##VIDEO ID:KWUutnKuRfE## e e e e e e e e e e e e e e w [Music] [Music] good afternoon everyone this is the January 9th 2025 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for the town of chadam pursuant to Governor Hy's March 29th 2023 signing of the acts of 2023 extending certain covid measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law until March 31 2025 this meeting of the chadam zoning board of appeals is being conducted in person and via remote participation every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately as access the proceedings as provided in the order a reminder people would like to listen to this meeting while in progress may do so by calling 1508 945 4410 conference ID 922 885 49 pound or join the meeting online via the Microsoft teams link on the posted agenda while this is a live broadcast and simoc cast on chadam TV despite our best efforts we may not be able to provide for realtime access we will post a record of this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible in accordance with Town policy the the public can speak to any issue um on the business item agenda uh during the meeting when recognized by the chair I'll just ask you at this point to please shut off any phones or items that make any noise whatsoever if if you would and if anyone is going to speak during the meeting just wait till you recognize and you have to walk up to the microphone and um and speak when you get there um the procedural steps um start off with a roll call vote by our board members um we ask if anybody uh participating in the meeting by phone just give their last four digits of of their telephone and their name um the hearing notice will be read by our staff um s clar on my right and you will present your appeal are your representative um when you get up to the mic and anyone in favor will then have an opportunity to speak for up to five minutes and there'll be a time clock after that I'll read any um any letters that we got regarding that that application then anybody that has a question or has uh wants to speak against the appeal or application we'll have um a chance to do that again for five minutes then we will um have questions by the board close the public hearing and deliberate and usually we vote um after that we will um take all votes by roll call uh incidentally and at the end of the meeting we'll close via a verbal confirmation and and note the time of adjournment um with that if we could do a roll call vote and um authorize this form of meeting we'll start with David vich uh yes David h v and um I approve of this format Ed Acton I approve David as nexton I approve Paul C sample I approve Lee huy I approve Steve dor approves Virginia F I approve and Randy podes I approve as well so looks like I I think we have two meeting minutes to uh approve uh Paul I think we do first would be a training session meeting held on December 5 20 2024 I'll move to approve those minutes as published uh DAV second and is there any anybody that wants to comment on that no okay okay I vote Yes yes well I vote Yes Jenny I vote Yes as do I okay and then we have uh one more set Paul yes a meeting held December 5 2024 I'll move to approve those minutes as published uh dve seconds and okay any comment before we vote no okay and I vote Yes Yes Paul votes yes jny votes yes as do I okay our first application is 24-38 Paul and Amy maret and whenever s is ready application application number 24-38 Paul and Amy marchetti care of SV design 693 Main Street chattam Mass 026 633 owners of property located at 46 Henshaw drive also shown on the town of chadam assessor map 14d block 43 lot S9 the applicant seeks to enlarge extend or change a conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the construction of additions the existing dwelling and proposed additions comply with all bulk and dimensional requirements of the bylaw but is considered substantial alteration and under the second accept Clause of ma of section six of Master under Law chapter 4A such substantial alteration requires the grant of a special permit the existing building coverage is 1,896 ft 11.5% and the proposed building coverage is 2,27 Ft 13.4% where 15% is the maximum allowed the law is non-conforming and it contains 16,48 ft or 20,000 ft is required in the R20 zoning District a special permit is required under master Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw welcome if you could just state your name good afternoon Paul here from SV design representing Amy and Paul maretti and their project at 48 Henshaw Mr marquetti is on the uh the call here with us today um so we're at 46 Henshaw and R20 District uh we have an undersized lot at 16,000 and change where we need 20 um our Frontage is at 98 feet or a little over 98 fet where 100 is is required um our existing and proposed uh structures all are zoning compl compant um if we go to sheet uh a 2.0 you can see here we have a on the south elevation we have a a modest one-story addition to the west or the left side of the screen uh that's about 285 Square ft um the other improvements include an overhang on some brackets at the front entry and we're developing the space over the existing garage by putting dormers on both the front and on the back uh the windows the shutters uh will all be upgraded as well and if we can go to the the next sheet here you can see the the Western View uh overlooking towards uh oyster ponds um so that uh set of bay windows in the new addition here uh that looks directly over the neighboring property out to the to the view and the the rear elevation here this this is the again over the garage space we're developing that space adding a shed Dormer across the back and you're seeing the expanse of the western addition on On The Backs side of the structure other improvements include a pool on the rear yard some patio space some landscape walls and a shed that's less than 100 square F feet um as Sarah mentioned we're going from uh 11.5 percentage uh building coverage to 13.4 and um we have documented the building at 30 ft the existing is 29.7 our contractor is well aware of the stringent calculations and uh ensuring that our our build and our final grading will be 30t or under with that I'm happy to go into the criteria please do the adequacy of the site uh the size of the site in terms of the proposed use um the existing non-conforming lot has less than required lot area um the bylaw allows us to go to 15% of building coverage we're at 13.4 so we feel like the size of the site is adequate suitability of the site for the proposed use there's no change in the proposed use to single family residence and a single family res residential Zone there's no impact on traffic or safety with this uh minor work um the impact of the neighborhood and visual character including views and Vistas the view in Vista is towards the West to towards oyster Pond and our one-story Edition is encapsulated by the the shape of the existing structure so we're not interrupting anyone else's views or Vistas uh and and likewise the visual character in the neighborhood we're using uh cedar shingle siding painted trim um we're upgrading the roof to a Cedar uh roof All U materials and and characteristics that you see in the neighborhood and throughout chadam anyway um adequacy of the method uh method of sewage and Disposal uh source of water and drainage there's no added uh bedroom count here so no added sewage and um roof drainage will be taken care of on site aacy of the utilities and other public services there's no upgrade to the electric service no upgrade to the Water Service um noise and litter um no additional noise or litter will be created by the modest addition um compatibility of the proposed with the surrounding uh land uses we're in a single family residential area surrounded by single family uh residential homes um impact on the natural environment including slopes vegetation wetlands and groundwater uh there's no Wetlands nearby and um there is a slope in the back and we will be there's existing retainer retaining walls we're simply pushing that retaining wall down gradient a little bit to accommodate the pool and create that that flat bench and we have a wonderful landscape architect that'll help us uh manage any sort of runoff and and Waters along with that uh with that design uh the visual impact of the neighborhood and the the town visual character of of any formula business establishment or single family residential project happy to answer any questions thank you very much is there anybody here are on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application if so please raise your hand make it known seeing no one in the audience and no one on Microsoft teams wishing to speak at all I will read the correspondences and there is one from our health agent Judith Georgio from 17 2025 I have reviewed the proposed renovation in addition to this property the dwelling will maintain the existing three-bedroom floor layout the property is connected to the municipal sewer and no additional flow is planned I have no concerns that concludes our correspondences is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak against this application or has a specific question if so please make it known seeing none are there any questions from the W see yes please I have one comment is um when I was out at the property it it seemed to never been staked out I mean it's pretty straightforward where the addition was going but um these are supposed to be my my apologies um with the survey there just must have been a miscommunication we had the skills to figure it out so thank you all good I'm sure yes thank you um okay are there any other questions uh at this point no so Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations uh Dave Vach seconds and votes yes yes Paul votes yes Jenny votes yes as do I okay deliberations Jenny well I think that the changes are modest um you did a great job with the presentation um and the proposal is very nice the improvements uh make sense and I believe it meets all of our criteria okay and Steve we'll just go right around um yeah same thing it's a nice project it's it's within the setbacks and I don't think it's affecting anything else around it Lee I agree I think it looks um really nice and um meets our criteria and Paul certainly agree with prior comments and there not substantially more detrimental to the Neighborhood Mr Nixon I agree with the for i as well as do I all right well that was easy um Paul I'll move to approve the application as submitted um what's your plan in terms of construction straight away um we expect we'll be enclosed before the season changes okay so our standard conditions should apply without any problems all right thank you what I'll add conditions that 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 Dave be seconds and votes yes I vote Yes all votes yes jny votes yes as do I it's unanimous thank you very much thanks for your time see you next time cheers all right our next application is number 24-1 144 Janine closi care of Robert vath and this is uh 83 three Diane Drive whenever Sarah's ready good afternoon my name is Robert vath I'm here representing Janine kosi U at 83 Diane Drive um the one second I have to read the legal ad I'm sorry it's in a little bit of a rush put a that now application number 24-44 Janine CL Clos care Robert bath 94a Commerce Park South South chatam Mass 02659 owner of property located at 83 Diane Drive also shown on the town of chadam assessors map 6C block 68 lot g128 the applicant proposes to change alter or expand a non-conforming dwelling and a non-conforming lot via the construction of an addition the existing dwelling is non-conforming and that it is located 22.2 ft from the road where a 25t setback is required the proposed addition will conform to Road and a butter setback requirements the existing building coverage is 1,192 ft 15.8% and the proposed building coverage is 1,242 squ Ft 16.3% where 15% is the maximum allowed the lot is non-conforming and then it contains 7,556 ft where 20,000 ft is required in the R20 zoning District a special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5 Via the protective bylaw okay Mr vath I presume I'll try this again very good my name is Bob vath I'm here representing Janine kosi at 83 Diane Drive uh the adequacy of the product of the project uh we plan on adding a 5x10 addition off of the South Side um keeping everything uh within the setbacks as far as the uh lot compatitive compatibility to the size of the structure uh it is compatible with the rest of the neighboring homes uh like I said a small modest addition to accommodate uh enlarging a kitchen uh the percentage that we're going up uh from 15.8 to 16.3 um can we look at the side view the South View uh represent it uh with the window location um the window location is basically the same we're just pushing out that wall like I said to accommodate a kitchen um as far as the impact on scale of the neighborhood and visual character um you can't really see it from the street uh it's uh on the side of the on the side of the home uh compatibility of use uh it's a kitchen addition very small and modest uh 5x1 um the uh it's still a two-bedroom home so uh no no impact on the uh sewage or water and uh impact on traffic flow and safety uh it's a small project there aren't going to be many uh construction vehicles there um it it has a driveway and a a fence that we can remove if we have to to park on the front lawn okay that that seems like enough for this particular project um is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that has um the desire to speak in favor of this project please make it known if you do seeing none I will read the correspondences there are four two in favor and two from internal agency uh see first we have a note from our health agent Judith Georgio on January 7th 2025 she reviewed the proposed renovation in addition and the dwelling will maintain a two-bedroom floor layout a new addition will not encroach on the existing septic and she has no concerns then we have a note from uh this the Conservation Commission and the project will be conditioned to meet the performance standards um in the near future future and they had had a hearing on that and next we have a note from oh and just for the sake of uh completion that was on December 16th 2024 next we have a note from lri frer and she lives at 22 Diane and they are writing in support of the project um application and we hope and they hope the zba approves the plan laian Jason fer 22 Diane and then lastly we have a note from David and Elizabeth reny uh 57 Diane Drive and they tell us on January 9th that it's a letter of support for a very modest Edition proposed by Janine kosi and they have been terrific neighbors maintain the property with pride and they wholeheartedly support the improvements without reservation so anybody here on Microsoft teams that wishes speak against this application or has a specific question seeing none are there any questions from the board I just have one question uh okay Paul just to fill out my knowledge of what's going on we've got these plans that have a circle s in red smoke detectors pardon me smoke detectors smoke detector locations okay thank you okay any other questions no all right very good uh Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations and Dave be second and votes yes yes Paul votes yes Jenny votes yes as do I okay deliberations we'll start with Mr vich minor U hardly hardly even it's not going to be noticeable um from the street or the neighborhood at all and uh um uh I will it's certainly not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood Ood it meets our criteria and um I will enthusiastically support it all right very good Ed I I agree as well and Mr Nixon yeah the only thing I don't like about it is uh since it's already over the max you're maxing out the Max and uh that doesn't make me wild about but I understand this is a small project and uh is it substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood no it is not right thank and Paul I agree with the prior comments and Lee I agree too as do I and Jenny yeah I just want to Echo what Mr Nixon said it's a half a percent over uh you're already over but it's a half a percent ask in building coverage um I think it's a great project and I do think that even even though you're o over that's why you're here you're asking for that Grace and um I think it meets our criteria yeah and and I'll just Echo that always gives us a red flag just for anyone that watches when we see that the property is already over what's the limit and then they want to go over the over but in the great scope of this one it's not an issue in my mind either so Paul I'll move to approve the application as submitted I think our standard conditions would be appropriate in this neighborhood so I'll move to uh add conditions that all construction activity and vehicles contained on be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner that between June 30th on 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 reach seconds and votes yes yes Paul votes yes Jenny votes yes as D it's unanimous congratulations thank you all right moving right along to the third application 24- 139 Lloyds of chadam LLC care of Jo Joseph amarino um 52 Court Street whenever Sarah's ready she will read the application application number 24- 139 Lloyds of chadam LLC care of Joseph A marcino 141 Moffet Road Wen Mass 02468 owner of property located at 52 Court Street also shown on the town of chadam sucessors map 12i block 24f lot H6 the applicant seeks to enlarge extend or change a conforming dwelling in a non-conforming lot via the conversion of the existing garage to habitable space the existing dwelling complies with all bulk dimensional requirements of the bylaw but is considered a substantial alteration and under the second except Clause of section six of Mass General Law chapter 4A such substantial alteration requires the grant of a special permit also proposed but not requiring a special permit is the addition of a conforming screen porch the construction of a conforming pool house swimming pool and shed the existing building coverage is 1,895 5 ft and the proposed building coverage is 2320 ft where 2,900 ft is the maximum allowed the law is non-conforming and it has 100 ft of Frontage where 150 ft is required and contains 24545 Square ft or 40,000 ft is required in the R40 zoning District a special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw hello and welcome and if you want to just focus on the garage going to bable it's a tough word for me for some reason I'm going to try and say that word too so we see how three times fast all right so we're um good afternoon we're seeking the special permit to convert an existing two-car garage into habitable space specifically that's a hard word on top of habitable right there um it's a open floor plan kitchen family room space uh the walls wide open and there's a large opening to gain access there somewhere between six and 7 ft um on the plan as you walk in there um the 12 criteria number one the adequacy of size and sight including but not limited to maximum lot or building coverage setbacks there's no impact this is a conversion of existing space in the garage we're not extending the footprint or raising the roof number two compatibility of the size of the proposed structure with neighboring properties again it's a conversion and the existing structure is very much compatible there on the culd sack it's one of the smaller homes on the street already and and will continue to be number three extent of the proposed increase in non-conforming nature of the structure of the use um again it's a conversion I'm not sure that that one doesn't apply suitability of the site including but not limited to the impact on neighboring Properties or on the natural environment including slopes vegetation Wetlands groundw water bodies and storm water to runoff does not apply impact of scale sighting Mass on neighboring visual character including views Vistas Street Scapes there's no impact there the garage is on the back of the property too it's not on the side um compatibility of the proposed use with neighboring uses does not apply adequacy of the method of the sewage disposal source of water and drainage there's no changes there no impact still still a three-bedroom home impact of the uh traffic and flow of safety no impact we have an existing long driveway with enough space to Park four cars at the top of the driveway and at least another additional two along the driveway and a uh adequate opening at the bottom of the driveway to get out onto the street number nine noise and litter does not apply adequacy of utilities and other public services uh everything's good there visual impact on the neighborhood and neighboring uses of any formula business establishment there's no impact there and then number 12 for dwellings located in a flood plane does not apply uh happy to answer any questions oh thank you very much is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application if so raise your hand seeing none I will read the correspondences first one is from our health agent Judith Georgio she writes to us on January 7th 2025 that she reviewed the pro proposed renovation in addition to the property the dwelling will maintain the existing three-bedroom floor layout the proposed screen porch on Sona tubes is at an acceptable setback to the existing septic tank and she has no concerns we have a note on January no December 27th 2024 from Robert and Joyce Roth and they're at 34 C Court Street and um they say they're pleased to submit the letter in support of the new for next door neighbors Joe and Tiffany and Marino and connection with their application um thank you for your December nber 19th 202 public notice about it unfortunately my wife Joyce and I can't come personally but please accept this as sworn testimony of for our legal record we understand that the amarinos who recently purchased the property next to us last summer would like to improve it and renovate their new home although the existing dwelling complies with all the Balan dimensional requirements the proposed improvements to renovate the dwelling is considered a substantial alteration and they need to come to the zba they note their strong belief um that the renovation work uh that's been discussed will be significant benefit to the neighborhood proposed uh improvements will make the neighborhood more consistent uh with other well-kept single family homes on their short cuac a site visit by zba members will confirm my statement um and they just said please consider our full support and they're happy that their neighbors are quote fixing up the Place sincerely Robin and Joyce Roth next we have a note from attorney Lichfield who I believe is going to speak um and so if I could it's up to attorney litfield if he wants me to um read it or speak don't read it okay not reading it um huh and that would be it so where am I is there anybody that wishes to speak against has a specific question and I will acknowledge attorney William litfield thank you madam chair Bill Richfield here on behalf of Ben McMahan not speaking against the proposal uh just wanted to clarify that uh Mr em emino and I have had a number of discussions there was some inadvertent overly exuberant clearing uh in the rear of the lot and we have come to an agreement uh on behalf of my client and Joe asking that the board include in its decision uh a simple condition and reference the plan that you have on file and Mr Amo is okay with that as as Mr McMahan it'll resolve the differences between the parties thank you very good thank you so much is there anybody else that has a question either here on Microsoft teams or we should to speak against this application please make it known seeing none any questions from the board on this one seeing none I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations uh dve Second and votes yes yes Paul votes yes J votes yes as do I okay Paul oh we already did that um right deliberations Mr V uh oh certainly um not uh substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood it meets the criteria it's a um it's not going to be noticed at all uh with respect to the neighbors or neighborhood um so uh it's very easy to support this okay Ed we might as well just go around yeah uh feel it meets all the criteria not not detrimental to the neighborhood so if I was Voting I would support it and Mr Nixon certainly not detrial to the neighborhood and Paul I agree with the prior comments Lee as do I Steve as do I and I do and I do too and I do too so at that point at this point Paul um I'll move to approve the application as submitted um but I will ask do we have a copy of the conditions uh which uh we do yes we do okay then um given the neighborhood um is there a need for our standard conditions with respect to construction activity during the summertime and so forth it is a quiet call theck and I I I would probably for them on myself that I wouldn't want construction going on on the exterior of the property uh other than typical I mean no heavy construction could they be doing some shingle work during normal business hours and not disrupt people I suppose they could because we're not on top of people there but I would certainly want to be respectful and work within the typical hours there all right well why don't I uh I'll move to approve the application as submitted with the condition that all construction activity and vehicles should be contained on site or at a neighboring property with a permission to 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 and then thirdly that substantial vegetative screening at least 6 feet in width approximately as shown on a sketch plan prepared by Flagship landworks dated January 6 2025 shall be installed and maintained to ensure survival for at least one year by the applicant along the Westerly rear property line of the premises being the common boundary with 582 Crow Road and with permission of the owner of 38 582 Crow Road including on the area then denoted as quote area of over clearing unquote okay Dave uh dve e seconds and votes yes I vote Yes all votes yes JY votes yes as do I it's unanimous congratulations good luckk you all right next we have 24-14 Cynthia Waters care of William F rally Esquire and this is about 48 C Mist Lane whenever Sarah is ready application number 24-40 Cynthia Waters care of William FY Esquire PO Box 707 chattam Mass 02633 owner of property located at 48 seus Lane also shown in the town of chadam assessor map 1A block 20j lot X10 the applicant proposes to change alter expand a non-conforming dwelling and a non-conforming lot via the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a new dwelling the existing dwelling is non-conforming and it is located 14.5 ft from the souly of butter the proposed dwelling be non-conforming located 14.5 ft from the Souther Lea butter where a 15t setback is required the existing building coverage for the 10 dwellings is 9,12 ft 11.2% and the Propst building coverage is 9,263 Ft 11.4% or 10% is the maximum allowed the law is non-conforming and then it has 10 dwellings where one dwelling is allowed the lot contains 81,500 in an R20 zoning District a special permit is required under under Mass gender Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protected bylaw gentlemen welcome please State your names and give your case uh good afternoon Bill Riley on behalf of Cynthia Waters you had Chris Cannon uh architect Arch 33 Cynthia Waters so this is a a project um I don't know how many of you familiar with SSH Village kind of mediums but they were built back in the 1950s there were total of 10 Cottages um all but three have been significantly renovated several have been demolished and rebuilt uh essentially what uh Chris has designed fills in a 150 foot section uh of the where the existing Cottage uh they Square Off The Backs side of the existing Cottage basically uh and then they add a second floor I know you've been down to the neighborhood so you can see that uh you know several of the buildings are very substantial uh how is it's going to fall into that category as well I think one thing to keep in mind is that we are sort of in a low point on the on the property and we don't believe that uh the addition of the second floor is going to create um problems with user vistors we do have some correspondents from our neighbors uh to the east uh that they have no objection to our proposal I'd like Chris to explain how he accomplished the goals set for him by the client Cynthia Waters Chris so we have a uh currently a one story three-bedroom house and the um the house built uh 5 six feet below the street the parking currently is uh actually sitting on an easement there's a 5 foot easement on the uh uh South End of the property and uh and there's one sole parking spot so um I if you did go out there I'm going to bet most of you probably parked in the street as I always do when I've gone there um my goal initially was to lift the house a little bit lift the soil around it get it closer to where we can get the the cars legal get two cars get them off the street uh and to elevate the house to a point where it's a little bit more reasonable and not set way below the street uh in doing so also it allows for a b basement that can be walked out with a little bit of carving out of the the soil down there and uh my client wanted to have a second floor and she wanted to continue having three bedrooms so was willing to put one of those bedrooms in the basement if need be and uh she wanted to have a fair amount of living at the first floor kitchen dining uh laundry uh so you know I tried to carve away at the house to try and make it not look like a three-story house uh because that's one of the problems that you get into when you have a hillside as steep as this um and uh from the street side I think you know you have fairly successful one and a half story looking home um it does meet the uh the height criterias for the lot um and uh you know I think we've been working on this for about a year and working with the uh the trustees of uh this uh Association and um you know I think we've come to a pretty pretty nice house if I can answer any questions happy to we we'll get to that one this time for questions and uh Mr Riley knows the drill all right thank you so I think so one of the important things is that keep in mind the U because the plans looks like a big house on the plans the uh first floor living area is only 9948 Square ft so even though you know it's significantly larger than the existing structure it's still a small home the U so I just like to run through the criteria uh so adequacy of the size of the site in terms of the size of the proposed use uh we're only adding 153 square fet of building coverage uh the one of the reasons we're here is that lot coverage is not to exceed 10% but we're already we're at 11% we're going up 2/10 of a percent with this uh with this change uh the existing building doesn't meet the souly setback it's 142 fet where uh 15 ft is required we did ask the truste if we could move the building a little North so we could be in compliance and they told us they would prefer that we stay in the exact location we are now so that that non-conformity is going to continue but other than that we meet we meet the other setbacks the compatibility the size of the proposed structure I've you know prepared our normal sheet on the back and the uh because we have a full basement and some of the other buildings do not or have just a crawl space uh we are you know one of the larger buildings in the neighborhood the largest in our 10 unit condominium by a small amount uh the uh but I think that you could find that the building compatible with the overall neighborhood if you drove around at all the uh increase in the non-conforming nature because we've extended the southernly line of the house uh where right now it's there only a 15ot section now it's essentially a 30 foot section that it doesn't meet the setback so that's an increase in nonconformity the um we're going from 11.2% building coverage to 11.4% so that's an increase in non-conformity as well and the uh and we're increasing the living area which of course is an intensification of a non-conformity the uh 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 the uh so the property that is down gradient of this belongs to the applicant uh so that's 46 this is 48 her house is 46 so uh we don't have a concern necessarily about neighboring properties the uh the properties to the South are protected by uh a buffer strip and very heavily vegetated growth if you've been down there you've seen that and then they have a a driveway that runs along the northern edge of their property as well so uh we think that in terms of the impact on adjacent properties that the site is suitable for the proposed work impact of scale sighting and Mass on the neighborhood visual character you know given that um this property uh is at the low end of given this building is at the low end of the property not the lowest because Mr water's existing H is is the lowest uh we think that even though we're raising the ridge substantially the we're not having anybody any negative impact on views and Vistas uh we think the streetcape uh we think it's an improvement because we think Chris did a great design U so so we believe that although there are changes we don't think any of them are substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing structure and you know it's a single family Cottage all those Cottages down there are generally available for seasonal rental um although Miss Waters lives a year round in her house at 46 uh septic systems uh remaining the same no significant impact on traffic flow and safety actually as Chris pointed out there's actually Improvement because now we're going to have two parking spaces off the roadway surface so we think that'll be an improvement and the um U now no impact on noise and litter so we believe that uh the project could be approved because we believe that uh it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing structure thank you thank you is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application please indicate seeing none I will read the correspondences there are six um first we have a note from Judith Georgio our health agent on jary 7th 2025 she reviewed the proposed plan it will not increase sewage flow at the property a full-size plan showing the location of all septic systems in the construction area will be needed to confirm offsets from the new dwelling to existing condominium systems and location of connection to system for this unit we have a note from Christina Basset who um represents the um historic uh Commission and she tells us this home just turned 75 years old on January 1 2025 and uh it needs to be reviewed by the CHC and there has not been an application there yet we we missed the birthday well we'll get to that later I'm sure um next we have a note from Lou and Lisa tanova and they tell us on January 4th 2025 they they live at 24 seist and they're in support of the application I have a note also from PM pans who uh resides at 57 C Miss Lane and that came in on December 30th 2024 she also um supports the building plan and design is appropriate for the area in keeping with 75 and 60 next door to them she's across looking at 48 and 75 and it will add charm to the area and and it's a better fit according to her than was allowed at 75 5 and 60 cist then we have a note from Jan and Bob Pierce 40 C Miss Lane on January 4th 2025 they appreciate being formed of the application and they do not object um next we have a note from William Flynn Tiffany hubanks and David T tagi sish Village condominium trustees that came in on January 8th 2025 by way of introduction we are the current Trustees of sish Village Condominium Association we understand the application requesting the approval for Demolition and rebuild the 48 seist we have no objection to the project on its face there is current procedural matters um that delay that is delaying Association approval the Standish V Village condominium Master deed includes the subject property and provides that any exterior change addition structure requires Express consent inwriting by the trustees um the the unit owners recently approved 150 square fet Fort easement for a common property the Third Amendment to the master deed is awaiting approval from landan court and registration with the bondable registry of deeds the third amendment was created and approved by the unit owners for the avoidance of Doubt on this point and approval granted on the subject proper in advance of the approval and registration of the third amendment would be in violation of the master deed as would be negatively impact the owner's percentage of ownership to Common property we do not want to hold up the permitting process um and we respectfully asked that the zoning board of appeals conditioned any approval on the recording of the third amendment and final approval of the Board of Trustees which requires review and approval of storm water management hard scaping and Landscaping and timing of construction activities please acknowledge this note and then they have also attached what they were talking about uh and that concludes the correspondences is there anybody here or Microsoft teams that wish to speak against this application or has a specific question yes one at a time I'll take the the gentleman with the white sweatshirt please do please go right up there everything is recorded on that microphone so that's why it's required that you go up there and just state your name and please my name is Ronald Marino we're at uh 37 and 49 seist Lane we are the abutters to the east of the project uh I've known we've all known uh Cindy Waters all our lives have no problem uh it's Our intention to be a good Good Neighbor uh we wish Cindy well and hope that she gets a nice nice house um however the house that's proposed will in every way have a significant significant impact on the views and Vistas it was just presented that this will be a slightly larger home than the others this is going to be Monument menal it's going to be like a giant water tower compared to all the others when it was stated earlier that most of the homes in that 10un group have already been enlarged they may have been modified or renovated but I would bet 95% of them still sit in their original footprint left to right north to south east to west so the overall square footage on its common portion of their Lots is still the same this one however will be enormous um Mr Riley indicated that himself that this one will be significantly larger to go and say that it will have minimal impact on the views in Vistas is completely inappropriate for this house the house itself is beautiful I would love to have that house however that house is going to go up right in front of our house directly in front of our house we currently have a beautiful view of Nantucket Sound in the hartch beaches that'll be completely gone I don't mean 50% gone I mean all of it will be gone they want to take the house that's there and knock it down and then they want to fill the land uh the architect I'm sorry I forgot your name said well we're going going to fill it a little bit and raise it a little bit no we're going to fill it and we're going to raise it 12 feet that's in that's bigger than one story so we now have that three-story house that exact house that he tried not to design that's what they're going to put there and you can see it from the from the drawings again we're not trying to to prevent or prohibit Cindy from getting a new home it'll be great for the neighborhood it'll be great for everybody just not that big and in front of us we might as well put up a giant billboard and paint it black we won't have any more view we'll have no sunsets to the left is a tree tree line to the right is uh the the upper portion um I'll be I'll be quick Our concern is the view and our loss of the view of Nantucket Sound um we've owned our house now my wife and my wife and I are now second generation owning that house uh one of our two sons is here he's third generation we don't intend to to sell the house we've we have people call us all the time because we have two houses on one parcel um we don't intend to sell Cindy indicated to me she's going to flip the house she's going to build this big thing and then flip it good for her hope she makes a ton of dough um but you know it's not like I'm getting with Cindy and saying geez you can have this beautiful home and you're going to live here with your kids no she's just going to flip it we're going to lose all of our view you know we had this issue before with all these little dog houses that keep popping up on the corner of a house that was an issue 25 years ago we all got over that and we learned to live with the little dogghouse now we've grown out of the doghouses and now we're going to knock the whole thing down and we're going to bring it up a little bit and we're going to go a little bit taller a whole another story when they say that they're in compliance at 30 feet my my question is is that in compliance at 30 feet from the existing grade today or from the filled grade proposed I don't know that answer um just so you know sir you have 35 seconds left all right um from there I'm going to leave it to uh to the others in the group okay very good very good I will acknowledge them um actually I didn't I didn't call on you yet sir so just wait a minute after he sits down we're going to announce again and then I will do my thing so is there anybody else here or on Microsoft teams that wish to speak against or has a specific question if so raise your hand very good go ahead sir hello my name is Ross Marino again I am residing at um 47 cus Lane and 30 uh I'm Excuse me 35 and 37 seus Lane um again I would just like to reiterate the fact that I am going to be a third generation owner I intend to have my uh kids of my own here and I want to share the same memories that I was able to make at this house as well and when this if this house were to go up um it would block our view of the sun uh in the afternoon portion um it would be very detrimental for being able to sit outside enjoying dinners um and I also think that it's going to um pose an issue to the view of the neighborhood um the other gentleman over here I forget your name I'm sorry had um mentioned that the other houses had also been brought up before um to grade with the street um after stopping by this afternoon and taking a look the other houses were not um throughout the neighborhood we've also had issues with flooding issues so we've had uh barriers put up along um property lines to prevent flooding away um and I think that I I don't see a need why why they need to bring their house to grade uh when everybody else uh in their proximity has not I think that's it thank you very much thank you very much is there anybody else here on Microsoft teams that we speak against I has a spe specific question yes ma'am just state your name and your case I am Sarah Marino um I have lived at 3 uh 7 and 49 C Miss Lane my actually since I was three um the neighborhood I've seen um before it was even it was owned by one person um originally I know when my dad um had owned the per uh the property it was told that we the houses could not go up any further than they already were things change bylaws change um I understand that um of course we want our property values to go up because who doesn't want that um and you know I wish all of my neighbors well it's not that I um dislike any of them however I feel as though this project is going to significantly affect our view um the neighborhood it's going to be honestly if they bring it up to grade that's where the door is we're going to be looking out our picture window window at their front door um and we're going to be having you know dinner on our deck um directly right across from their parking lot um parking is needed that that's a big thing for this neighborhood um we've had several issues uh not with C but the prior owners um when they were rentals they would park on the street and we couldn't even make the swing into our driveway um so that would be great to have off street parking um but again if we're going to bring all of that up does the house necessarily need to go go up with it um because again where are we starting from are we starting um the height from you know below grade or are we going to lift it and now we're going to go another you know a 30 foot um that's that's a lot we're a single floor home um where we're at so I'm a little concerned about about that um obviously the neighborhood is a Summer Rental Community we have several um weeks rented already for next you know next summer um and so you know having noise and whatnot at that time of year um you know that would be of a concern too um again I'm not opposed to changes being made or even the footprint of the house changing but it's just the height of the house um I really do have an issue with um and I think that's probably um you know probably the biggest Con coming very good thank you is there anybody else here or Microsoft teams that wish to speak against or has a specific question about this application if so raise your hand going once nope okay so at this point we will go with questions from the board David Nixon excuse me oh wait yes I'm sorry Mr Riley you need to your autal time yes thank you very I always forget that part the um I appreciate the concerns of the marinos uh but you know we've only brought the top of foundation up two feet uh so I I mean right now the existing top of foundation is 33.538325 fet so I think that you know the characterization uh things aren't as bad as the marinos have made them sound at least in our opinion I understand their concerns about their View and the as you know uh we had a Supreme Court case that dealt with views in that instance it was determined that the views that are protected by our bylaw our neighborhood views and not the views of a single property owner so the uh you know we think we think the changes are reasonable and we ask that you approve it thank you okay anything else no no okay thank you so much so now we're going to go with questions from the board I'm going to start with David Nixon uh Chris let's talk about the height if we can please yeah and I just told what Mr Riley said but if we're comparing the the height of the Ridge today with the height of the ridge you designed what is the difference I don't have the exact difference on that let's see um 12T it's about 12 feet is it about 12 y so 12 feet correct right okay all right um when you designed the house and I I think you said um the owner wanted to keep the number of bedrooms at 3 and it's just that she wanted expansion for the different things and as Mr Riley put in here it's a rental so I presume this enhances the value of the rental you know the more space and all that kind of stuff um did you design a home for her that wasn't 12 ft higher that she rejected or you didn't feel answered her needs I started basically by trying to as I spoke earlier about I tried to get the parking um so that was reasonable it's 2 feet beneath the road so there's still going to be runoff coming onto this lot from the road as there currently is so I kind of started there to try and get a reasonable front yard so it wasn't 5 ft below uh the street um and she had always wanted a second floor so they kind of work together now you know I I uh initially lifted the house three feet we dropped it down at the request of the trustees uh to the point where I think it was 2 and 1/2t um I could technically Drop it Down by a little bit more um ultimately if I drop it down another foot I don't know if that really helps the argument that's being made um the house is sitting on the same footprint except that we're filling in this 126 by 12T area as other people within the condominium complex have done um and that was where the 150 square ft came from uh that the trustees bind us to so um so we started with filling that in and then adding the second floor and you know I I did my best to erode the front so that it did not have the appearance of being a a really big house um I think by any other measure it probably isn't a very big house but it s does sit on a hillside but that hillside's on the opposite side of the house from there so they're not perceiving that they're perceiving the one and a half story house on on their side so um did I look at at any other way way of approaching it no I always looked at having a second floor it's just a question is it one foot lower than where it currently is or is it it where it currently is um Mr Riley in your um analysis that just submitted to us if I read this right the gross floor analysis that the proposed house is 350% larger than the current house is that correct that's because we have to include the basement in our calculation but yeah math is the math yeah no I understand but uh the math is correct my math is correct the math is consistent so the size as proposed by us of the gross floor area is consistent with the gross floor areas of most of the other uh homes in the condominium that's why it was approved by the trustees okay I don't have any other questions at this time thank you Jenny questions Chris um what is the height of the ceilings in the second floor in the second floor second floor well first floor too uh second floor is uh I show an 8 foot first floor I show an 8 foot2 um if it again it's kind of like dropping the first floor I can drop it a foot I could drop each of those 4 Ines ultimately it doesn't achieve much of a goal this house is you know well enough under the 30 foot um that we're you know allowed to to work with in chadam um I don't know that your perception of the house would change dramatically if I did that maybe with the one foot dropping the first floor I can I can do that but the rest of it I'm not sure it makes much of a difference um well let's talk about the height I'm seeing two different numbers on your reg2 I see 288 five and on the application the number you know on the the proposed on the application is 28.9 and I showed 28 foot1 which is 28.9 okay on on on this add then it says 282 so I want so so it's it's a foot and a few inches from the maximum okay and and by the way the the uh proposed and the existing grade planes are are uh3 foot off of each other the initial grade plane uh as existing is 31.1 and the proposed is 30.8 so it's a little bit a little bit lower so C can you also go to R6 and I'm looking at the North elevator because that that is uh what you're going to see when you're driving down towards the house from the beginning of the lane correct correct and it does look like a three-story house because of the windows that you see the basement level windows that you see now this this part in the front where the steps are is that what you're talking about where you're you're filling in that grade so that it's better it's more at street level yeah I'm filling in uh basically just in front of the house to get that driveway to get that so that it's 2 feet below the street but that is a visual I I believe in supporting what the neighbors were talking about with respect to we're we're raising the grade and then we're building the house you know this larger taller house on top of that that that's we're not disputing that that's correct but you know the idea is uh you don't want driveway water running up against the foundation so nationally you keep so yeah but as Chris has pointed out we didn't raise the grade of the yard up to the street level we're still going to receive runoff from the street okay I mean the the implication was that we were elevating the structure uh unreasonably and all Chris did was bring it up so we could have some parking spaces we're still below street level mhm okay thank you yeah I can't solve the problem of parking unless I do this yeah and so if I go three feet down I can't get a a ramp to it so two feet down was what I what I thought was reasonable uh to get a ramp down at both ends of the property uh and they allowed me I think 14 feet from the edge of a the house and that was the furthest I could go for a a curb cut um so you know this achieves getting the car off of the easement which it shouldn't be on to start with and it gets the cars the second car off the road so and if I could just put make one point with regard to so so the house is 289 from the grade plane okay the grade plane is 2 feet below the street level the Marino's property is somewhat elev ated from the street I I mean the our proposed use of the property is reasonable you know I mean if we brought the grade plane up to the street level you know I could understand well they might say well you're you're being unreasonable you're filling right up to the top and you're but we we're not even doing that we're we're still two feet below the street level well your existing home is more than 2 feet below the the street level so you're making that Improvement I I want to touch on what Mr Nixon was asking Chris um with respect to and you know what you can share with respect to what the app you know the homeowner wants I think it's true and great that the parking is a would be a much desired Improvement and I I think you started there um and so a second story is a is a desire too was there any discussion about maybe you can't have both like how about a one and a half story or something like that because you're solving the parking which makes a lot of sense but you're raising things to to solve that and then on top of that you're adding a full Second Story actually we're not it actually it's a it's a one and a half story building by Chris's definition I mean he's the architect not me I'm just the lawyer I mean that's one and a half would you say that's one and a half stories on on the other side is what I said uh on this side it presents as a a two and a half I suppose we've carved out the soil to at the base to allow a door um again I can drop the whole thing of foot the the basement is more than 50% in the ground so by definition I don't even think it's a basement I think it's a seller technically um but semantics but um yes this is a two and a half story on on this particular side west side on the on the sides I mean the ground slopes off there's not much I can do about that we did not change the grades on the side yeah and the and again just where we starting from is the living area on the first floor is 960 square feet there's no basement today no seller no there's a basement but I'm saying the living area on the first floor it's only 9964 Square fet it's not like we're talking about a 2,000 foot first floor and a building on top of it 964 Square ft right it's a cottage it's a cottage yeah and well well I don't want to get into deliberations yet I have one more question um I want to talk about the letter that the trustees wrote um and I know we've got some attorneys on our board here but um is there no concern about the comment that current procedural matter delaying the association approach approval and an approval granted for this property in advance of the approval and registration of the outstanding Third Amendment would be in violation of the master deed what is any concern there for that uh actually no the uh so actions of the zoning board have no effect whatsoever on real estate rights and the the concern the the real concern of the trustees is that work not be begun on the project physically on the project uh until the Board of Trustees has voted to approve it you know with regard to drainage and they mentioned a couple of other things and the the um and speaking with u our Building Commissioner or at least my understanding of what the building commissioners position is uh is that well first of all we wouldn't start construction without having approval from the trustees that's that that's a violation of the condominium so we're not going to do that my understanding is that the billing permit wouldn't be issued until we have a vote of the trustees so that so that you know the town staff is not concerned about it and the uh you know and one of the things they also ask for is that your decision be conditioned yeah on their approval yeah and uh that's an abdication of your responsibility and really completely inappropriate you know the reality is we're going to comply with the Condominium Association requirements part of the problem is if I can tell you a little story can can we not do little stor questions and answers how about if I just clarify that our Building Commissioner is not going to give you a permit until all the requirements are satisfied yeah and we also you need to come to us first before you go to your condo association and you are here to make sure that this wasn't out of sequence no it's not okay no that was that was the question good excellent uh Dave questions um I just want to I'm getting more confused the more numbers that get tossed around so just to clarify Chris did did the um grade plane it proposed is lower than the existing grade plane was or slightly higher three foot lower 3 feet lower than the existing grade existing okay I think that's a I think that's a product of the fact that because they elevated one side the other side is I'm going to let our Building Commissioner if that's okay Mr Riley sure he indicated he wanted to comment whereas height is such an issue I want to say in addition to the 30 foot height height requirement we have we have a two and a half story height requirement and when I look at these plans it looks like they might have to do some additional grading so that the basement level is not considered a story and this is not considered a three-story home but to the to the point you were making about the building permit we require in a Condominium Association we require a letter of approval from the association before we release the building permit so that wouldn't be an issue no no very good go ahead Mr V okay um and the uh the other thing uh that I'm I'm I'm looking at the maps online situation here in the and the grade Contours uh and I'm trying to get because I'm trying to get a sense um and it shows it appears to show that in this area I would say maybe the um elevation of the street is somewhere around elevation 38 excuse me um and when I look then uh on the other side at uh um the property at 3749 um I'm seeing Contour at 42 and 40 as and up to 44 feet uh in that on that property I don't know if there's anybody here that can confirm that or not um I'm just wanted to make that statement that what I'm seeing on the contour maps I mean I can't confirm them without the a map of of uh house next door but I can tell you they're well elevated it is elevated we're going uphill as we get certainly as we get to the street and Beyond the street the pit the grade is increasing yes to the homes on the other side of the street okay um and um you with you've said that you know you might be able to change the floor level by a fo or so and still accomplish what you sought to accomplish with the parking and all Etc without other changes that to correct me if I'm wrong but that would mean that the um re the the change in the ridge elevation would be a foot less so instead of 12 feet it would be like 11 ft yeah I could I could make that work I mean I I can shelf the foundation in a way that I can I can do that we don't typically start there yeah but but but you're saying what I think what you what you're presenting is the es you could do that but you're not convinced that that's really going to um change significantly change the appearance uh or perceived appearance correct unless you're looking up over the top of the house I don't know that it really helps you yeah and yes are you looking up over the top of it if it's a one story perhaps but a two story now yeah okay um I think that's all I have thanks very good Ed questions I guess I'll try and test Bill's history here were I assume were all of these just one-story cottages at one point yes in fact the uh this cottage which was owned by a guy named Norbert Kelly who was really a fabulous Guy this is absolutely original completely unchanged um I actually represented Miss waters's sister who owned 46 back in 2005 when we I think I'm not certain that was the first change down there but I do know that we because we're expanding the footprint uh we were going over the and the coverage was already over 10% we had to come here for a special permit and so uh you know so they all they all looked more or less exactly like this Cottage looks today yeah and number 18 I imagine 18 looks to be the only other one that's a single story still my not there there's at least two yeah there's two this one and I believe number 18 is a single story as well I mean I think I think there's a current I think there's a total of three that haven't been modified okay and this is one of the 10 yeah okay right thank you um we already went to Mr Nixon we're going to Paul questions uh do you have any uh anything that would give us a perspective of the uh building as proposed um looking at it from the road with other buildings around it would give us some feel for what it's going to look like in the neighborhood I don't have anything I mean I don't U you know unlike other houses in the neighborhood this one's already set down several feet most of them either you're looking laterally at them uh or you're looking up at them um and most of them are twostory uh in this condominium complex everything across the street is elevated anyway um this one's unique it's you know as I've said it's about 5T below the street so um and and it's pretty unusual and not too many people want to live 5 ft below Street um so you know we kind of started there by trying to get it to a reasonable elevation and still at 2 feet I typically wouldn't design a house 2 feet below the street I typically try to put it up above the street um but not in this case and the whole back side of the house the uh in effect the three-story side um is uh is not seen from the road and it ref it reflects on 46 as opposed to 48 that's correct okay I have no other questions very good um Lee questions um yeah I mean obviously I'm not an architect I think this house is very attractive is there anything that can be done to the second floor to decrease the mass I mean the second flooor is lovely there's two bedrooms large bedrooms and a room for a lounge I just I don't know just throwing it out there as a any well I I think I you know eroded the front as you know about as much as I could to to get what I was asked to get in it um and uh you know that was my My ultimate goal was to really erode the front the part that was going to face people outside of the condominium complex um the back I was a little bit less concerned with that because I knew it looked out onto a house that that my client owns um and you know other people within the complex don't seem to uh don't seem to mind it but um you know again you know I can drop the house a foot I I just don't think ultimately it really achieves the goal um and you know it's it has the appearance of being a two and a half three story because we carved out where the door needs to be otherwise it's in the ground and absolutely two and a half story and I point out that the second floor living area is only 9914 square feet so I mean I appreciate your concern but it's it's really a small cottage okay um any more Le any more questions no Steve go for it um do you do you have any sort of calculation for the height at the rear of the house from let's say the basement floor to the ridge uh I think that's really a question from Jay maybe Mr Building Commissioner do you happen to know that I did not look at that no okay I'm still looking at the story thing and yeah for for a two and a half story house half stories only applied to the uppermost floor or the uppermost story it doesn't apply the other to the lower story so like I said I think there's some grading that needs to be done to prevent that basement level from becoming a story by definition in the bylaw so what we have before us now how would you characterize it well as it is right now I think it's a three-story but I think that with minimal grading they can achieve two story okay good to know Steve all right because I ask because I'm concerned that from the rear of the house that's potentially if if the ridge if the ridge from the front of the house is at almost 30 ft if you look at the back of the house the ridge of the house is going to be 40 ft the no we we measure from the grade plane I understand that okay so the grade plane includes the rear of the house as well as the front of the house I know but if I'm if I'm standing in the yard of number 46 yeah can I just stop you there it's not 40 feet it's 28 fo 10 and that's about 2 and 1/2 ft above the slab of the of the cellar so you know 31 ft maybe um but the thing is that the grade around the back uh of the house in much of the house is already at the uh basically at the median grade plane so it's going to be somewhere about 30 feet is what the back of the house would be I'm going to call on our Building Commissioner I just checked it on the site plan and it's 31.4 ft on the back from the grade to the ridge okay thank you because that's what the that's what the folks behind it are going to see uh whether or not the the owner lives there there now that probably is not going to be in perpetuity so um that's that was the only concern that I have because it that is going to look like a massive wall in their backyard yeah okay that's it very good so that was your question so I have a question is your last name Marino I think just nod your head um it doesn't matter one of the three of you if you could approach the mic I have a question thank you sir um just state your name my name is Ross Marino okay so Mr Marino um your family owns two houses correct that's correct and would you characterize the uh view that you you think is going to be impaired from both of those houses I would say so yes yeah and you're very familiar with the neighborhood yes and would you be able to say State whether or not any of the other neighbors are going to have imped views yes we have uh neighbors to the right of us the molins and there are um neighbors behind us as well that I would imagine their view would also be obstructed and when you say you imagine it is you've been there near their house and you could you know that you're very familiar with the area yes yeah um the master bedroom on the second floor of our house is directly in front of their view behind us so what does that make four houses that are going to have an impaired View yes yeah do you think there's any more um I mean there are also a number of houses um near the tides Motel the street behind us that also I would imagine have views of um n Tucket sound from that height yeah okay thank you very much absolutely appreciate that am I able to add one thing I believe that um uh no you're not okay I'm sorry absolutely I'm pretty strict so I Madam chair yes the uh I'm glad we have Ross's imaginings but you know to suggest that because he thinks there may be some impairment of use from the properties behind them I don't think he just imagined it he's been he just said I imagine and then when I I qualified that imagination from his personal experience so I think I think he basically unless his personal experience was being on those properties and looking this way maybe he has been and I could call him back and ask him if he's been to those would you you want me to sure okay M Mr Marino thank you just state your name once more just for the record yes my name is Bross right now and your address uh 37 SE Miss Lane and 49 SE Miss Lane okay so that's two um and you've been to those two houses and you've been able to State an opinion about what happens with the view of this is built as as is unequivocally and you've been to the other house what what other houses have you been to on that street as a child I rode my bike All Around Town nearly every day um well we're just talking about the houses in that neighborhood absolutely uh the street behind there I've been to um uh we also just had a surveyor come out into our uh land with the abing neighbors behind us like I had mentioned um I have been walking around the properties looking at different views and I was there this afternoon to take photos did you form an opinion on whether or not other views would be obstructed yes and what is that opinion I found that uh from standing where the other neighbors houses were uh they would also be uh have an obstructed view with the current proposed house approximately how many houses in that neighborhood including our own yeso approximately five or six all right very good thank you so much yes does anybody else have any questions yeah if I could just comment sure so Mr Marino was was on foot when he was looking and the those properties have to look over his house to see our house so I would suggest that uh that is not the way to construct a neighborhood survey so can I just ask you one thing so what is it the kener case that says one one view is not enough corre correct right does it say if two are cuz they do own two homes I mean I don't know if the K says two is not I'm just saying I don't know if it says two is not enough because I mean the hes they own two homes but it's just one piece of property well it's one piece of one piece of property with 10 houses on it I B you pardon it's one piece of property here with no I'm talking about the Marino's property yeah yeah they they have two houses but it's just a single piece of property well so I think the K I think the kener case uh is in force here and I don't believe I my own sense is that Mr Marino's walking around the neighborhood okay as Guided by your questions is a is a biased Viewpoint okay so I have not met Mr arino before today I just say that for the record and um yeah so um you knowe you we note your objection that's fine does anyone else have any questions no so Paul I'll move to close I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations dve second and votes yes I vote Yes all votes yes jny jeny votes yes as do I okay so deliberations Steve um well I I think there's there's things that can be done to this house to lower the height I think it is going to affect um the view from not only these neighbors but from others I think the view from from the folks down the hill is going to be affected at 40 and 46 regardless of whether the owner owns those properties um I think something could be done to reconfigure the house two or three bedrooms is not a necessity um it could be reconfigured with two bedrooms there's already one bedroom in the basement um so I think there's things that can be done to um to lower this house and make it more compatible with the neighborhood okay thank you Lee uh well as I said earlier I think the house is very attractive um I I it my gut reaction when I first saw it was wow it's kind of it's big it's much it seems much bigger than a lot of the other houses um in the neighborhood um I appreciate Chris's efforts to erode the front and I do like the front I and once again I like the house um just it's just very it's very tricky um I I mean I would encourage anything that can be done to make it lower okay I'm not voting today but so thank you thank you so much Ed if you could uh um deliberate well I I think the the applicant has the right to put a second Story on on this property um the genie sort of out of the bottle already as far as this development um there's I only saw two houses that are still one story may maybe I missed one this one and I think it was 18 um it's it's tough it's a it's a walk out basement in the back so it it is it's it's tough not to you know make it look you know small smaller you know you need to have room for a door there and um that's typical for you know a walk out basement uh there's there's probably opportunity to reduce it uh the height a little bit uh it's pretty much on the exact footprint um but again I don't know if reducing it by a foot or so is really going to make that much of a difference so that's where I stand um Mr Nixon well something's missing here and what's missing is our ability to judge Heights of you know one to the other and all that so I hate to bring up this subject but this is a perfect case where a 3D presentation of that neighborhood would answer so many of these questions that we have and so don't the neighbors I mean uh I I feel for the neighbors but uh uh I also think they would need to see uh a 3D presentation to really say well yeah okay maybe it's not so bad maybe it's all right and uh short of that I would have trouble uh voting in the affirmative for this tonight because I just don't think I have enough information to be convinced that the house isn't let's take our criteria to me at the moment at flunks number two compatibility of the size of the structure with the Nabor own properties I I don't think it does uh five impact of the scale Mass on the neighborhood visual character and all that as we've said you know maybe it does maybe it doesn't let's find out and number six a compatibility of well I'll leave that one out but those two uh are my Hang-Ups and I could not vote Yes tonight unless I saw some something like a 3D presentation to answer these questions Jenny so I don't disagree with Ed that um the Genie's out of the bottle a little bit with that um there have been a lot of renovations to this Cottage Community um but and I understand that the views you're not entitled to a view certainly a single homeowner um so so there's that that but um I I I do want to come back to the I agree with Mr Nixon two and five I'm struggling with I think the ask is too great for a cottage Community this is a cottage and I understand I agree that they're they want to go up they want to make improvements expand and they have every right to do that but I think a foot from the maximum height allowed in all of chadam in a cottage community on a 99,100 ft lot and asking for um improvements to 2700 57 square foot floor area is too big of an Ask of the Improvement to that so that's I I'm I I think it doesn't meet two and five okay uh Steve did we go no we already Yes Paul well uh the reason I asked the question about perspective in the neighborhood and the other dwellings has been part reflected by uh Mr Nixon and his uh suggestion um I would feel more comfortable I think uh in voting affirmatively here if we had a better perspective on how this is actually going to look in the neighborhood and perhaps with some information about where the where the uh uh and I'm thinking not so much just about the view from uh the IND individuals who have spoke tonight right but also about the view of the of the building itself in the neighborhood um I walk that uh neighborhood fairly frequently uh I'm familiar with the elevation on the right hand side as you come up from the beach and on the left hand side the lower uh areas that uh 48 and 46 are involved with uh but I think that additional information may get you through a positive result here uh if that could be provided uh but I'm reluctant to uh to vote affirmatively given the two criteria that have been cited um without some additional information and Mr vich you well I I do um uh is kind of as soon as the neighbors presented the their their viewpoint with respect to the blocking of views and things like that realize that I I felt like someone at a disadvantage because I I didn't had I had that information uh earlier I I would have gone taken another look get another take on the neighborhood but I haven't had a chance to do that so that's okay um I I think probably um given um that what um Chris has said about the um his reasons for elevating the the top of the foundation and the first floor and the parking issu I I certain I out there looking at geez parking is is definitely an issue here in this area um and and to achieve getting a couple parking spaces I think is a very valuable uh contribution to that property and to the neighborhood um and looking at you know the best I can do now looking at the The Contours on map that I have and kind of you know trying to if I if I had to guess uh today I I guess I think I would guess that that this may not be in as presented uh were we to approve it it may not have the impact that some of the neighbors are um fearing uh to that degree anyway I mean often views are are I mean we've had not in this instance but sometimes here we've had people um um um present to us that that they were losing views and things in in other instances and when I looked at the situation I said well you know sometimes they have this much View and maybe this much of it is impacted and so I mean I know that that perceptions uh can do that um so I guess if I if I were all that considered um if if I were voting tonight which it looks like we may not be um I could uh support it but I would rather have the opportunity to assess the situation with respect to impact on views uh um myself Andor via a presentation that would help clarify it I don't I I I don't feel as uh and this this would be with respect to the neighbors on on um see Miss Lane across the street and things with regard to the the um apparent three stories on the other side and and whatever Jay indicates that that that might be able to be officially resolved with some grading issues um and uh which would be fine um you know I I there you know I can drive along uh say Route 28 between chadam and Orleans and and look across um Ryder's Cove and see any number of homes that you know can pre present that way it's a it's a function of the the um uh the grade that the the home situated and and in in my experience or judgment in a situation like this when people are talking about views and Vistas that's ve very much about views and this is of the water and the marshes and the various things not so much turning and looking uphill at the houses uphill behind them so I'm not as concerned about that that Viewpoint or that impact on the neighbors neighborhood views and vce it's more about on the other side so um I guess that's okay well thank you thank you for your input um Mr Riley oh Madam chair I would like to request a continuing so we can obtain the information that we think will be helpful to the members and uh well first let's see when that would be till and then we'll need at least six weeks yeah you're going to March 13th I'm doing laundry that day but I could probably make time we could go further into March if you'd like well we just you know he's just pregaming from for the 17th March 13th um does anybody object to that want to comment no okay prefer the 27th no I don't know March 27 yeah would you like that that's fine okay Paul all right I'll move to Grant the requested continuance to March 27 2025 uh Dave V second and votes yes yes all votes yes Jenny votes yes as do I unanimous thank you very much and we're going to take a five minute recess e e e e e e e e e e e e e so that has hurt in the sense that all right we are back and uh we are um now on application 24141 with Mr William litfield at 83 old m Road when SE is ready application number 24141 next wve LLC care of William G Lichfield Esquire 330 Orleans Road North chadam Mass 02650 owner of property located at 83 old M Road also shown on the town of chadam assessor map 14i Block 17 lot 15a the applicant seeks to enlarge extend or change a non-conforming dwelling and a non-conforming lot via the demolition of the existing dwelling and garage and the construction of a new dwelling the proposed dwelling will comply with all bulk ventional requirements of the bylaw but is considered a substantial alteration and under the second accept Clause of section 6 of Mass General law CH 4A such substantial alteration requires the grant of a special permit the existing building coverage is 1,216 square ft and the proposed building coverage is 2,815 square ft where 2850 ft is the maximum allowed the law is non-conforming and that it contains 22,170 ft or 40,000 square feet is required in the R40 zoning District a special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the bylaw attorney Lichfield welcome thank you madam chair members of the board Bill Lichfield here in behalf of Tom Blakeley who is here in the room uh Tom with his family and his son is here as well Tom and his family are longtime chatam visitors also with us is our architect Mike McKay of McKay Architects and our engineer Tom Stell is here here online we thank you for coming back to 83 old Mail Road which you visited last May I think in regard to plans proposed by another applicant um when you went out there depending how you went onto o Mail Road you may have noticed that the numerous potholes in the street are only a bit worse than they were in the spring uh in any case when Tom Blakeley first approached me about buying this property which was shortly after uh the plans from the spring were not well received and were ultimately withdrawn I suggested that he watched the tape of the hearing uh and that he and Mike his architect take the take to heart the comments and concerns expressed by this board about the previous prop proposal and that he also speak with neighborhood residents to understand some of their concerns uh Tom Blakeley did both and the plans which we are presenting uh today are I think you can find both respectful of and responsive to those comments uh it resulted in multiple versions and redesigns of the house prior to what you see today in order to address your thoughts as well as the challenges of the site but also to design something that was completely compliant with our zoning bylaw which is here the case um as you know the comparison you need to make is not to the prior plans rather to what exists at present I have considerable familiarity with this property because as everyone at least in the neighborhood knows uh the dogs and I walk by it at noon about every day and have done so for almost a quarter of a century and as you know from your site visits uh the existing structures which have multiple non-conformities despite or regardless of those nonconformities are on their legs there's a rather sad story as to how it got that way into which there's no reason to go right now but unlike the prior petitioner Tom went ahead and purchased the house notwithstanding the challenges he knew he would be facing but I think important to keep in mind the overarching question uh that you will be answering whether the proposal is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and to the neighbors than what now exists so I'd like to ask Mike McCay if he could if I could madam to talk a little bit about the house he's designed then I'll go into the criteria please yes thank you good evening Madam chair and members of the board Michael McKay I'm the project architect I've worked with Tom on on the house that they currently live in um and he asked me to come down to chat him I I designed a house couple of streets over and worked with Bill about 10 years ago we were reminiscing and the style of this house was something that Tom and his his family like the one at Stony St Tony Hill so we took some of the clues from that house and brought it into this so the the rendering um or the rendered elevation let's put it that way it's it looks like it's a flat lot as you know the site drops off pretty dramatically from front to back um we have pushed the house back to the 40ft setback requirement requiring us to add quite a bit of fill um in the front but it also allows for a the scale of it from the Street to be more appropriate it's 24'6 from the street to the top of the ridge um as the site because it drops off the average grade we are just under the requirement um of we're 29.7 fet we're about four or five inches below the requirement but the um from the street and the views actually going on both sides we're proposing to flatten out the yard and have the drop off um be in the rear in the rear I think that the question came up earlier I'll just answer that question on the previous project we are 31 foot three from finished grade in the back to the top of the ridge uh but the average um grade just works out to um 29.7 ft um it's a sort of a modified colonial style that we've designed um we think you know appropriate there's two two bedrooms in the middle portion we consider this to be a one and a half story house uh because of the the wings and the way the math Works uh works out on stories but um again it drops off pretty pretty dramatically um and we've done our best to uh to work with that but also it's stepped back so far at 40 ft visibility from the street it will appear like a like a smaller um smaller home um so I think that's it for now thank you thank you very much Mike as to the criteria as to adequacy of site including building coverage and set packs all of the Lots in the neighborhood are non-conforming but our lot is one of the larger ones on the street the site is certainly adequate for residential use not withstanding the existing Street and sideline setback non-conformities I think you can find that the site is adequate for construction of a new home which again meets all dimensional uh requirements setbacks and height uh that is it's completely compliance zoning and it's designed as I said earlier to be responsive to neighborhood and zba concerns as the compatibility of size on the third page of the handout I have uh gone from halfway down old mail road before the corner all the way to the end of Stony Hill um we have a larger lot uh but the existing and rather tired structures are among the smallest with living area of just 1,000 square ft F feet and a footprint of 12200 Square ft 5.5% of the lot the coverage the living area and gross floor area increase if you approve the special permit but while it's a change from what's there now it is not incompatible it is smaller than some on the street or which are immediate abutters uh and as Mike indicated it's moved about 35 feet further back from the street eliminating the nonconformity meeting the setback requ requirement and it will be diminished in terms of its scale because of that as to the extent of increase of nonconformity Sarah enumerated the not the existing non-conformities there is no increase of non-conformity none whatsoever rather this is totally conforming and all the deficiencies are eliminated as to suitability of site we have an older residential neighborhood developed in the 1950s 1960s there are no environmental issues uh there is at present a Cess pool replacing the ESS pool with a three-bedroom Title Five septic system will be an obvious Improvement and very early on uh I told Tom uh to consider the tree uh that was a concern of some members one member of the board characterized herself as a tree hugger and I appreciate that um and I'll talk later about that but Tom consulted with a certified Arborist had him examined the popler tree and he recommended it that it be removed and replaced as to scale sighting Mass views and Vistas the existing house and garage have certainly seen far better days been neglected for a number of years but there's no impact on views and Vistas if you approve the special permit you can do so on a f based on a finding that while plainly larger the scale remains appropriate with cedar shingle sidewalls architectural shingle roofing uh compared to the current structure it will have a significant positive impact on the streetcape and again the mass is reduced by sighting at 40 odd feet back from the street as to compatibility of use there's a slight change we currently have no use we have nominal residential use but it will become actual residential use once this house is built as the adequacy of water and sewer the is Town water assess pool three bedrooms the chair will read a letter from the health agent indicating that we will have a Title Five or three bedrooms when we get to that point the uh the utilities and so forth are not an issue and the Blake leaves are not known for being noisy so that shouldn't be a problem the question is as you know whether the proposed new house with greater but compatible gross floor area and living area is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the frankly dilapidated structures on a non-conforming lot again the house meets all the requirements of our bylaw and as part of a gradual Evolution and Improvement of this neighborhood U given the impact on uh the surroundings of the current structure against which this must be compared I think you can find the proposed house to be an improvement and certainly not substantially more detrimental as Mike indicated the design of the proposed house incorporates traditional elements such as the cedar shingle and uh was developed after a thorough review of uh the prior plans which were rejected as I said while the comparison you have to make isn't to those prior plans I do want to address some of the comments and issues which arose at the hearing in May as I mentioned we had an arborous look at the tree the last page of the handout is a copy of an email from Tim Kent a certified Arborist who examined the tree at Tom's request and who concluded that it should be removed and replaced with a better species uh yes we did consider working around the tree uh but after Tim's evaluation we headed in a different direction and from for that matter if you noted the vine covered pine trees leaning out over old Mail Road something may have to be done about them as well uh but the likel will be doing an appropriate Landscaping we considered your comments about how the prior proposal at 84 ft wide was wider than the new house at 41 Old mail uh that house is only 81 ft wide this house is 72 ft wide it is 12 12 ft more narrow than what was proposed which you found to be too large mass and sighting were a concern and we understand that so we decided to go to the expense of and Engineering for uh bringing in Phil to allow the house to meet the 40 foot setback from the street as many of you thought would be preferable on the site plan Tom Stell has shown a top of Bank line uh running right through the house I don't know whether the backyard was once an old borrow pit or what it was but as Mike has indicated we'll be raising the elevation on the front west side by about 3 feet and a little bit on the East but exercising appropriate and necessary caution to make sure that roof runoff doesn't go onto any neighboring properties and that's specified in notes 12 and 13 of the site plan we did consider doing a garage under down in the back it just wasn't feasible it didn't work one of the better aspects of the hearing in May is that thanks to Mr Nixon we now have a definition of bonus room a room ready to be something else after the certificate of occupancy is issued we don't have a bonus room we are cognizant of that concern we did not design one you'll note in the site plan that St Tom Stell has shown a quote conceptual future pool location that's not because we've proposed or decided to build a pool we haven't but rather because Tom Stell asked me whether we should show a possible location for one and I told him yes because I expected the question might arise and also because while I have a lot of faults being disingenuous with you is not one for which I want to be known so there is not a concrete plan concrete may be the wrong word there's not a specific plan for a pool but I wanted to show you where it might go in case it came up indirectly related we did not ask the neighbors to sign a form letter we think more of them and of you and while we understand that there is not Universal support for this proposal I know the chair will allow me to respond to a negative comment there are also a number of supportive letters which are not form letters perhaps most tellingly the immediate abutters across the street and on either side those who are most impacted by what's proposed as well as by what's there now support this proposal the proposed house has a gross floor of 5289 square ft previous proposal was 500 ft larger at 5778 will this house be larger than what's there now obviously but it's completely compliant as to zoning bylaw and in regard to the ladder and as Mike indicated we have a required grade plane average calculation but even when accounting for the hole in the middle of the lot we're below the maximum the front elevation is just 20 ft 24 ft from finished grade at the top of the ridge but mass and scale are important considerations so I want to take a final moment to acquaint you with another comparison and that is a floor area ratio chadam unlike a lot of towns doesn't have a floor area ratio bylaw but it's found in many Massachusetts communities and I think it's a good measure of mass it's obtained by dividing growth flow area by the lot size many land use Scholars think it's a better measure of an important question how big is that is going to be it's expressed as a decimal the higher the number the greater the math and it obviously takes into consideration coverage the number of stories and the lot size may be something you want to look at in the future for analysis but if you could look at it briefly now please by turning to the fourth page of the handout there was some discussion at the last hearing about the disparity between North and South sides of old Mail Road because the lot size on the South Side the old Josephine Atkin subdivision the lots are fairly small but floor area ratio takes lot size into consideration again the higher the decimal the greater the mass and if you look at that that sheet the right hand column has the floor area ratio interestingly this chart illustrates that there really isn't any Redline distinction between the two sides of the street the even house numbers are on the south or opposite side from this house and in in fact based on floor area ratio the four properties with highest floor area ratio are actually in the opposite side of the street so if you approve the special permit which I think and hope you can do the floor area ratio of the completely compliant house we seek to build will be very much in keeping with its surroundings it'll be at 0 24 where some on the street literally across the street are at. 35 in summary and I'm sure you'll appreciate that word what's there now is unfortunately something of a detriment to the neighborhood and what is proposed will be in my opinion and that of many if not all of the Neighbors in Improvement but in light of the criteria and the plans especially in comparison to what's there now uh what has been something of a neighborhood sour spot for quite some time I think that you can certainly find that the proposed house is not substantially more detrimental be happy to answer any questions thank you very much is there anybody here Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application if so please raise your hand seeing none I will read the correspondences there are several but none of them are particularly long uh January 7th 2025 we get a note from Judith Georgio our health agent she reviewed the proposed plan for the property it will not increase sewage flow a a new three-bedroom septic system is proposed and appears to meet the requirements of Title 5 full plans and permit application will be um required before PRI before a final approval Christina Basset tells us on January 6 2025 that the Department of Community Development historical commission um reviewed the application and found the home not to be historically significant then we have a note um from Jacqueline crims 110 Old Mail Road in chadam she does not support the construction of the new dwelling that's proposed according to special permit criteria she tells us that the plan will be detrimental and it does not meet criteria number 53 no 2 35 and 11 as set forth by the board Old Mill Road is in R40 Zone but the site is on the south west side of the street ranging which ranges from 8,000 uh Square ft to 13 approximately a quar of an acre the site size on the northeast side of the street ranges from 21,000 Square fet to 30 approximately a half an acre there is a disparity of size sites no site sizes however the eight dwellings in directly in direct proximity to 83 are relatively homogeneous in dwelling grow feet it's range from 1500 to 20 2300 s ft with a median medium of 2,000 square ft the proposed new construction would have a gross floor area of 5,699 99 Square ft including a screen porch the proposed structure is not compatible to the neighboring properties as required in criteria two as for criteria three the current dwelling has a gross floor area of 2107 square feet there is approximately 2 and a half% which is two and a half% um the current gross floor area so she's saying basically the house is two and a half size two and a half times bigger also the new dwelling will border on the maximum Building height of 30 feet which is the with the proposed height being 297 most of the dwellings are 1 and a half story capes or ranches the proposed dwelling is not conforming in nature number five deals with the impact of scale sighting and mass and and visual character the scale and mass Vis visually of the proposed dwelling dwelling will be out of character with the neighborhood number 11 deals with visual impact not only is the gross uh floor area out of character with the neighborhood but the Gambrell style is also out of character also noted is the proposed pool um in my opinion will negatively impact um the street and noted by the author the property at 41 old male is considered an OU outlier with a site size of 45,000 Square fet um and a dwelling set back approximately 154 ft from the road the proposed dwelling at 83 will not be homogeneous with the neighborhood and will not enhance the neighborhood character it will be an overbuilt Gambrell style out of character with the dwellings please do not approve this application next we have a shorter note from Kathleen Edwards from January 88th 2025 she wishes to add further thoughts to her letter and support that she had already sent at about 83 the proposed um Gambrell roof design is attractive very common among new construction she thinks it'll fit well in the neighborhood as it fits in other areas of the Town further a is asked that the board limit its approval to proposals that keep the same or nearly the same height footprint and square footage of the existing house in my opinion that's untenable it's not worth it for any family to do um to gut and Rehab a house or to build a house similar in height footprint and square footage it would make no Financial sense if this bill this proposal is turned down I believe it'll be years before anything happens at 83-year old male except slow decay of what's there now and that's Kathleen Edwards 62 old Mail Road in chadam Debbie and Randall Harwood tell us on January 8th 2025 that they reside at 101 old mail old Mail Road and our immediate above is to 83 they saw the plans and they think it'll be an improvement they understand that the proposed house meets all the requirements of the zoning law and they're writing in support it's appropriate much needed change and will not be detrimental to the neighborhood they hope it's approved then we have a note from Ma marel and maen and she lives at uh she's the owner of 26 old male home address 9 Silver Birch Lane in Lincoln Mass they've reviewed the proposed construction of 83 old male and are not supportive of it we hope the board will request modifications that bring it to a size and style that are more compar comparable to the other homes in the neighborhood Ann and Sean rosi write on January 8th 2025 they're in support of the petition for a special permit um at 83 old male as neighbors they're in favor of the proposal they think it'll be a significant Improvement to the neighborhood they talk to the the um the owners about the plans and they modified some aspects of it to address some concerns um as we understand it um he has moved the house back um the street to eliminate uh non-conformity um away from the street and while the new house will be larger that what's there now replacing the existing house with what has a with this proposal will not be detrimental to the name neighborhood Barry and violet D salet from 41 Old Mill Road um right on January 8th that their wife he says Barry writes that he he and his wife are year round residents and the writing and support for the application they're in favor of the proposal believe the new home will enhance the neighborhood 7 years ago a similar home was removed from our property at 41 and my home was built our neighbors are thrilled with our home improvements we have made to the property um enhance the neighborhood tremendously and we feel that Mr blakeley's proposed new home will enhance the neighborhood as well and Mr blakeley's proposed home is larger than what's currently on the property but is considerably large but is considerably larger than what was on 41 old male 7 years ago we don't see this as a negative or detrimental to the neighborhood quite frankly we see it as a positive we hope the voard will will um permit this application next we have a note from Matthew Gavin and Allison Gavin from January 8th 2025 their family owns 80 old malal since 1996 they're close above us to 83 they're pleased to learn the new that a new and completely conforming house will be proposed um it's probably obvious to your visit that the existing house is in serious need of replacement um a simple renovation is highly unlikely um and it would if even if that was to occur it would result in a continuing house located a mere 6 feet from old M where 40 ft is required instead Mr Bley has gone out of his way to develop plans for a house which will meet the requirements of the bylaw all the Lots in the street are non-conforming but Mr Blakeley has designed something that is respectful of the surroundings as well as the bylaw this thoughtful proposal is responsive to the comments made during previous hearings and will finish theor neighborhood they're aware of the broad questions you consider and one is whether it's substantially detrimental to the neighborhood the building will not be and in our perspective it um what exist is detrimental to the neighborhood and they hope we approve it is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wish to speak against this application or has a specific question seeing none questions from the board I guess we should go one by one with this complicated application uh Dave V questions yeah I um so I did note some and it's not a huge thing but I did note some difference in Gross floor area numbers and some of that revolved around the screen porch uh I I I got a little bit lost in in the rabbit hole looking at the um elevation drawings and I as my question be I is there a roof proposed over the screen porch yes there is because I I could not pick that up in the drawings in any way that I could see but um so just say that was somewhat confusing but I understand that so that does is would be included yes in Gross floor area so um that changes some of the numbers slightly but not in a significant way in part of coverage but not part of living area right it's not living area but it is coverage because it has a roof over it um at at the same time just as iide I also there's a um uh I I I was looking for that and I was looking for the roof and I was looking at the elevations and I was having a hard time getting them to add up in my mind and at the same time um the uh um um I'm going to say the mud room uh same thing I I don't see a roof showing on the elevation drawings that matches the other drawings so just something to look at take a look at thank you Mr V thanks questions I don't have any other yeah thank you thank you uh no no questions Mr Nixon no questions Mr Simple no questions and Lee quick question um You probably have it stated here um on the drawing or the elevations and the plans um it looks like a shingle house um um hopefully I'm going to just make a little request that it's traditional shingles that are going to weather nicely and not the White Cedar Side White Cedar thank you it probably was in there I just didn't see it thank you and Steve um what were the difficulties with um making a a drive under Garage in the rear of the house the the site and the hole is the essential issue uh the driveway would have taken up and sty may be able to chime in because he is here uh or maybe Mike McKay I I could start yeah if I could we we completed a full set of drawings with the garage under we tried and we had more negative feedback from other professionals that saying it just doesn't work more Paving more uh you know more more driveway too steep um extensive retaining walls much more than we have now and it just um again we had we had a full this is our third design we had another design that kept the tree again we were told the tree was was not appropriate was dying um forget it so that's where this design this is our third full set of drawings I apologize for the the confusing because we have we have pushed and pulled and and we certainly need to tighten up our drawings for permit but um that was the reason it was too steep I appreciate that that explanation cuz that would if you remove the garage or put it someplace else that would reduce the visual impact by about 20 feet or 24 feet we did did get rid of the Breezeway that was suggested from the prior application but we understand the point we did try Mr I I I appreciate that thank you thank you and Jenny questions um thank you for addressing the tree I was going to be a question for one of my questions was can you save the tree um I read Mr Kent's summary and I I do get that but I mean it's just such a shame because it provides such shade and it's 200 years old but um I I understand the location of it was it's so tricky I really wasn't optimistic that you could save it um at the historic hearing September 17th um the owner Mr Blakeley said that he was very he had was very interested in neighbor feedback and um had taken steps to try to understand that when was all being put together so is there response to some of the negative neighbor feedback that we heard well I I can just might be an opportunity to respond if I could to that sure we know the chair always wants to offer rebuttal time I do uh but there was essentially one letter the second letter was from someone who whose home was immediately behind my office not an a butter two and a butter two and a butter two and a butter but as far away as I am so I'm not going to comment too much on on that the first letter frankly seemed to be fighting the last war uh we didn't use 41 old male Road as a comparison and it was we were sort of accused of it because it is further away uh the the letter writer talked about Tommy leblanc's concern for the pool he's the owner of 75 I will tell you very candidly uh Mr LeBlanc is related to someone in this room and I've known from most of his life I'm older than he is before I agreed to represent Tom Blakeley I asked Tommy lablanc if he would be okay with this and he said yes so the the letter writer said that Mr LeBlanc has a problem with the pool first of all there is no pool and secondly I wouldn't be here if Tommy leblan didn't want me to be here so I don't know if that's responsive to your question it does show my late in the day ey over letters that sometimes aren't factual beyond that there was a another letter is you know which you received in your packet which was withdrawn because the letter writer who wrote an opposition to it was apparently somehow misled I've not spoke to that woman I've known her for years as well I've not spoken with her because it is difficult for me being in the neighborhood I hope that responds thank you we were told at the last sorry we were thank you we were told at the last hearing that it couldn't be moved back I know you watch the hearing and obviously it can be you're doing that um but it's a matter of the fill so just so that I understand the fill is the I I was looking at the elevation changes too there's fill being brought in even up to the street by like four or five feet so you're raising you're raising I just want to make sure I understand the height because you are going to within inches of the Max and part of that is the new fill that you're bringing well it of things we're putting about 3T of fill on the left or west side MH and then it will because the the drop off begins very close to the existing house so it will then taper back to the rear as as shown there he's got the elevation lines so it's right now it's about where it's going to be 66 feet right now it's about 63 mhm uh there is much less on the right or east side and we we spoke to the hardwoods who were at 101 on the east side and there's going to be a retaining wall on the left side which is going to prevent any uh runoff onto Mr Le bank's property to the left or west so there is fill but not a lot of it and yes we are at the rear we have a taller home but at the front it's 24 ft and change 24 4 feet at the front on the all maale rad side yeah and there's no and I think I neglected to respond and Tom please correct me if I'm wrong Tom Tom stall but there is no Phil in the front yard I think there is well a little Landscaping but I mean the elev the street elevation isn't going to change okay yeah there is a little in the front yard um okay so can you restate what that 4 ft was again sorry the 24 it's 24 foot 6 from the street from the sidewalk or the the street and that elevation you can see it it just has 67.5 we actually designed a mudsill pretty common detail and it's shown on the on the Civil drawings the site drawings where the the wood framing is actually recessed into the foundation so that we can still get some Foundation exposure but also keep the height low but it's basically at the same elevation as the street the grade at the street is just about within inches of um the grade at the house is just about the same as at the street maybe you'll know this maybe you won't is is it fair to say that the proposed house is 5 feet taller 5 and 1/2 ft taller than the current one and a half story house um it's sounds reasonable let me pull out the sorry worry about it uh he's probably got the frankly I haven't spent a lot of time looking at the proposed house but the the existing house you know I'm asking because it's it's deceiving to say it's going to be inches from the maximum when it is because of the average grade but I'm trying to get to the visual if if you're if you're standing on Old ma Road it's going to be 24t and a couple inches high I guess is the best way to to explain it the engineer's hands raised so thank you yeah thank you Mr engineer please go ahead uh hi Tom Stell from TS land survey um I can confirm that it would be 5 feet higher than what's existing I'm sorry did you say you can or you can't I can so the the proposed is about 5T higher than the existing Ridge okay thank you that's all I have okay okay great um I think everybody got their questions Paul did i y I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations Dave V seconds votes yes yes all votes yes Genie votes yes as do I okay deliberations uh lee okay thank you um well I excuse me I like it um initially I struggled a little bit with criterian number two but I think um I appreciate the first of all it's attractive very attractive it's a great Street um it's I appreciate substantially moving it back from the setback of the road um I think when doing that you have plenty of space um for some in landscaping that will really also help with um the mass um and um if I were voting tonight I would be in favor I think it's a a really nice Improvement it is a very modest street but I think this design um with some Landscaping will be will'll be fine okay David V yeah I I I um at first I thought gee Deja you all over again uh and and you know started looking at this and and and certainly we not and looking at the previous plan that we had had some difficulties with um and uh in driving down the street I mean boy it's a it and trying to gauge how this will um read in in on on the street and I guess I I think I mean certainly it's larger than any other of the until you get up to the corner of Stone Hill Road um it's larger than most the other homes on the street so I think what's really important here that that I'm I didn't really try to visualize as well as I could have is that increasing that setback to meet the 40 ft takes it well out of the line of buildings that that that form the wall of the street if you will uh and so that's I I I'm hopeful because I would like I'd like to support this and and I'm hopeful that that will be enough and and again to whatever they decide to do in terms of landscaping um you know in the front to help soften any kind of ear any any perception that it's not fitting the setting and I and like many many projects you know I think when it's all said and done and everything Blends in that yes it's still going to be the probably the largest house on the street but I don't think it's going to stand out in a negative way um and then the only just the only other thing I would say which is is this is totally an aside but I I didn't realize that um that that tree that I had brought it up the last time was a a white popler yeah I mean this it's true what What U the arist has said about the roots I have some of those trees in my yard and The Roots Chase all the way around the building uh and and is actually kind of a problem so uh in some ways the size of the tree the loss of it is is not good but I think it's going to be good overall for for all involved so I can make the determin in my mind that this proposal is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and I and I don't I actually don't think it's I mean it is larger Mass wise but I'm not I don't think it's going to be um I don't think in I can find that I think it's going to meet the scale sighting and mass um criteria that we're um review thank you thank you uh Ed deliberations if you were voting if I I'm not voting but um when I I went back and watched the hearing and and one of the asks was uh to change the two-car garage to a onecar garage because we just felt it didn't fit in with the neighborhood and I still feel it doesn't fit in with the neighborhood it's just too big um as an illustration um there's a large sign on the property of a the development company whatever and I look at that sign and that sign does not fit in in the neighborhood that huge sign and I'm thinking that's similar to what the house is going to be like it I just don't think uh uh I think a onecar garage for that neighborhood be more appropriate I think David Nixon I want to thank you for listening to us and doing your homework that is very much appreciated um no plan is perfect but boy this one works for me it really does and I think as Dave pointed out by pushing it back the perspective that would have been very different had it been 10 ft off the road or 15 whatnot um and then I like your use of the slope in the back and the development of the house out back too and as Lee said you know you've got a lot of room which is really great so this house is conforming uh what's there now is so it would be I mean you could put a trailer there and you can you'd easily say this is not substantially more dead metal really so uh uh uh I thank you this helps the community thank you that straight and I'll be voting yes all right thank you very much uh Virginia Fenwick uh agree with some of those points it is conforming it is improving in that regard um I am struggling still though with the size I think that there is evidence that the owner uh listened to the hearing and made some changes but I don't know that it's enough um for example the prior house was 84 feet in length and this one's 73 so that that's 11 feet that that's shorter but to Ed's Point still got the two-car garage still has the largest gross floor area if you take out the two on Stony Hill which I think on your list are kind of outliers but um the square foot the gross floor area only decreased by 79 Square ft that's not a big change um the height thank you for helping me address the height because I'm more comfortable with that now the building coverage proposed is actually increasing from what was presented last time but the big thing is the 40 foot set back I agree with Mr V and Mr Nixon that that takes it off of the the street a bit but but really and I counted them again today the last time I did this 16 out of 20 homes in on that street are either single or one and a half story so this house is just going to be so massive um compared to the other houses in the neighborhood so I am struggling because you have made efforts to cut things back I don't know if it's enough um and then about the pool I appreciate the extra feedback Mr U Lichfield on that because I did not like the fact that the pool with without that you know the neighbor commenting um the fact that that pool there will be in his front yard um I now I know that that's not what we're evaluating here today but I just wanted to make that that comment so um those are um my deliberations okay thank you Steve um well I think others have said it you know thank you for for considering uh making some some reductions in some of the sizes especially the the width of the house it's I think 11 feed is fairly substantial um so I appreciate that the one thing I wanted to say is I appreciate you putting this outline of the setbacks on the drawing so you can see exactly where the house is going to be um fairly easily you know it's it's highlighted in Red so it's easy to see where the the uh house is oriented on the property so I appreciate it makes things a lot easier I think moving the house back um the 40 ft is is a big Improvement and I think Lee said that you know even with some some uh well-placed uh Trees and Landscaping you can even diminish uh the perspective of the height of the house even further because the taller trees would make the house look look lower and it may fit in um a little bit easier to the neighborhood um the garage I'm kind of hung up on the garage also that's why I asked about moving it around to the back of the house but um you know if that's going to create more of a problem than it's worth then um um I guess so be it so I think um I would to proove things as were as they are if you were voting Paul well we spent a great deal of time on this uh property the last time around and uh um I think that uh this design has taken into consideration a number of the comments that were made at that last hearing and I think that the uh increase in the setback from 20 feet to 40 feet makes a big difference uh I think it makes it possible for this to blend in a little bit better but the neighborhood isn't change uh and it's probably going to have more uh bigger houses coming in there um and I think that um when you consider that the last proposal had much more WI with to it um and was much more like 41 uh in that property uh it seems to me that this is a great Improvement you've taken that into consideration so overall I would say this is not going to be substantially more Deb metal to the neighborhood so I would approve it so I would just uh I agree with Jenny and I also agree um with Mr Dixon to you know as far as all the changes that you made and it is conforming and and that's all great but I I when I say I agree with Jenny I think that this house you know is pretty massive for the neighborhood and the one thing that I'm just wondering is that that Gambrell style Dormer that we see there what if that was just a regular dogghouse Dormer maybe that would look a little bit more capy so to speak and not as massive and uh I'm just throwing that out there as a possibility um thank you um I we certainly looked at every different design style and I I I'm not sure if it will diminish it I think the comments you know dur in my presentation I almost brought up the fact that it's 40 feet Back 40 feet is significant scale of the house is going to talking about the mass I understand the massing I yeah and that's all I'm talking about right now I think it's great you know it's all conforming you're away from the neighbors you're away from the street you you get an A for that but the house is still massive compared to other houses on the street and I just thought that looking at that that Gambrell style Dormer if it was different and it was more Cape style then maybe it wouldn't look as massive um and so that's what I'm I would vote Yes if that would you know if you're looking for my input if I could Madam chairman I I uh my math skills are limited I believe that there are four affirmative votes perhaps more um I I wasn't sure about Miss f so well let's hear from her first and then we'll go back to me what do you want to hear how I didn't I didn't get your comment your deliberations as a definite yes did I miss something no I said I think it's oh you did think it's too large yeah that's what I thought okay I'm not going see I mean I did say I was struggling with that they made some great improvements but I still think that it's 16 out of 20 homes and I know that the neighborhood is in but several homes there have recently been updated and they are still small modest right so you have three and now you're looking for four and we're on the fence so my I guess if I could respond to that um in terms of this being a precedent for further changes in the neighborhood first as you know nothing you do is a precedent for anything else secondly because of coverage limitations the smaller Lots on the south side of the street at 10,000 square fet are limited in how much they can change uh the the consideration I mean certainly if if it if the board would allow if the board approves the special permit if Mr Briggs could be authorized to approve a reconfiguration of the front Dormer without returning to you if that can if that can be done to Mr blakeley's Satisfaction by Mr McKay I we're going to hear from our cheer Meritus well that's that's a great suggestion but I don't think that's Mr briggs' job and it would be very unfair to put him in that spot we we would certainly and I appreciate that we would certainly consider it we would if the board wanted to nominate as the historical commission does a single member to make the determination our our preference is to go forward under the notion that compared to what is there now this is not substantially more detrimental particularly when you look at the floor area ratio which of course can't change on the south side of the street because coverage is limited there no I I understand what you're saying do you want to do a straw vote that would be very much appreciated okay let's do a straw vote Jenny we'll we'll let you go last because we'll give you a second to have the um Jeopardy music play in your head uh Mr Beach well I I think I would support it and and I just to to weigh in a little bit um in my in my reading of the plants I I the way that the this has been drawn and so it it's not really that that's a dormer on the front it's there's a consistency of that roof Style on the the the main part of the building that faces the street but also in in the cross piece front and back so I I actually think it would be somewhat awkward to try to redesign one piece of that know so that just said anyway I'm I I can support it as it I'm not sure that that that would be a significant difference in in in in effect okay thank you Mr Nixon you support it it's such an improvement over what there is now that I would support it abs and uh Paul yes I approve it I uh support it as well and Jenny can I deliberate a little absolutely okay yes um it it's an it would be an improvement or what's there now because the house is but but any I mean someone else it could buy it or or make a change to it and just scale it down a little bit so I I think it's I don't believe that that house is going to stay there if this gets disapproved so I kind of don't really buy that argument um I think it's too large for the neighborhood I just I I I think great efforts have been made uh but this the the only changing the size of it by 79 square feet that that's that's still the argument the conversations we had the last time about what we didn't like and by the way almost every member didn't like it last time because it was so massive I'm sorry what did you say oh um okay so I I think I would say no all right so I think um that the mass of the house is is too much for that neighborhood and that's why I was trying to work out a way that the massing would be cut back um so um I'm wondering if you'd be willing to reconfigure that front it's in some way to make the mass you know not look make it look more you know appropriate for that neighborhood well we we we will certainly do what is necessary to obtain four affirmative votes I'm not sure that reconfiguration of the front Dormer is it's not going to change the mass and again we are 40 feet back from the street so that if you if you're standing there or driving there I mean first of all if you're if you're heading from Stonehill Road you can't see the house anyway because of the Hedge that's on that that side uh and being set 40t back from the street I'm not sure anyone is going to see that Dormer driving up and down the street well it's not a matter of the dorm but you know how we we often talk about how it breaks up the mass of a house when there's dog house dor is in the front do you agree don't we do that often D Dog House Dormer versus a shed Dormer there is a difference certainly there's there's a very large shed Dormer on the house two doors down to the left yeah I mean 90% of the houses are much smaller so whether but I do see your point whether or not it's more it's substantially more detrimental than what's there now um and so um I guess I guess I'll vote Yes but with very reluctantly I don't like the look of it at all reluctance is appreciated almost as much as our four affirmative votes yeah all right so Paul uh I will uh I'll I'll move to approve the application as submitted with the condition that all construction activity in 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 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. only DAV seconds and votes yes I vote Yes all votes yes jie votes no and I'll vote Yes I vote yes thank you very much thank you appreciate your time and efforts yes thank you and uh what time is it motion oh we need a motion to adjourn uh dve seconds in vote Yes Ed Ed votes yes and my yes counts yeah what time is it no it's time to vote Yes for to adjourn yes all vote Yes votes yes D votes yes votes yes I and now what time is it it looks like 6:48 p.m. 6:48 p.m. good night [Music] [Music] Chad e