Oh my god. Good afternoon everyone. Everyone, it's June 26, 2025, and this is the Cadam Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28th, 2025 signing of the chapter 2 of the act of 2025 extending certain COVID
measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain portions of the open meeting law until June 30, 2027. This meeting of the Cadam Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted in person and via remote participation. Every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access access
the proceedings provided for in the order. A reminder persons who'd like to listen to this meeting in progress call 1508-945-4410 conference ID 716441 182 pound or join the meeting via the link on the Microsoft teams the
Microsoft teams link on the posted agenda. This is a live broadcast and simalcast on Cadam TV. Despite our best efforts though, we may not be able to provide real-time access, but the meeting will be posted uh as soon as possible on the town's website. In
accordance with town policy, the public can speak to any issue um on the agenda today when recognized by the chair. Procedural steps is we first take a roll call vote of all members. We ask if anyone online would just make sure they
identify themselves and then we hear um a notice. The hearing notice is read by staff o'clock on my right. You are your representative will present your application. After that, anyone in favor will vote on the anyone in favor will have up to five
minutes to speak and then I'll summarize all uh letters that we've received. Then anyone with a question or that wishes to speak against the application will also have up to five minutes and there'll be a clock um on the screen. Then the
applicant can rebut any testimony that they heard that they don't agree with. We will have questions from the board, hear further information, close the public hearing, deliberate, and usually we vote on applications but not always.
It depends. After that, we will um all votes will be taken by roll call and we'll have a verbal confirmation of what time it is that we adjourn. We start with, like I said, a roll call vote of all board members today. Um voting on
the um applications will be David V, Ed Actton, Paul Simple, Lee Hy, and um my god Steve Yeah, Steve Dbor. Anyway, um those will be the voters today except on our on our
minutes. We we'll have to do it a little bit differently um because certain people were here and they weren't here. And uh so roll call members, David H. Vich, and I approve of this format. Ed Actton and I approve. David S. Nixon, I approve. Paul C. Sample and
I approve. Lee Hubby, I approve. And Steven D. Debor, I approve. and Randy Pesh I approve as well. So our first um point of business uh number one continued deliberations for five Annabel Lane and 10 Annabelle Lane applications
24-149 and 148. Uh Paul. Yes. I uh I will move to approve the uh draft decision on application number 248 uh which is the 10 Annabel Lane address.
Dave seconds and votes yes. Ed Actton votes yes. I vote yes. And Paul votes yes as do I. Okay. So that was that one. One more. And we have one more and that would be uh the draft decision with respect to
five Annabelle Lane which is application number 24-149. I'll move to approve that draft uh decision. Uh Dave seconds and votes yes. Uh Ed Actton votes yes. I vote yes and Paul votes yes as do I. So that's
unanimous on both of those. Those those were um appeals that we heard uh at another point in time that we're just uh disposing of today. Uh any public comments? I don't see any. Um okay. So 25-036
Blue Haron Realy Trust. We have We have some minutes that we could deal with. Oh, they're not in my updated. Okay. Oh, they're hidden here. Okay. Meeting minutes from May 2. Meeting minutes. draft minutes of May 22nd uh 2025. I'll
move to approve those as published. Um Dave seconds and votes yes. Ed Actton votes yes. All votes yes. I vote yes and Steve votes yes. All right. Very good. That's unanimous, too. Now we can start with 25-036.
Blue Heron Realy Trust. Uh Sarah, whenever you're ready. Application number 25-036. Blue Heron Realy Trust car William Benjamin PO Box 1067 South Orleans Mass 02662
owner of property located at 27 Strong Island Road also shown in the town of Chadam's assessor's map 12M block 16 lot B19 the applicant proposes to change alter or expand a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the construction of a landing the existing
dwelling is non-conforming and that it is located 29.1 ft from Rush Drive where a 40 foot setback is required and 24 ft from the coastal conservancy district. The proposed landing will be non-conforming and that it will be located 19.1 ft from the coastal conservancy district where a 50ft
setback is required. The lot is non-conforming and that it contains 37,700 square ft where 40,000 ft is required in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under master law chapter 4A section 6 and section 5B of the protected bylaw. Mr. Benjamin, I
presume? Yes, indeed. Welcome. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. So, I've applied for approval to uh correct a unsafe condition at our property. Uh there are French doors leading from the living room out to the patio. And as you
step out of those French doors, there's an immediate drop of about 10 in to the first step. And then there's a second step. What we'd like to do is add a landing at the same level as the living room floor so that when you open the
door, you step out onto the landing and then you go down two steps from the landing to the existing patio. So there's no impact to the resource area. Um, this would be entirely on the
existing patio and uh it seems a pretty straightforward uh straightforward change. So you you look at the uh special permit criteria and um you'd say that this um
is compatible with the size of the proposed structure with the neighboring properties. Absolutely. And there's no impact really. And uh there's no um other u factors that would make it substantially more detrimental to the
neighborhood. Right. In no way. No. Okay. All right. Very good. Um is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application? If so, please make it known. Seeing none, um I will read the one
correspondence that we have from the conservation commission. Uh they tell us on June 5th, 2025 that this application um is scheduled for an order of conditions on June 25th. So So you already had your order of conditions
like actually that was rescheduled to July 9th. Okay, very good. And that is uh the extent of our our correspondences. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak against this application or has any
questions? No questions from the board. Are there any? No. This is one of those. Are there any? All right. Very good. Paul, I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. J seconds and votes yes.
Ed Actton votes yes. Paul votes yes. Lee votes yes. Steve Oz. Okay, very good. Um, deliberations, Lee. Um, I I don't have any problem with this. I think it's um a safety issue. I
think it's meets our criteria. Um, no way detrimental. Okay, very good, Steve. Yeah, I think it's it resolves a uh potential safety problem and I have no issues with this. Dave, agreed. Ed, uh,
meets our criteria. No issue. Okay, Dave. Same. And I agree. Paul certainly meets our criteria. I think it's very clever the way you can cue the swans to cruise around the pond when they're out there looking at it. Very nice. Thank you. All right. Paul, I'll move to
approve the application as submitted. Um, we were considering one uh condition which would be that all construction activity and vehicles will be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property
owner. That okay with you, sir? Yes. Dave Beachs and votes yes. Ed votes yes. Paul votes yes. I vote yes. Steve votes yes. Okay. It's unanimous. Congratulations. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you.
that. All right. Next up, we have 25-031 Woodland Way Nominee Trust Care of William G. Lichfield, Esquire. Whenever Sarah is ready for that one. Application
number 25-031. Woodland Way nominee Trust Care of William G. Lichfield, Esquire, 330 Orleans Road, North Chattam, Mass 02650. Owner of property located at 263 Woodland Way. Also shown on the town of Chadam's accessories map 11K block 7 law
HC49. The applicant seeks to construct an elevated stairway under section 4 A3A of the protective bylaw. Also proposed is the demolition of an existing boat house and the construction of a new boat house. The existing boat house is non-conforming and that is located 14.9
ft from the Westerly butter. The proposed boat house will be non-conforming and that it will be located 11.8 ft from the Westerly Butter where a 25 ft setback is required. The lot contains 67,172 square feet in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass
General Law, chapter 4A, section 6 and 9 and sections 5B and 8D2B of the protected bylaw. Welcome, Attorney Lichfield. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and good afternoon, members of the board. Bill Lichfield here in behalf of Chris and Mike Gitlin, who are the beneficiaries of Woodland Way Nominee
Trust. Also with me uh is David Clark of Clark Engineering. Those of you who have been on the board for five or six years will recall that this property was before you uh back in 2020 or 21 when
the Gitlins undertook a redevelopment of uh the several properties that they own, the several lots that they own on Woodland Way. And you may also know, and thank you Sarah for bringing up the site plan because that was a segue into what I was going to mention. although it is
not before you today because it doesn't require relief. Uh we are proposing to remove an existing boat house at 237 Woodland Way which the as shown there in the bottom right of that plan. The Gitlands own both properties. Uh both
boat houses are in rough shape. the stairs down to the one at 237 are being removed as is the boat house at 237 because they own uh that's what's there now that's at 237 and if you went all
the way down uh you understand that neither boat house is in particularly good shape again that's the one at 230 or 263 which is proposed to be removed. The one that is proposed to to be removed at 263 does however require your
review under two separate categories or two separate provisions of our bylaw. Uh stairs and boat houses within a coastal conservancy district are allowed with a special permit and because the existing boat house is non-conforming that aspect
of the bylaw comes into play. I assume, Madam Chairman, that you would not like me to go to through two separate sets of criteria, but rather go through sort of a combined criteria, the relevant criteria. Thank you. Uh, so what we're proposing is to build to demolish the
existing boat house, which a strong southerntherly breeze might do in short order anyway. Uh, and to reconstruct uh on near the lot line. And parenthetically, the abuter to the left happens to be the same owner. Uh I'm
trustee of that property. And if you'd like me to speak separately in support of the application, I will, but I didn't think you would. So, we'll go into the criteria as to adequacy of the site in terms of the size of proposed use. This particular lot at 263 is a 67,000 square
foot lot with 160 ft of frontage in Ryder's Cove. It's more than adequate for stairs and reconstruction and enlargement of the existing boat house which is currently located within this lot line setback. The resulting coverage will total 7.7%
of buildable upland and 5.8% of the entire lot. There is a minimal change in the setback which again is approved by the Westerly butter. As the suitability of the site, uh the site is inherently suitable for water access use. Stairs
and boat houses, as you know, are specifically acknowledged as allowable in consery districts. And while we're not proposing to be that close, uh quite that close, they can be up to three feet away from the lot line. And again, this is a unique circumstance because we own
the adjacent lot. There's no impact on traffic flow and safety as to neighborhood visual character, scale, mass, views, and vistas. There is minimal if any impact on visual character. It can't readily be seen by Orleans Road given the distance or by the immediate abutters who are of course
the applicants. It is low to the ground and largely below the sighteline from the water. Uh it's far less intrusive than the numerous private docks on and neighboring properties 169 197 so forth woodland have similar structures as to
act at does no issue as to sewage disposal or water as to the extent of increase and nonconformity it is three week three feet but again it's toward the lot owned by the applicant and when coupled with the removal of the stairs and the boat house at 237 there is a net
decrease in nonconform formity. There's not any noise, letter, or utility issues. The use is compatible uh as an accessory residential use in a purely residential water oriented neighborhood. It's not in the least incompatible. Rather, it's similar to structures found
on surrounding properties and for that matter similar to what's there now, just in better shape. As to impact the natural environment and slopes, wetlands, it's being reviewed by the conservation commission. The stairs on the boat house will be constructed with appropriate mitigation. It will have a
stairs as you know have a less detrimental effect than does clamoring down the coastal bank and in combination with the removal of the boat house and the remains of the stairs at 237. I think you can find there to be a net environmental gain with a net decrease
of site coverage within the coastal conservancy district. The bylaw, as you know, allows stairs to be as close as to the lot line as 3 feet. And here the applicant adjoin owns the adjacent parcel. It also makes specific provision for boat houses and the lake within a
coastal conservancy district. The proposed stairs have a narrow width 36 feet rather 36 inches rather than 42 or 48 inches. They be made of composite materials with appropriate gaps consistent with the environmental sensitivity which has been shown by the
redevelopment plans which were were approve enthusiastically approved by this board 5 years ago. So there are two special permits. Um, one requires a finding, or rather two findings, that the reconstructed and enlarged boat house will not be substantially more
detrimental to the neighborhood with one structure replacing two, and that the stairs and the single boat house will not be detrimental to the established or future character of the neighborhood in the town, and that the use involved will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the bylaw. on the f the
facts and circumstances of this application particularly in this location. I think you can readily uh make uh and appropriately make those findings. David and I would both be happy to answer any questions. Very good. Is there anybody here in the room or on Microsoft Teams that wishes to
speak in favor of this application? Please raise your hand. Seeing none, I will read the one um letter that we received from conservation and that was received on June 5th, 2025. They tell us that the
project was issued in order of conditions in 21 2021 and they got a one-year extension um on let's see July 9th of 2024 and it qualifies now for a
two-year extension making the expiration date July 9th 2026. The project was revised to meet the performance standards under the wetland protections act. So no problems there. Is there anybody on Microsoft Teams or in the room that wish to speak against
or has a question? Seeing none, Steve, questions. Um I'm not sure it's if it's a question or not, but the the boat house the location of the boat house was determined by the location of the stairs.
Uh David may be able to respond to that, but the we the the existing boat house is there and we moved it a couple of feet, but because that was already disturbed area, that was the appropriate place. And then that then became the best place to create the stairs if I
could, Madam Chairman. Yeah, please. Thank you. Welcome. For the record, Clark Engineering. So, yes, uh the boat house location was chosen based upon where the existing boat house is. Um there was some excavation work into the bank decades ago when that boat house
was built. So it really lead lends itself to being replaced in the same location. Right. That's what I I thought. Thank you, Lee. Um and the elevated stairway will be where the steps are now. So that you're
not you're just going to redo the steps as an elevated stairway and the boat house. Okay. Thank you. Dave Nixon, any questions? I've always been a mystified by terms and descriptions.
There's no boat going in here and so it's a boat house and I understand where it's going. But isn't there a better description? Shed and at one one place on storage shed on one place on the site plan it is actually labeled shed/boat
house. I think it's perhaps uh how close you are to the water as to what you call it, but no, there are no boats going in there unless Mr. Clark and I take a little dinghy and drag it up, which we're not about to do. Okay, Ed, questions. Uh I guess this would is the
the bottom part of the um stairs down to the marsh, is that going to be removable or is that uh was any consideration into that? um it was considered um but in this particular location um we're we're near to the end of Ryder's Cove. Uh so
there's really no long shore currents um or wave actions that would would jeopardize this. Um the last one we did was in the Oyster River and there's considerable longshore currents during a storm event and we we did do the last
that last section as aluminum. Um but in this particular case um I don't think it's it's really necessary. I I I can't see enough of a fetch in in uh wind activity to uh to
create enough waves to to knock this out. Okay. Thank you. And Dave V questions. I have no questions. Right. Well, had to ask my question. So I think I got the answer to that one. Thank I have no other questions. And I have no questions either. So Paul, if I could mad. Oh yes, please. Just very briefly
for the record. Uh it's not in my self-interest except that I don't like you to think me disingenuous or allow something that isn't correct to be stated. Conservation Commission's letter was actually in error. Uh we were before them last evening. They have not yet approved this. There is no order of
conditions. They were referring to the order of conditions for the rebuilding of the house. So I didn't want you to assume that we'd already been approved. We have not. We will be. But just wanted to clarify that. Yep. Yep. And we often receive letters saying that it will be.
So we'll put that in that category. All right. I'll move I'll move to close the hearing and move into the deliberations. And Dave each seconds and votes yes. Ed Actton votes yes. All vote yes. I vote yes. Steve vote yes. Okay. It's unanimous for that. No. Uh do we do
deliberations yet? No. Let's do that. Lee um I I don't have any problem with this. I think um you know replacing the stairs with an elevated is is smart in many ways. I think the no new boat house shed
um needs to be replaced as well. So I have no issues. And Steve, well I think that the shed or boat house um is well past replacement time. So it's probably a good idea to get that taken care of before it falls down. Creates a different problem. And the stairs are
fine. So I think it's a good project. Yep. Very good. Uh Dave, yeah, I agree with previous um and um this looks like the a fitting um um completion of of an extraordinary project.
Very good. And Ed, um I I have no issues. Um and I feel like it meets the criteria. Uh conservation may make a request about removable stairs at at the bottom and uh I think that would only be an improvement.
Okay. And David Nixon. Okay. And uh extraordinary describes it in my opinion of the the whole pro the whole property. Extraordinary. All right. Paul. Yes indeed. I agree with everyone. Um I'm not sure I see a need for any conditions
on this given the location and the isolation from uh any other uh issues. I would I would add say only if all construction activity and vehicles would be contained on site or at neighboring properties with the permission of the property owners. That that would be uh
the condition that I would suggest. Does anybody have any problems with that? No. So I'm going to move to approve on that application with those conditions. And uh so Dave V seconds and votes yes. Uh Ed Actton votes yes. All votes yes. I vote yes. D votes yes. Okay, that's
unanimous. Thank you very much. Very good. Thank you for coming. All right. Now, we're going to go to Bucks Creek. Let's see. 14 Bucks Creek Road. Diane Barasa, care of Robert Vath. And
whenever she Sarah's ready, she will read that application number 25-037. Diane Barasa, care of Robert Vatha, 94A, Commerce Park South, South Chattam, Mass 02659. owner of property located at 14 Bucks
Creek Road, also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 8C, Block 32, lot S70. The applicant proposes to change, alter, or expand a non-conforming dwelling in a non-conforming lot via the construction of an addition. The existing dwelling is non-conforming and that it is located 5T
from the Coastal Conservancy District flood plane elevation 11. The proposed addition will be non-conforming and that it will be located 23.7 feet from the coastal conservancy district where a 50- foot setback is required. The existing building coverage is 1,434
ft 9.2% and the proposed building coverage is 277 ft 12.3% where 15% is the maximum allowed. the law is non-conforming and that it contains 15,589 square feet of buildable upland where 20,000 square feet is required in the
R20 zoning district. A special permit is required under master law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of protective bylaw. Welcome. Hello there. Good afternoon. My name is Bob Vth. I'm here representing Diane Barasa for 14 Bucks Creek in
Chadam. Uh the adequ uh adequacy of the size of the lot uh the lot size is 16,832. Uh we're proposing a 634 square ft addition. Uh the percentage of the lot
coverage will be brought up to 12.3%. Um compatibility of the size of the proposed structure. Um property increase is well within standing uh of the neighborhood. It's a single floor addition. Uh suitability
sorry extent of the uh proposed increase uh for the nonconforming structure. Um the addition is to include uh family room, office, laundry room, primary
bathroom and closets. um impact of the scale uh and the mass of the neighborhood. Visual impact, it's very low to know. You really can't see much of the addition from the street. Uh the the owner actually owns the house
directly behind her also. So most of our um most of our entrance and our parking will be there and in her at her site. uh the compatibility of the proposed use uh with the neighborhood use. Um
it's very compatible. Again, it's a single floor, a singlestory structure. Um uh sewage and disposal, uh water drainage, if we need any uh drywalls, uh for the new roof, uh it'll
be minimal and we'll u make those accommodations at that time. impact on traffic flow. Um, no real impact. It's uh uh like I said, we have adequate parking and um
noise and litter. The site will be clean uh with a uh a dumpster on site um utilities. We've already gotten approval from the uh board of selectment for an
underground uh electrical service and uh visual impact on the neighborhood should be like I said no real visible uh visible in uh won't disrupt anybody's views and it is a single floor or single story edition. All right very good. I
think you've hit all the important factors. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application? Seeing none, I have three correspondents. One from a private citizen and two from internal agencies.
Uh the conser No, let's see. Judith Giorgio, our health agent, tells us on 624 2025 that she reviewed the plan to renovate and add to this property. The dwelling is approved for three bedrooms. The proposed office must be designed with a six-foot cased opening, no pocket
doors to be counted as a bedroom. Um, the proposed deck will encroach on the septic tank. Um, a permit is required to replace relocate the tank. Um, so it won't be counted as a bedroom as long as you follow along with. Correct. And we've already pulled that permit to move
the uh they've already filed for the permit, I should say. Very good. and the um conservation commission uh writes to us on June 5th, 2025 that the property does not appear to be in the cons conservation jurisdiction.
And then we have a note from Russell Young. He is the president of the Harding Beach Hill Homeowners Association and he tells us on June 22 that he is writing in support of the construction for the addition at 14 Bucks Creek. The
homeowner is a longtime resident of the community and is very active improving and maintaining the beauty of the neighborhood. I am confident that her construction project will not only benefit her personally but add to the value of surrounding homes. Sincerely
Russell Young. That concludes our correspondences. Is there anybody here or online that wish to speak against or has a specific question? No questions from the board. David, I have no questions. Uh, no questions. No
questions. No questions. No questions. Okay, Steve. No, you have question. That's why I asked. Judith Giorgio asked that the um the entry to the office be a
six-foot encased opening. Yep. And the the owner has no problem. It's just an office. So, we're we're willing to remove the doors all together. All right. So, when we file for that, we'll remove that. Okay. It says here that it would be a 4 foot opening. Yeah. No, it'll just change. Yeah, absolutely.
Then that's it. Thank you. Okay, good. Um Paul, I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. Dave seconds and votes yes. Uh Ed Actton votes yes. Paul votes yes. I vote yes. And Steve votes yes. Okay, deliberations. Uh we'll start with Dave
Beach again. Um um nice looking, modest proposal. fits the house, fits the neighborhood, not substantially more detrimental in any way and um meets our criteria. Support it. Uh I agree with Dave meets our criteria and I would
support it. Mr. Nixon, same as well. I agree with Dave H and Lee. Yep. I agree. I agree as well. As do I. Okay, Paul. I think in this situation, given the neighborhood, we probably should use our standard uh uh
conditions. I'll suggest that we approve the application with all construction activity and vehicles being contained on site or at 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 am and 5:00 pm only. David seconds and votes yes. Uh, Ed votes yes. Paul vote yes. I vote yes. Steve votes yes. Okay, it's unanimous. Congratulations. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you. We'll see you next time. All right. Moving along to 77 Satchums Way. Anna Letharius and John Schaefer care of William G. Lichfield Esquire.
Application number 25-039. and Letharius and John Schaefer, care of William G. Lichfield, Esquire, 330 Orleans Road, North Chatam, Mass 02650. Owners of property located at 77 Satchimus Way, also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 7i, block 24,
lot C237. The applicant proposes to change, alter, or expand a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the construction of an addition. The existing dwelling is non-conforming and that it is located 39.5 ft from Satchimus Way. The proposed
addition will comply with all bulk and dimensional requirements of the bylaw but is considered a substantial alteration and under the second except clause of section six of master law chapter 48 such substantial alteration requires the grant a special permit. The existing building coverage is 2,125
ft 10.9% and the proposed building coverage is 2795 ft 14.3% where 15% is the maximum allowed. the law is non-conforming and that it contains 19,526 ft where 60,000 ft is required in the
R60 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law Chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of protective bylaw. Welcome back, Attorney Lichfield. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Bill Lichfield here on behalf of Anna Letharius and John Schaefer who are in the middle of the room. And also
with us today is Karen Kempton, uh the architect who has designed a relatively modest and completely compliant uh addition for John and Anna in their eventual retirement. Karen is here. Would you like her, Madam Chairman, to
speak a little bit about the plans? Sure. Miss Kemp. Uh good afternoon. I'm Karen Kemp, architect for Ann Letharius and John Schaefer. Um Karen, if you could pull up the existing floor plan. Your volume is not quite um
high enough. Karen, please if you could. Is this better? No. Now we can't hear you at all if you are talking. So, can you hear me now? Yeah, better. Thank you. Is that better? Marginally, but sure.
Um, I'll try and speak louder then. Uh, so the existing three-bedroom house is a ranchstyle house built in 1989. Uh, Anna and John desired a larger primary bedroom than the existing small primary bedroom, uh, which is on the
left hand side in the rear yard labeled bedroom 1, which is only 12 by 13. They also wanted more closet space and a larger primary bath with more than one sink and the laundry out of the existing basement. We decided that the addition would be
placed behind the garage on the north side of the property. So, if we can bring up the proposed first floor plan. Uh this is where the on the north side of the property where there is ample room for the side setback uh on the
right hand side for privacy. There is only a 6'6 in section of the addition visible from the front and as you can see that's the bathroom on the right hand side. Um the
this will be 65 ft back from the front property line. The ridge at the highest point of the addition is 1 foot 10 in below the existing ridge and is not visible from the street. Anna and John also wanted to finish part of the
existing basement and the basement under the addition. Uh we can pull up the lower level plan. This will give them recck room space for grandkids and an office for John and an exercise room with higher ceilings than the existing 7
foot 3 inch high ceilings. because of the proximity to the existing septic system, a portion of the basement with will be within the 20ft setback. So, this will have to be a crawl space and that's what we're showing. Um, it's labeled crawl space and then shelf in
the exercise room. Uh, and this will be as a as at a height required by the the health agent. We hope that you find this is a modest addition of 664 square feet. It is not detrimental to the neighborhood because
of its location to the rear of the lot, its roof line lower than the existing ridge, and an appropriate extension of the existing one-story home. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. Thank you, Cameron. I I join the chair's appreciation. So, I'll go
into the criteria as to adequacy of site, including building coverage and setbacks. As you know, all 350 lots in Riverbay are non-conforming. At coverage of 2,125 square feet, our coverage is to the lower end of the neighboring property.
And unlike most, we are conforming to the current street setback of 40 ft. You can find I think the site to be adequate for the additional living space at the rear 38 uh and 50 feet respectively from the sidelines where 25 ft is required
and as Karen has said 65 or so feet back from the street proposal meets all uh setback height and coverage requirements that is it is completely compliant as to zoning as compatibility and size. We have a typical halfacre lot with a
footprint including the garage of less than 2,000 square feet, singlestory home with only 1440 square feet of living area. The proposed addition can be approved because it will remain compatible. Uh coverage will remain below the maximum. It's consistent with
the neighborhood. The numbers are on the third page of the handout I gave you. While gross floor area and living area increase, uh it is still lower than some and remains compatible. As to the extent of increase in nonconformity, the sole nonconformity we have as Sarah indicated
in hearing notice is the lot size. There is no increase in nonconformity. Rather, this is a Bjorkland hearing so-called everything we are proposing is totally conforming. Uh the addition will be far from the two of indicated as to suitability of site. The site is
certainly existing suitable for the existing home. There are no environmental issues and it's certainly uh again suitable for the addition at rear at the rear with the des impact on natural environment and the applicants proposed to retain the vegetative
screening at the rear. It's a scale citing mass views and vistas as Karen explained the existing structure is a Cape Ranch set by far back from the street built about some years ago. Uh the one-story aspect minimizes mass and
that will continue. The sighting and the facade or streetscape are unchanged with the added living space proposed to be at the rear. 6 feet of the rear edition as Karen indicated just six feet will extend beyond the greet but beyond the garage but again is far back from the property line. In fact, it's even
further back from the pavement because of the channel taken. We're about 75 ft from the pavement and the scale is in keeping with surrounding properties. There are no views or vistas involved. As to compatibility of use, there's no change. It remains residential. We have
a we as to water and sewer. We have town water at title five for three bedrooms. The bedroom being inverted. The den will have a six-foot casement opening. There's no traffic noise or other aspects. I will say and I'll be brief because a neighbor of John and Anna came
down to speak on their behalf. So, I'll be quiet and let him do so momentarily, but I'll summarize by saying that, as you know, the question is whether the proposed addition providing much needed living space, but built in compliance with the bylaw is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. With
the additional space for a larger primary bedroom and a functional home office, the proposal meets all requirements of the zoning bylaw. And um Karen knows and the builder will be cautioned to conform to the 2800 square foot coverage limitation. We're
cognizant of corner boards and things like that. And we know they're close, but we don't plan on revisiting you in regard to this property. The alternative, of course, is to go up uh rather than to rear for the additional space, but that would have increased the mass and had a greater impact the
neighborhood. here. The applicants in Karen have proposed something which is sensitive to John and Anna's needs as well as for the neighborhood. The goal is to have uh first floor living a little bit more conveniently, including moving the washer and dryer out of the out of the basement. So, in light of the
criteria in the plans, I think you can find that proposed changes are not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Thank you very much. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor? We understand that there is somebody in the audience that wishes to speak in favor. Please go ahead up to the No, you have
to go all the way up to the podium before you talk. If you would and then when you get there, just state your name and that's that. Dan Jones, 45 Sash Way. Um, I've been in
the I live three houses away and uh moved here about eight years ago and then following year we're lucky to get Anner and John to move into the neighborhood. I think this will have no impact whatsoever on the neighborhood in terms of sight or views. Uh it's the
most appropriate place to expand is to go back a little bit. There are houses in the neighborhood that actually have that Lshape going back. Uh some take the driveway all the way back there. they're not changing the driveway and nothing's going to change. So, it makes so much
sense. Um, and you know, it fits with so many other homes in the area. Very good. Thank you very much for coming. Is there anybody else here on Microsoft Teams that wish to speak in favor at this point? No. I will read the one correspondence
that we received from our health agent, Judith Giorgio, on June uh 24th, 2025. She reviewed the plan to renovate and add to the property. It appears that the dwelling will maintain the existing three-bedroom layout. The existing bedroom den will be converted um with
six foot cased opening and the proposed basement area is not approved for bedrooms and is it is below grade. Um now is there anybody here or on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak against or has a question about this
application? If so, now is your time. No. Um, there's no rebuttal, right? No. Okay. Just making sure. Um, questions from the board. Dave Nixon, I have none. Thank you, Ed.
Uh, no questions. No questions. Anybody on this side have any questions? No questions. No. All right. Don't say I didn't ask. I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. Dave Beach second and votes yes. Ed votes yes. All votes yes.
I vote yes. Steve votes yes. All right, that's unanimous. Uh deliberations. Let's do that. Starting with Steve. Um I have no issues with this. You won't It's very very limited visibility from the street
and I don't think it's going to cause any problems for anybody. And we I agree it meets our criteria. Um, I especially like how the addition is in the back of the house and that they kept it below the height of the main house. So, I
think it's really nice and um the first four primary bedrooms are very popular these days. Right. Right. Um, Dave Beach, I I agree with all the previous and Ed meets our criteria. Has my vote. And Mr. Nixon, anything further from
you? You know, sometimes we get applications that don't make sense. This makes a lot of sense. It really does. Well, everything is good in my book as well. So, Paul, I also agree. Um, I will move to approve the application as
submitted. Uh, given the neighborhood, I guess I'll say all construction activity as conditions, all construction activity and vehicles will be contained on site or at 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. David seconds and votes yes. Uh Ed votes yes. All votes yes. I vote yes. Steve votes yes. And that's unanimous. Congratulations. Very much.
Okay. Now we're going to go over to 117 Forest Beach Road. Uh application 25-041. John Lahan and Jacqueline Lahan care of Peter Bickford. Sarah application number 25-041.
John J. Lahan and Jacqueline Jacqueline C. Lahan care of Peter Bickford 65 Lzel Street Hangingham Mass 02043. Owner of property located at 117 Forest Beach Road. Also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 3C block 76 lot
EA1. The applicant seeks to enlarge, extend, or change a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot be the conversion of the existing garage to habitable space. And under the second except clause of section six of master law chapter 48, such substantial alteration requires the grant of a special permit.
The lot is non-conforming and that it contains 10,871 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 5B of the protective bylaw. Welcome, Mr. Bickford.
Hi, I'm John Lennan. I'm the owner. Oh, I'm sorry. I think Mr. Bickford and Wes Fost are online. Okay, very good. Who's going to present your application? Uh, Peter Bickford. Okay, then again, welcome Mr. Bickford online perhaps. I don't see any. I think West. Hi, how are
you? Yes, please. There you go. Oh, okay. Very good. Can you hear us? Yeah, you you list it as WF. Um, so I think two people are talking on one one person could talk at a time. That
would be great. Um, whoever's online, do you want to present your applica? Present the application. Sure. Uh, Peter Bickford, 65 Lzelle Street in Hangingham. Uh we're proposing to turn part of the garage into a living
area um for the Lahanss and understand it's a non-conforming lot and we need um a special permit to do this. Okay. Do you have a copy of the criteria
or would you like me to help you go through it? If if if you could help me go through do that. So would you say the site is adequate um for this project? Yes. And compatible to proposed uh to
neighboring properties. It will be compatible when your project's done. Yeah. Yes. And as a matter of fact that all all the building was done, this is interior renovation and um renovating some windows. So there's no addition
involved. Okay. On the exterior of the house. Okay, very good. And uh we don't have to worry about noise and litter uh or whether it's compatible with surrounding land use. Correct.
It's that's correct. Okay. And uh Okay. I think I think this is pretty straightforward. You just wanted some habitable space with your garage. So um Yep. Yep. That's that's right. Right. So with that, is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in
favor of this application? Please raise your hand. No. Uh so we have two correspondences. One from a health agent and uh one from a tax collector. So uh let's see. Our
health agent tells us on June 24th uh 2025 that she has received the plan to renovate the proposed room meets the definition of a bedroom. The entryway off the breezeway must be enlarged to six feet. Um, and more details are
needed for ceiling height, etc. No added bedrooms are allowed without board of health approval. Um, I'm going to give you a chance to speak to that in one moment. Sure. Um, and then the tax collectors say that you uh
might owe a little bit of money, so we'll leave that up to you also. Yeah, I think it was $9. Yeah, you paid that a couple of weeks ago. Maybe the font is so small on the nine. I couldn't even find it. 62. Yeah. Yeah. There you go. Okay. So, um, are you going to deal with the board of health and, uh, make them
happy? Could I could I in Yeah, please go ahead, sir. Yeah. I I I've been in in touch with Judy at the board of health and submitted a plan so that the opening is 6 foot, 6 feet wide, so it it conforms to the plan. And she considers
that not a bedroom. Very good. So, you did what you needed and um now is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wish to speak against this application or has a question? No. Seeing none questions from the board. We'll go with
the Are you Are there any because you're all leaning back? No. No questions. Steve, go ahead. Well, to me it seems like you got a little bit ahead of the permitting process because um the pictures that we were given shows the garage door and I don't think there's a
garage door there now. Yeah, we had some damage to the garage door and it had to be addressed. So, okay. Uh we thought we we didn't know that this was non-conforming at the time. So, once we were made aware of that, we shut down the project. Okay. But the windows were
already in. All right. And was there some work done on the left side of the house as well? Yeah, we had some window damage there and so there was window replacements that were put in and new shingles there also. And some shingles. Yeah, for the replacement windows. Yeah. Okay, that's it. Thank you. Okay, any
other questions? No. Paul, I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. Dave seconds and votes yes. Ed votes yes. All votes yes. I vote yes. C votes yes. All right, deliberations. Uh Mr. Nixon, anything on this one?
Makes sense. Again, you know, it's a simple process and simple idea and give him the green light. All right, Ed. Um, yes, I I agree, Dave. Yeah, I appreciate you
didn't have to use my imagination, see how it was going to look. So, uh, it's good. Thanks. Yeah, that was good. Uh Lee. Um no, I think this is fine. Good use of a garage. And uh I agree with
Dave each. Yeah. Very good. And Paul, I also agree. I guess my question would be uh what uh what additional construction do you think needs to be done there? I'm sorry, missed that. What additional construction do you think needs to be done there? So, um we're raising the
floor slightly and then tiling it. Um insulation into the exterior walls and uh that's it actually. Okay. Yeah. There's already existing lighting, electrical, it was already in the garage.
And when do you plan to do that work? Immediately. Do you think we need any conditions, Paul? Well, that's what I was trying to figure out. Um, I'm not sure what this is going to generate in terms of noise or how long it would take. What what what's your feeling about that? I don't
think it will create any additional noise whatsoever. I mean, okay. Yeah. Um, he's asking that because we often have conditions where people can't do any work during the summer. Sure. I appreciate that for sure. We're just about to be there. So, yeah. No, I don't
think this is all this is all endure. Well, I'll let Peter answer, I guess. Yeah. Go ahead. Um sir yeah I was just going to add John just said that u the work mo 100% of the work left in is inside so it should not create any problems noisewise outside.
Okay. Okay. All right. Well, uh, I'll move to, uh, if we've all given our comments, I'll move to, uh, approve the application as submitted with the condition that all construction activity and vehicles be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the
permission of the property owner, which I think he's already doing uh, by parking on there. Um, I think that's the only condition I would suggest. Yeah, that sounds right. He means don't puck up the street, you know, don't block the street with your street. Very good. Yes, for sure. Uh, David seconds and votes
yes. Uh, Ed votes yes. All votes yes. I vote yes. Steve votes yes. Okay, it's unanimous. Congratulations. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. All right. Good luck. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks everybody. Thank you, sir. Okay.
Okay. We are at 117 Captain's Walk. Next 25-040, Michael Alfred Raon and Haley Raon. Um, care of William G. Lichfield, Esquire. Application number 25-040.
Michael Alfred Raon and Haley C. Raiden, care of William G. Lichfield, Esquire, 330 Orleans Road, North Chat, Mass 02650. owners of property located at 117 Captain's Walk, also shown in the town of Chadam's assessor's map, 15H, block
29, lot H14. The applicant proposes to change, alter, or expand a non-conforming dwelling in a non-conforming lot via the partial demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of additions. Also proposed is the installation of an exterior mechanical system appliance, AC
condensers. The existing dwelling is non-conforming and that it is located 20.9 ft from the southerntherly abut butter and 19.5 ft from the northerly abut butter. The existing exterior mechanical system appliance is non-conforming and that is located 17.1 ft from the northerly butter. The
proposed addition will be non-conforming and that it will be located 15.7 ft from the southerntherly of butter where a 25 ft setback is required. The proposed exterior mechanical system appliance will be non-conforming and that they will be located 16.1 ft from the northerly of butter where a 25 ft
setback is required. The existing building coverage is 2,23 ft 4.9% and the proposed building coverage is 3,94 ft 6.8% where 10% is the maximum allowed. The lot is non-conforming and that it contains 125
ft of frontage where 150 ft is required. The lot contains 45,273 square feet in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under master law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of protective bylaw. Welcome back again attorney Lichfield. Thank you
very much. Bill Lichfield here on behalf of Michael and Haley Raidon who are on the second row. Michael and Haley are unusual applicants. Uh they're not on social security. Uh they live here year round. Uh they're
not making this change for eventual retirement. Uh they are making this change because although Haley's family's come from has been in Chadam for quite some time, they're making this change because they moved here on a year- round basis. They'd like to raise a family here and they'd like some additional
space in which to do that. Uh we have with us our architect Schiffer from Hutker. Um, but I don't know given the the location that the architectural details are necessarily anything that you want to go into. I'm sure that Matt
can respond to any questions, but perhaps I can simply go into the criteria. Thank you, Sarah, for the site plan. As you know from having been out there, we are at a culde-sac uh formerly known as a dead end uh of Captain's Walk
uh which while a town road is a very actually it's not a town road, it's a private way, but it's it's private regardless. We're at the far end. And I know occasionally you have discussions about what constitutes a neighborhood and the Captain's Walk neighborhood
abuts Hillrest Lane, Hillrest Road, and Manash, but the the real neighborhood is is uh Captain's Walk. Although when we get to the comparison, I included some of the houses to the south on Hillrest. But what we're proposing to do is to the
garage is already non-conforming. We'd like to expand it uh so that Michael and Haley can have a larger bedroom up there, leave room for other family members in the future downstairs, enlarge the garage, but because of the
lot angle, uh they need to get a little bit closer to their neighbor, other neighbors lot. I know you've been out there and it is very heavily vegetated on that side. They've spoken to that neighbor. There are no issues there. In fact, they have support from several of their neighbors. the Cheryl Reed
correspondents and one of their neighbors is in fact here in support of their application. So, I'll go into the criteria as to the site. We have the largest lot in an older early 1960s subdivision. Uh almost most of the lots are non-conforming, but this lot is 50%
larger than most in the neighborhood. Uh the site is entirely adequate for residential use. We have, as you know, more than 40,000 square ft of lot in the R40 zone. I think you can find the site to be adequate for the expanded garage with living space above. Coverage is
only going to be 6.5%. The change in the setback is very distant from the butter behind the vegetative screening uh to the south and in an and in an inocuous location. As the compatibility of size, we have the
lowest coverage 4.9% on the largest lot in the subdivision footprint of only 2200 square ft. If you approve the special permit, yes, the house will be larger. That's why we're here, but it's still compatible and consistent with others nearby which are in fact on smaller lots. And again, we're at a
culde-sac and set far back from the road. Uh as to the extent of increase and nonconformity, we are nonconforming as to frontage. We have 125 ft where 150 is covered required now into the southerntherly garage. Uh the garage, the existing garages on the
southerntherly side and the northerly side, the house and the compressor. We will be moving a little bit closer to the southernly lot line. The AC units are a foot closer to the northerly lot line, but they are proposed in this location after cons consultation with a neighbor on that side who preferred them
there. The coverage is if you approve the special permit will be 1,500 square ft less than is allowed under the bylaw. So, this is certainly not maximizing anything under zoning. as the suitability of site. We have an attractive home in an older residential
neighborhood. The site is long suited for residential use, but there are no environmental issues and it's certainly suitable for continued residential use. That's the scale sighting mass using vistas. We have a circa 1964. No one's going to see that. By the way,
uh I was just about to say that we have an attractive cape on the front and that's not disrespectful to your work, Matt, but that's going to be the rear view. What we will see from the street is essentially what's there right now. Circa 1964 Cape with Dog House Dormers.
The scale is comparable to, but smaller than many in the neighborhood. while modestly larger. Assuming you approve the special permit, the scale will remain appropriate. With the garage necessarily angled to reflect the lot line, but to minimize encroachment to the south, the bulk of the change will
be at the rear. And and I shouldn't have been that harsh, Matt, but it was talking about the streetscape. Uh will be far from the southerntherly butter and about 550 ft from the easterly of butter, which is quite a distance. As to compatibility of use, the residential
use is not going to change. We have a title five and town water. There is no change there. The question as you know is whether the proposed addition and for that matter the AC compressors on the north side coupled with other changes at the rear of the house is substantially
more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conforming house on a conforming lot. Although our lot is again half again larger than than most of the neighborhood. The coverage increases but far below the maximum. The change in the setback is in a private
and isolated location with neighbor support. A portion of the existing setback existing proposed addition rather like the existing house is within the current lot line setback but it's in a neighborhood full of non-conformities and it's designed to be harmonious with
both the existing house and neighboring properties. So given the plans and the criteria particularly in this location and this neighborhood I think that you can find the proposed changes are not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. Is there
anybody here or online that wishes to speak in favor? Please raise your hand. We heard there's somebody that wants to speak in favor. Don't be shy. Yes, that would be if you you have to go all the way to the mic before you start to talk. Are you willing to do that?
No. No. only. You can't you can't talk until you get to the mic. Are they going to knock on the window and Okay. Which one? Either one. Either one. Um State your name, please. Gretch and Guild, 118 Captain's Walk in North Chattam. And we
live directly across the street from Haley and Michael. So, we're we're going to be looking at their new house every day. And I just want to say they are exactly the kind of neighbors we want to keep in Chattam. They're a young family.
They work from home. Michael's a perfectionist and keeps this house up meticulously. And I just think that we fully support their project. I think they are doing a very contextual job
keeping it, you know, um cla cape from the front and and you know, just getting a little bit more space for their family. So, just want to say my husband David and I fully support their project. Um and we live across the
street. So, thank you. Thank you. Thank you for coming. Thank you. All right. Is there anybody else either here or on Microsoft Teams that wants to speak in favor? No. Now I have three correspondences to read. The first one from our health
agent Judith Giorgio 624 2020. She's still in 26 in these correspondences. Uh she's going to have to fix that. Uh we're only in 2025. I've reviewed the plan to renovate and add to this property. The dwelling was approved for five bedrooms and it appears that the
dwelling will maintain the existing five-bedroom layout. With this proposed floor plan, there will be no bedrooms approved in the basement. Okay. Next, we have a note from Tammy Trudeau
from see to whom it may concern. She tells us on June 9th, 2025, she's writing to advise the zoning board of appeals um that she has appreciated having the the radons um as neighbors. They've shared their renovation plans
and uh they appreciate the architect that they are using because that architect embraces Cape Cod traditional architecture and they support the project wholeheartly and feel that the home at 117 is an asset to the neighborhood and the town. Next, we have
a note from Gretch and David Gould. Miss Gould, you already spoke and so do you need me to read this as well or you All right. Well, I'll do that for you since it's early on here and it's a slow day. Let's see. June 16, 2025. The Ghouls
tell us they're pleased to write the letter in support of Haley and Michael um about their renovation. They've known them for four years and they live directly across the street. They're great neighbors, keep their house up meticulously, as you mentioned. Uh the
their goal is to add some space while keeping the classic look of their home. We love having them as neighbors. We saw their plans. It's beautiful. Everything is good with the ghouls. That concludes the correspondences. Is
there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wants to ask a question or wants to say something against this application? No. Yes. I have questions. Sir, do you wish to speak against or do you have a question?
I have questions. Okay, please state your name and ask your question. Great. Uh, hello members of the ZBA. My name is Nils Fley uh at 529 Old Harbor Road. We are the abuters to the east of
117 captain's walk and I agree that the radons have been great uh and considerate neighbors since purchasing their home several years ago and and we definitely respect and encourage their the rights of the of them and all property owners to build and develop their properties um the way they choose.
I did want to u mention a few things that we hope the radons will keep in mind as they finalize their design process. Um, even though our property is further away than those to the north and south, residents who are up on that hill may not realize how much noise can project out and carry down to the
properties below um, all the way down to Old Harbor Road. Um, and as the the radons are finalizing and implementing their plans, there may be some choices that would be relatively easy and zero impact to them and their designs, but would have a a real impact on on our property and on the privacy and
tranquility of the neighborhood, including Old Harbor Road, Emery Lane, Coward, as well as Hillrest Lane and and um Road. And I'm sure the radons also value the quiet natural character of this um from the the peeper frogs in the
nearby wetlands to when the breeze is right the sound of waves on the the barrier beach. So our goal is to simply preserve that shared experience. Did you actually have a question sir? Because this is supposed to be question. I do. So yeah I do. So I guess mechanical
systems just one concern is there going to be um specifically the condenser units is are there's going to be quiet rated condensers. Are there going to be some combination of enclosures or shielding? I also didn't see any mention of lighting. We wanted to avoid anything like spotlights um or lights that going
to be on all night pointed down that inadvertently are at our property. I also didn't see any plan for audio systems, but I wanted to mention this concern because this has been a problem for other properties from other properties up on that hill, short-term rentals in particular. And um and
lastly, the plan shows one row of plantings next to the pool, but no other notes regarding veget vegetation. So, just given that tiered face of the pool and pool patio, we want to know if there's uh we just certainly hope that there's going to continue to be a significant buffer of trees to the east
um for screening and privacy and tranquility. So, we thank you, thank the Radons for their consideration of our concerns as they move forward and thank you to the board for your attention and your service to the community. No, thank you for um your comments and if you just
continue to listen to the meeting, uh their representative will answer the questions the best he can. Um let me just make sure. Thank you so much. Okay. Thank you, sir. Is there anybody else here or on Microsoft Teams that has a question or wishes to speak against?
No. Now, please go ahead, Attorney Lfield. Thank you, Madam Chair, to to try to respond and I and I may need some prompting on the questions because I had some difficulty. Are they going to make a lot of noise? But uh Michael's noisy, but Haley keeps him under control most of the time. Uh the uh there are there
is actually a compressor there now on the north side of the house. The there will be a larger compressor or I think actually two compressors to accommodate the size of the house, but it's my understanding uh first of all that that location is very heavily vegetated. Uh
beyond that, I think we're approximately 550 feet from uh the neighbor down on 529 Old Harbor Road. So certainly uh Michael and Haley will be cognizant of the questions and will do their best uh to try to minimize noise. There is no
intent to have a spotlight going downhill or anything like that. Uh they have been good neighbors and they want to continue to do so. So I I hope that's responsive. That sounds like it is to me. Um, okay. Questions from the board?
Anybody? Yes, please. Mr. Actton. Um I guess my one question is was there any consideration uh in the design to keep that existing setback of 20.9 and not um increase the
non-conformity by 5T because as you know we typically like to see those improved not the other way. Uh let me let me answer that in two ways then I'll defer to Matt Schiffer. Yes, there was consideration. I think Michael and Haley, you and I first
started talking about this well over a year ago. Uh there have been several many iterations of the plans, many revisions. Uh as to the point about the board's general preference. Uh, I understand and I appreciate it, but I
would remind you that zoning changes and when zoning changes by a vote of town meeting, the voters have historically been told that with the review of the zoning board of appeals and a special
permit, you will be able to you may be able to do what you could have done before the zoning was changed. When this neighborhood was developed, it was an R20 neighborhood and the setback was 15 feet. It was changed to 25 feet. So,
while we are more non-compliant with the current bylaw, we comply with the bylaw as it was when the house was built and when the voters changed the zoning with what they were told at town meetings. So I I simply wanted to offer that and I understand the board's view that the
goal is to minimize nonconformities where possible except and unless the change will not be substantially more detrimental and perhaps Matt could speak madam chairman as to design option of course if he just states his name that would be great.
Sure. My name's uh Matthew can't really hear you sir can do something about the volume. Sure. Um, can you hear me now? Sort of. Can you hear me well now? Oh, good. Okay. My
name's uh ma my name is Matthew Schiffer. I'm with Huter Architects in Fmouth, Mass. Um, we've done another number of projects in Chadam. Um, there was the choice came down to like it either being a single car garage or a
twocar garage. Currently, it's a twocar garage, but it's not really. It's extremely difficult to park two cars side by side in there. And Michael and Haley wanted to keep it as a twocar garage. Plus, the head of their bed
faces towards the uh the ocean um on the end of that gable and it requires like an end table and an end table and then the door coming into the room. So, it actually sort of dictates the width of that gable. So, that's you know that's
kind of where we arrived at. Um, we did try a thing where you could stack two cars, you know, um, so that one would have to wait until the other one pulls out before you pull out. And Michael did, Michael and Haley weren't willing to do that because they can't sort of
like rely on, you know, it's not to have a good situation to have to sort of uh, have to coordinate when you're leaving and going in and out of the garage, if that makes sense. Okay, that answer my questions. Thank you. All right. Very good. Dave,
questions? Uh, no, I have no questions. And Mr. Nixon, any questions? No. I thought that Mr. Actton brought up what was a concern of mine. So, Right. Yes. Yes. Uh, Lee, questions. No questions. And Steve, I have no other
questions. And Paul, I have no other questions. No. And I don't either. So, Paul, I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. Uh, David seconds. Ed votes yes. Ed votes yes. All votes yes. I vote yes. Steve vote yes. Okay. Deliberations. Um David V.
Very nice looking project. Um and um I don't have any concerns. I thank you for um Bill, your explanation. Um, I often think about those town meetings and how how how
reluctant voters can be to impose more stricter standards on future um property owners. Um, and I think and the concerns expressed by the neighbor considerable distance to that neighbor. Um, and I think that
they're legitimate concerns, but I certainly don't think they have any uh applicability here. uh at all. This is certainly not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. It meets all of our criteria. Um the um the
that increase in if you will in the nonconformity on the south side is it is a very heavily um vegetated lot area there and considerable distance to house there. So, um it's um um I
think a project like this to be encouraged and supported. Thank you. Yeah. And Mr. Actton, um I agree. Um and thank you, Bill, for your explanation on the setbacks. U I I
didn't remember this was R20 at one point. So, um I certainly think that uh you know you we can give a little bit uh uh taking that in consideration and um I think it meets our criteria and
certainly it's going to be a beautiful house and well it's a big plan uh but it's a big lot it fits and I have no reason to believe it would be substantially more detrimental to the
neighborhood Oh, and Lee, I agree with my colleagues. I think um it's a great project. I appreciate the homeowners um desire to keep the majority of the older home, the old section of the home, and that it's a traditional cape style. I
think that's um important um and I know it's important to the homeowners. Um so, it's traditional in the front and really great in the back. And I think that um it will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood, but a great addition. And Steve, well, when I
first looked at this, I was concerned that that southerntherly setback was decreasing by 25%. Um, but when I went yesterday to see the house and actually met the homeowner, that side of the house is so densely uh vegetated that I don't think any any noise could get
through there or any privacy be lost. So, um, I think it's a good project. And Paul Yes, I think the perspective of the house from the rear is really quite attractive. I guess if I was the neighbor across the street, I'd be upset that I'm not looking at that view to a
certain extent, but uh uh I think uh it certainly uh does not appear to be more substantially detrimental to the neighborhood. Yeah. And I I agree with all my colleagues and we we we're always concerned about getting even a smidgen closer to neighbors and so it raises a
red flag, but with that vegetation and there's no universe where this could be viewed as at all detrimental. It's a huge improvement and I could see why the neighbors are very happy about it and um I would vote yes if I were voting. Paul.
Okay. I will uh move to approve the application as submitted. I guess in terms of conditions uh does the normal conditions apply or are we dealing with a dead end here or Yeah, if I could, Madam Chairman, I appreciate Mr. Simple's question. Given the location, I think
the ability to park from time to time in the the circle would be useful. So, if that could be omitted from the condition, that would be appreciated. All right. H and that uh being the case, I would say we would appro to approve
the application with the condition that uh um 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. uh only.
And um I'm doing that on the basis that I think these neighbors and the applicants have been in that location for an extended period of time and they're conscious of each other and will uh act neighborly. Yep. Dave seconds and votes yes. Ed
Actton votes yes. All votes yes. I vote yes. Steve votes yes. That's unanimous again. That's a trifect if I'm counting right. Uh let's see. All right. Last but not least, 489 Stage
Harbor Road, 2020 25-042 Tacoma Partners Limited Partnership, Brian Wall, Esquire. So, whenever Sarah's ready, she'll read the advertisement and then we will get to the applicants.
Application application number 25-042 Tacoma Partners Limited Partnership Car Brian J. Wall Esquire 90 Route 6A sandwich mass 02563 owner of property located at 489 Stage Harbor Road also shown on the town of
Chadam's assessor's map 14A block 10 law 8. The applicant proposes to change alter or expand a non-conforming dwelling on a conforming lot via the installation of a new foundation under the existing dwelling. The existing well dwelling is non-conforming and that is
located 36.7 feet from stage harbor road where a 40ft setback is required and 13 ft from the coastal conservancy district where a 50ft setback is required. The foundation which was installed increased the building height within the required setback by.3 in the lot contains 51,600
ft where 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 protective bylaw. Welcome gentlemen. Just state your name if you would. Thank you madam chairman. For the record my name is Brian Wall. I'm an
attorney. I have an office in Sandwich and I'm here together with Jason Clark who's uh welcome from Monoy Real Estate and Construction who was the contractor on this job. Very good. Very good. They they accidentally had a typo and they
and they called you brain. So saw that. So show us what you got. I'll take it as a compliment. Um so for the record, I represent the property owner Tacoma Partners Limited Partnership, who's the owner of the property at 489 Stage Harbor Road. Um I
noticed that Chadam has a very extensive notice of the hearing, so I will try not to be repetitive of the statement already given, but here we go. Um, we are applying for a special permit somewhat after the fact to alter or extend a pre-existing non-conforming
structure under chapter 48 section six and section 5B of your bylaw. Specifically, we're seeking a special permit to have a very slight increase in height approved to a pre-existing non-conforming structure. And it's important to note that the resulting
height is still several feet under what is allowed by the bylaw. So, it conformed as to height before and it conforms as to height currently. The property at issue is a 51,600 ft lot with 245.84
ft of frontage on Stage Harbor Road. It's currently improved with a three-bedroom dwelling that was initially constructed in 1815. It also has a detached accessory building with one bedroom and an inground pool. The lot is non-conforming because it has
30,000 square ft of buildable upland where 40,000 is required and the existing dwelling is non-conforming in several respects to setbacks including the following. The dwelling is set back 36.7 feet from the front where 40 is
required. It is set back 10.9 feet from the sideyard where 25 is required. It's 10 feet from the inland conservy conservancy district where 25 is required and it's zero feet from the coastal conser conservancy district
where 50 ft is required. A special permit is required because under section 5B of the bylaw um any change any increase in height to a pre-existing non-conforming structure that's non-conforming as to setbacks requires a special permit. And that's
why we're here. Um, this project began in August of 2023 when the applicant obtained a building permit to authorize the main house to be lifted off the foundation and to have the old foundation replaced with a new foundation. The permit uh after the
building permit was I'm sorry, strike that before the building permit was issued, the project was approved by the conservation commission and also by the Chadam Historical Commission. It was authorized by a building permit without any relief from this board because there was no intention at the time of the
project to increase the height. It was simply replacing the old foundation with a new foundation. But when the asbuilt was obtained after the construction had been completed, there was a realization that there was in fact a slight increase. The elevation above sea level
um the prior elevation was 34.1 and the new is 35. But when it's compared to natural grade, the increase is very very small. It's only 22.2 feet pre-existing to did I say that wrong? 20 to 20
got this right. It's 22.2 feet pre-existing to 22.5 ft. So we're talking in the decimal place increase in height three inches basically. So having said that um we do have to establish that this is not substantially more
detrimental. I I think that that's probably self-evident. So, thank you. I was going to go through all the time. No, no, not that it's it's early for us. I mean, this is unprecedented that we would have an hour and a half meeting, but um we don't need to have, you know,
you go any further. Thank you so much. I would use a legalism and I would just simply we lawyers sometimes when we have a very small thing, we call it dimminimous. Yeah. But that's a that's a bad word here. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Are you going to I say the same and a lot of us do but not all of us. So understood. If
you come back don't talk about Koopers or dimminimus. Understood. There's no such word at our zoning. Okay. Y Okay. Well, anyway, you were doing well. Anybody here that would like to speak in favor at all or online?
Anybody going once? Nope. Okay. Very good. We have three letters to read. Um and um they are all from internal agencies. Uh Judith Giorgio tells us on June 24th, 2025 that she has no issues
with this uh application. And then we also heard from the uh Christine McCathy from uh which is Oh, this is um that you owe in taxes um under $100. So, right, that that has that has been addressed
when All right. Very good. Very good. We don't I just have to read what we got. Yep. It's been paid. Okay. And then uh the natural resources department uh conservation they they just remind us that they already approved this a long time ago. So they tell us that on uh
June 5th, 2025. So um given that is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak against or has a question? No. Anybody have any questions about this project? No. Paul, I'll move to close the hearing and move into
deliberations. David seconds and votes yes. Ed votes yes. Paul vote yes. I vote yes. Z vote yes. Okay, that was unanimous. Uh let's now deliberations. Mr. Nixon, we'll let you get it over with. Well, gentlemen, for a long time, I've
been saying that we are not the channel board of contractor era and forgiveness. I actually come from a time when if you made a mistake, you fix it. And this is
an avenue where it's a lot easier than fixing it. But uh you're lucky I'm not voting because I would definitely vote no. I would say here's your story. Go fix it. Anyway, okay. So uh Mr. Vista Beach, let's say
you Well, I have a slightly different tag that I would say. Um I mean I mistakes happen uh in in constru construction projects are um complicated. It takes a lot of
communication. Communication uh ideally is always clear and uh happens and and and even from person to person to person uh and uh doesn't always work that way. So um occasionally things come back to
us uh come to us. This didn't even wasn't even brought to us the first time. Were they to have brought it to us to to allow this increase, uh I certainly would not have found it to be substantially more detrimental in any way, shape, or form, it all still conforms to the height requirement by
considerable amount and uh I think it's very much deserving of um approval. Okay. Um, Ed. Um, yeah, I I guess I'm with Dave on the on on my left, but uh
you know, sometimes things happen and uh it uh it's not a perfect science. So, that's my opinion. I might add that these two gentlemen are in and have been in the business of building things. So,
they're a little lenient. Yeah, lenient. We'll call it lenient. Understanding. Okay. Uh Lee, um well, I I agree. I think this is um
you know, a mistake. Um and had it come before us, we would have approved it anyway. So, I have no problem with it. and Steve. Um, well, I think that it would be more detrimental to the homeowners in the neighborhood if they had to redo this
whole foundation again to fix, you know, 3/10en of an inch. So, I have no issues with this. And Paul, any issues? Yes. I Well, as as Mr. Nixon points out, the other two Daves have been in the construction business. Mr. Nixon has been in the insurance business dealing
with perhaps some error and omissions issues. So, uh, it cuts both ways. I think he's perhaps more in the reciprocal saw business now. That's what you'd have to do to take out the inches that are involved here, which makes no
sense. Uh, I agree with my colleagues that this is something we would have approved from the beginning. So, I see no reason to penalize now. it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. And I just want to point out that we've received your findings and and that you've already shown us the
criteria and uh we agree obviously that they've been met and it's great that you picked up this um this old house and you gave it a proper foundation and uh I would vote yes if I were voting today, but I'm not. So um Paul, I'll move to approve the application as submitted.
Dave V seconds. Ed votes yes. Uh Ed votes yes. Paul vote yes. I vote yes. Steve vote yes. And that's unanimous. Congratulations. Thank you, Madam Chair. As a matter of personal privilege, could I just say one point with regard to the discussion about it being a mistake. Um
I would respectfully submit it was not because what happened was when they went Okay, we're not going to go. We It just doesn't fit into a We're a very tight ship here. I've said that before. It just doesn't fit. I just wanted to point out that you got what you need. Sometimes you say one more. You know, I'm a lawyer, too, and that last thing
that you say could really, you know, nail your coffin. I waited till I had the vote. Good night. Goodbye. Thank you for coming. All right. So, with all that, um, before we move to adjourn, we do What time is it? I think
3:32. Wow. I'll move to I'll move to adjourn. DB seconds and votes yes. Everybody, Edton votes yes. I vote yes. All votes yes. I vote yes. I vote yes. All right. Good night, Chadam. I vote yes as well. That's unanimous.