay so I don't
have anything further to add Paul. >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> Dave seconds and vote yes. >> Yes. I'll vote yes. >> Jenny votes yes >> as do I. All right. Deliberations. Uh Jenny. >> Well I I think it's a great location. I um and I think it's a great redesign. Um
you are doing a lot on a small lot. Your lot is 8,700 square feet. Um but I think it's a terrific um um plan and it it barely but it does meet the criteria. >> Thank you.
>> Okay, Steve. >> I think it's a good idea. Uh a nice project and if there's anything that you can do to make living with some toddlers a little then um I congratulate you. Rainy days are hard right now. >> Yeah, good luck. Thank you very much.
>> Enley, >> yeah, I agree with my colleagues. I think um it looks like a great plan. Um working with what you have, making it work better for you guys. >> Yeah, Paul, >> I agree with my colleagues. >> Dave, you >> you know, I've been doing this for a
while and I've never been down Uncle Levi's room before. So, thank you for the opportunity. I love to go to some place new. Good luck. >> Thank you. >> Um, no, I think it's going to be a great project. In addition to coverage, um,
which you have to be careful of, also setbacks, uh, in in, uh, Chadam, it's off corner board. It's not off the foundation, which is different than a lot of towns. So, uh, just just, uh, consult uh, with everyone before you go
forward. Thank you. >> And Mr. V. >> Yeah, I agree. And and the reason I was hesitant in the question we was but everybody else took care of it. I just wanted to caution them about being uh right up against the uh the limit. So >> then you put us on a guilt trip if you have to come back. We say, "Oh, it's
only we'll bring the kids with us." >> Yeah. We hate when that happen. It happens a lot. A lot. >> Yeah. Maybe like >> I don't know five or six times a year even. Could >> we'll bring it back in a couple inches instead of one. >> Yeah. Very good. Very good. when it in and if if if you exceed what I mean and
it comes to us sometimes when it just needs an extension of the special permit in your case it would be it would need a variance which is a whole different ballgame and we don't like to even entertain variances >> okay that's
>> all right so Paul >> I'll move to uh approve the application as submitted u I guess >> with the summertime restrictions >> our normal summertime restrictions given that congested ne neighborhoods So >> all construction work uh construction activity and vehicles shall be contained
on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner. >> Between June 30th and Labor Day, no exterior construction will be allowed. No work should be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. only. >> Well, maybe not. >> Dave V seconds and votes yes.
>> I vote yes. >> All vote yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> Yeah, it's unanimous. I vote yes. All right. So much of course. Good luck. Thanks. >> Thank you. All right. Okay. We only have one more application
and that is 16 Crand Lane. Application number 25-096 Elliot Nominee Trust Care of Josiah Ber 33 Carriage Lane Barnstable Mass 02630 owner of property located at 16 CR Lane
also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 8D block 2B law RR10. The applicant seeks to enlarge, extend, or change a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the construction of an addition. The proposed addition will comply with bulk and dimensional requirements of the bylaw, but is
considered a substantial alteration and under the second accept clause of section 6 of Mass General Law Chapter 48 requires the grant of a special permit. The existing building coverage is 1553 ft, 10.2% and the proposed building coverage is 1,896
ft 12.4% 4% where 15% is the maximum allowed. The law is non-conforming and that it contains 15,270 ft where 20,000 ft² is required in the R20 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the
protective bylaw. >> Welcome. Just state your name if you would. >> Josiah Ber and I'm here on behalf of Mary Beth Elliott and her husband Chris Elliott. Uh I'm part of the design team. >> Y >> So pretty straightforward. The existing house built in 1974
is too close to the street. The minimum setback is 25 ft and we're at 23.8. We're looking to put a family room on the back of the house that um is conforming. >> Okay. Do you want to just quickly uh
race through the criteria um that you think might be um applicable? Uh you think the size is adequate? >> Yeah. So, so the maximum is 15%, we're adding 343 square ft and we're going to be at 12.43%.
>> Yeah. And uh you're compatible with the other structures in >> Yeah. 15 C strand is 3,000 square feet. So, we're going to be way under that. >> Yeah. Very good. Uh and uh the suitable site. >> Yeah.
>> No no ding to the neighboring properties in any way. >> No, it's going to be an improvement. Absolutely. >> Yeah. Yeah. Great. Great. Um, no big impact in scale sighting and mass on visual character. Correct. >> Yeah, it's it's obscured by the front of the house, but it it'll it's pretty
regardless. >> And, uh, it seems like there's not going to be any impact on traffic, safety, noise, litter, uh, sewer disposal, any of that? >> Nope. >> All right. Very good. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wish to speak in favor of this project? Please
raise your hand. Seeing none, I will read the one note we got from our health agent Judith Georgio on um let's see >> November 4th, 2025. She had no concerns to the addition of the family room off
the kitchen with direct access to garage Judy. All right, there's that. Anybody here on Microsoft Teams wish to speak against or has a question given that there's no one here on Microsoft Teams? Uh, does the board have any questions?
>> No. No. >> No. I'll move to close the hearing and move. >> Oh, wait a minute. Steve. >> Yes, Steve. >> I just wanted to make one point. It's not nothing really about the project, but I think it's a documentation error. >> Sure. On page A1, for instance, it it it shows the rear and right elevations, but
at the bottom of the page, it describes the front elevations. I think some of the >> the keys are off. >> Okay. Sure. That's a formatting error on >> and and the next page shows uh I think A2 is the same deal. It the the the the
key on the bottom doesn't match the drawings. >> Understood. >> Okay. >> All right. So, the question is why did you make those mistakes? I have an okay infinite home. I haven't slept in weeks. So that's my excuse. >> There you go. Very good. Good answer. All right, Paul.
>> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> Dave each seconds and votes yes. >> Yes. >> All vote yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> As do I. Okay, deliberations. Wasn't one person say it for all? Uh perhaps. Steve, you want to do it? >> I think it's a nice project and they
should move forward steadfastly. >> And does it meet all the conditions? It certainly doesn't and it is not detrimental to anyone. >> All right. Anybody else want to just say ditto? Everybody should. >> I agree with Steve. >> Lee, I agree.
>> I think it'll make Steve feel better if we all agree with Steve. >> Yes. >> You agree with Steve? >> Yes, of course I do. >> I I agree. And I thank you for the extent of the staking out with the yellow tape and everything. He couldn't
couldn't miss where it was going. Mr. V. >> Yes. Count me in. And and and it's it's also good to know that no one's going to be driving down the extension of Geranium Drive and possibly into the backyard here. So, >> no, that that's that paper street, right? >> Right. That's the paper street.
>> Okay. >> Yeah, >> I remember that. Yeah, that was not good. All right, Paul. I'll move to approve the application as submitted with I guess the conrict usual uh restrictions that uh all construction activity and vehicles shall be contained
on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner between June 30th and Labor Day. No exterior construction will be allowed. No work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8 a.m. and 5:00 p p.m. only. >> Dave seconds and votes yes. >> Yes.
>> All votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes >> as to why it's unanimous. Congratulations. Thank you. >> All right, >> so that concludes our agenda for today and let's see. >> See you next week. >> See you next week. >> I
>> the week after that and the week after that and the week after that. >> I will move to adjourn. Dave beat seconds and votes yes. >> Ed votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> All votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> Steve votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> As do I. And let's see what time is it.
4:27 p.m. >> Okay. Good evening, Chan.