Heat up here. I'm Welcome everyone to today's Town of Cadam Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. The date is February 26, 2026.
And to start, we have a message from the governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Please note, >> she has not been elected governor yet, but I think she's going to be running soon. >> Uh, please note this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly
hereafter for scheduled and on demand viewing uh on any smartphone or tablet device. If anyone else is recording the meeting, including the use of AI note-taking apps, please notify the chair. Pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28, 2025 signing of chapter 2 of
the acts of 2025 extending certain CO 19 measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law until June 30th, 2027. This meeting of the Chattam Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted in person and via remote participation.
Every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided for in the order. A reminder that persons who would like to listen to this meeting while in progress may do so by calling the phone number 1508-945-4410
conference ID461765224 the pound sign or join the meeting via online Microsoft teams through the link in the posted agenda. While this is a live broadcast and sim and simal cast on Chadam TV Xfinity channel 1072,
despite our best efforts, we may not be able to provide real-time access. We will post a record of this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible. In accordance with town policy, the public can speak to any issue, hearing, or business item on the agenda during the meeting when recognized by the
chair. See, you all thought all she has to do is ban driving during blizzards, but she has other jobs, too. We need a roll call to approve this form of meeting. Starting with Mr. Vech.
>> Yes. Uh, David H. Ve, and I approve this meeting format. >> Paul C. Simple. I approve this format. >> Randy Pod, I approve the format. >> David S. Nixon, I approve. >> Virginia Fenwick, I approve. >> Steven D. Deborne, I approve. >> Okay. Thank you. Um,
I would ask that any citizens and non-board members participating in the call via the phone, please give us your name and last four digits of your phone number just for ID purposes. I think all of you here have been here
before and so I will not go through the procedure from this point on unless someone says, "Oh, please do that." This has to do with the voting and all the rest of it. Is everybody familiar with it? Okay, very good. Thank you. Um,
Randy, do we have any minutes? >> Yes, we do, sir. Um, we have meeting that was held on January 22, 2026. Can I have a motion to No, I move to approve. >> All right, I'll second that motion. >> Yes, I Yeah, I actually had one minor um
edit to that. So on page 10 of the minutes, about halfway down the page, under deliberations, bullet number three, it says that the members commented that restrictions for short-term rental would not be necessary. And there were a few
of us that did not actually agree with that. So we're we're suggesting that we change it to um some of the members commented. So it's minor, but I think it's important. >> Any other changes? So, with that, um, I move to approve.
>> Move to approve. I'll second and vote yes. Okay. Dave Dave each votes yes. >> Randy votes yes. >> Jeny votes yes. >> And I vote yes. >> So that's it. >> That's it. Okay. All right, Sarah. Let's begin with
25-1124 today, please. That's 65 Florence Drive. Application number 25-124. Daryl G. Messier and Deborah J. Messier care of Thaad Eldridge, 1038 Main Street, Chattam, Mass 02633. Owners of property located at 65
Florence Drive. Also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 3B, block 52, lot G14. The applicant seeks to enlarge, extend, or change a non-conforming dwelling in a non-conforming lot via the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a new dwelling.
The proposed dwelling will comply with all bulk and dimensional requirements of the bylaw, but is considered a substantial alteration under and under the second except clause of section six of Mass General Law Chapter 48 requires the grant of a special permit. The existing building coverage is 1,154
ft 13.2% and the proposed building coverage is 1,299 square ft 14.9% where 15% is the maximum allowed. the law is non-conforming and that it contains 8,729 square feet where 20,000 square feet is
required in the R20 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protected bylaw. This was continued from January 8th, 2026. >> Good afternoon, Thad. >> And good afternoon. Uh for the record, Thad Eldridge, East Southeast. I'm here
with the Messiers along with Peter McDonald, the architect. I'm hoping that everybody is warm from the storm. power outages. We've submitted revised plans that decrease the height by 18 in. We've also handed out a GIS map that
depicts the area and the number of stories that each building has in the area. Unfortunately, our data is from 2018. That's from local sources. Uh we did add the note that the property to the northwest of Locust was approved in 24.
a um two-story structure is there. Now, it's also uh important to note the vacant lot that's next door is listed as unbuildable by the assessor and it is attached to the to the lot with a twotory at the corner of Kitties and and
Bay View Road. Mr. Messier would like to address the board and then architect Peter McDonald will be able to review the design. Mrs. Messier one messier. >> Mr. Messier gets nervous speaking. This
I'm Deborah Messier, 65 Florence Drive. >> Daryl. >> Daryl Messier, 65 Florence Drive. >> We just wanted to We didn't introduce ourselves the last time. We're very unfamiliar with this process, but we wanted to introduce ourselves, and we purchased the house in 2022 and enjoyed
the area and the neighborhood and our neighbors so much that we've decided to retire here. And that's why we're changing the house to make that um livable for us. And um we appreciate everybody coming here. We know how hard everything has been down here on the Cape. We got the snow, but you guys got
the worst of it. Definitely. Um so, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Well, thank you both for coming. >> Want to say something? >> Do you want to review the design? >> Well, sorry.
Hi, I'm Peter McDonald. Um, we we didn't really change the plan very much, but we brought the height of the house down as that said, 18 in. Uh, the bedroom wing at the end of the house. Uh, this the
ceiling height inside is going to be 76. So, that also came down and can't really bring that down much more. Uh, that's about it. We changed the pitch from I think it was a 13 pitch originally to a 12 pitch and that's how we got most of
that height drop. Thanks. >> We reviewed the criteria at the last meeting and if there are any >> I really don't think it's it's necessary. Uh were there any other changes you made outside of the height? >> First floor height. First floor, >> the first floor height came down, but
that y >> reduced the overall height. That was the major change that was made. >> Okay. All right. Good. >> And if I Yeah, since there's a pause, that brings us down to 272 is the building height under our calculation.
Okay. All right. Is there anyone here today or on Microsoft Teams who wishes to speak in favor of this application? And if so, please indicate you'd like to join the meeting. >> No, >> so I'll read the correspondence.
First is an email. This is from Beth and Clinton Culage. Their address is 46 Florence Drive. They write on February 6th. We're writing you on behalf of the house plan. We have seen their plans and are in full support of the design. We
feel the home as planned would enhance our neighborhood and be aesthetically aligned with the surroundings. And we have an email. This is from Mark and Suzanne Pinall. 57 Florence Drive. They write on February 5th. We're
writing on behalf of our neighbors. We've re reviewed my neighbors proposed house plans, have no objections to the project. They've been wonderful neighbors since joining the neighborhood and we fully support their home upgrade that will enhance our neighborhood. And that is the extent of the
correspondence. Is there anyone here today or on Microsoft Teams that would like to either speak against this application or has a specific question? Gentleman in the back. Brian Phillips, 374 Leans Road. Uh this is uh this neighborhood is really
beautiful. It represents, you know, the quaintness of Chadam. Looks like the average house height is like 15 feet tall in this neighborhood. Um this is a very very very small lot and I just think 27 feet is like way too tall. Uh
it's I think it's going to be looming over the rest of the houses and it's just if everyone else built it 27 feet tall in the neighborhood like how would this look and how would you guys like you know the neighborhood to look so I have to say too tall. Thanks.
Is there anyone else who would like to join the conversation that do you want to respond to the gentleman's issue please? >> Certainly. So, I provided a map that shows um the heights or the the number of stories in
the neighborhood. And we have about half singlestory homes and about half one and a half or twotory homes. Um even the singlestory homes, the one next door has a walk out on one side on the west side of it. Um, while
yes, there are shorter homes, there are taller homes as well. We have a bylaw that allows people to build twotory and we're moving forward with a 1 and a half to one and 3/4 story home that we believe will fit in with
the neighborhood. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh, then we'll have questions from the board. Dave each. >> Uh, I have no questions. Dave Paul, >> I think the map that you've provided is
is very helpful in terms of, uh, giving us the stories that are involved. Um, do you have any information with respect to the overall square footage of what we're dealing with here versus the other houses on uh Florence or Kitty's
>> floor area wise? No. Footprintwise, I should have provided a vicinity map with a filing that shows our areas. So 1299 proposed next door is at 1458.
Um we have 1175. There's certainly a mix nearby. We have some 2,000 square foot homes, the high teens. So this is certainly not the largest building in the neighborhood, not the largest footprint. >> Okay. Thank you,
>> Randy. >> So um welcome, Ted. Um the question that I have is if you know on your on your chart 188 Bay View is that the house with the um windmill if you
happen to know. I noticed that there's a house and I didn't write down the number but there's a house with a windmill and it's got several trees. >> Yes, that is the house. >> That's the house. Okay. No other questions. Thank you. >> Or silo.
Jenny. >> Uh, so that I I did think the house was too large last time and I do see that you brought the height down foot and a half. Um, I wanted to ask you about um well, and because another comment that I
made uh at the last hearing was it was the mass as well. the house was, you know, large. Um, meets the se meet, you know, meets criteria. Um, but I thought the height was too high. And I also was just wondering
because I made the comment about the mass. I was kind of surprised to see that the windows in the dormers. So, not just the height was brought down, but I also noticed that the dormers were reduced a little bit, which I think is helpful for the mass. And in fact, like
not going all the way to the roof line, but inset in the roof line, which I think visually helps. But in in noticing that, I also noticed that a couple of the dormer windows, two of them it looks like, went from a two window to a three window, which I think kind of, you know,
goes counter to reducing the look of the mass. Do you have any comments on on the window change? >> Bring the architecture >> once from two to three. the ones in the Oh, I can tell. So, the north elevation,
proposed north elevation and then the proposed south elevation. So, front and back, I think that is. Okay. >> Well, because we brought the that dormer down, we originally those were double hung windows and uh when we brought the dormer down, we had to make the double
hung windows and they did not meet the egress code any longer. So we changed so they're shorter than they were before and now they're casement so that they can meet the egress code. >> Okay. Okay. I can see that I can see that now in the Okay. So that was that
was uh one question I had. Um how many bedrooms does the house have today? Two. >> Two. >> And what's allowed? Two. >> Two. >> Two. Okay. Um thank you >> D. Um, a couple of questions. The, and
you answered one of them before. I was going to ask you what the ceiling height of the um, the bedroom on the second floor was, and I think you said 7 foot6. >> I think it's at the low point. It's going to be about 74, and it's going to come up a little bit, and it's going to flatten 76.
>> What is the ceiling height of the portion of the house that's over the sewing room and office? uh that that ceiling height um we actually haven't determined, but it's it we have room to make it at least 8 ft.
All right. Then why is the ridge on that part of the house so much higher than the ridge over the bedroom? >> Well, we we brought the bedroom down as much as we could. It's going to have to have a uh ridge beam. So there's no room for collar ties on the on the bigger
part of the house. There's we can do collar ties. So basically flat ceiling all the way across. >> Mhm. >> So structurally it works. What the bedroom structure is going to be different than the other structure because the bedroom structure is so low.
>> It's also not as deep. >> It's also a lot less deep. the main building is deeper than the than the bedroom structure. >> I understand. But the the ridge of the let's call it the center of the house is quite a bit higher than the ridge of the
the bedroom that's on the on the I guess on the left side of the house. Well, one that one reason is to some another lady's point about the mass. When you break up the roof with uh we've
got a part in the bedroom, we've got a part in the middle of the house and a part in the >> garage. When you break up those masses, it it helps the overall mass >> look better. >> Okay. Because I think something could be done
with that ridge. I think that was that was some the concern last time and it sounds like it could be part of it this time as well is that that's adding quite a bit to the overall height of the house and I'm not sure that that's totally necessary. So, um
that's it. Thank you. Yeah. Uh Dave V, um you know a lot more about pitches than I do. >> Yeah. Did the change in this pitch bother you at all as far as the aesthetic of the house or how it fits?
Well, I no I think I mean I think I think I commented uh the last time when when it was clear some members had a were considered considered a massing and I think I commented that at the time that they were showing a 13 pitch which
is a little bit steeper than I mean you know they do exist but it's a little bit steeper than maybe in a customary cave style house. So, I I was actually pleased to see that they that they brought it down to a 12. And that's more
um customary for what you would see in in Chattam um as as a you know, it's a not not an unusual pitch at all and that they worked and to lower the ceiling heights and things and and you know, the description about what I think they've done uh they've done quite a bit. I was
pleased to see that. Um, but yeah. >> So, you were satisfied with it. >> I'm Oh, yeah. I'm I'm satisfied. I think, you know, I guess in my eye seeing that 13 picture just a little bit steeper and it so it just visually looks, you know, calls calls out the height a little
more. >> But by bringing it down to a 12, it doesn't really stand out in that way. It doesn't it doesn't and and you know again I mean you know we've got the we've got a a maximum height of 30 feet and now they're 27 something that's
that's doing made some good progress so I don't think it's unusual. >> Okay. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Randy >> I move to close public hearing and move into deliberations. >> I'll second the motion and vote yes. >> And Dave each votes yes. >> Randy votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes.
>> I vote yes. Okay. Deliberations. Let's start with Well, actually, Dave, you just kind of started, didn't I? So, >> you want me to go? Yeah. I I I mean, I think so. I I mean, I'm hearing some
maybe some further concerns about massing and all, but I I I think the architect's questions really addressed it quite well. I mean, you want to have varying roof heights and and really this um this to me doesn't
look like a massive structure. I know it's not a large lot and I know that this neighborhood is is varied and mixed and um you know, we've seen changes there and we'll probably see more, but I don't see this this to me looks like a a
a pretty um normal um request. it meets, you know, in terms of heights and and meeting the requirements of the bylaw. I'd be hardressed to say that that that this um massing is is um substantially more detrimental in the neighborhood. I
think it fits right in. >> Paul, >> um well, frankly, when I looked at the plans initially, um I was surprised that there wasn't more of a change to it. I had sort of expected that there might be. Um but uh I do think that the
reduction in height is uh a positive contributor. Uh and um you have to realize that we're starting with some very small houses in that area. Uh and in a way you come down to the question of how much you try to
preserve the small houses versus the small versus something which is larger and is more suitable to year round um retirement living. Um so um I'm hardressed to say that it's
substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Uh but I'll be listening to what my colleagues have to say as well. >> Randy. >> Yeah. So, um, so I brought up the fact that there's that windmill house on Bay View because there's a bunch of trees there. And the way I look at it, those
trees do a great job at, um, you know, making this house really not particularly noticeable from the main more main street. So um but I do I what I do want to say is that um what I'm really um pleased about is and this is something that I think makes this
particular um committee stellar is that through the leadership of our chair and through the open-mindedness of some of our applicants we can we are encouraged to think out of the box and thinking out of the box in this particular um
scenario is that we don't just look at you know could we pass this is is substantially detrimental. We'll make comments and then when we have an applicant such as you and a representative such as that in this particular case that is open-minded, you
you don't push it. Um and you also don't just have your own needs in the forefront of your mind. You have the the neighborhood and the town. Um and you go back and try to work work it out. And I really appreciate when I see that. And
um sometimes the ask in the beginning is just so big that it's annoying. But this wasn't crazy big and you have worked through it and you don't just have your own, you know, your own position at the forefront of your mind. You have the whole mix. I think that the changes that
you've made are are good. Um, and again with the screening um that you have from the from the windmill house and all those trees and if you look at Toby Turtle, there's some larger houses there. Right on the corner of Toby Turtle and I want to say Forest Beach
Road, there's pretty big house similar to this, you know. So, you do have a bunch of little cottages, but then you also on Kitty's Lane there there's houses similar to this as well. So, not only don't I think it's substantially detrimental, but I don't think it's
detrimental at all. And um I would support it. Um and I appreciate your changes, >> Jenny. >> Well, I um you only made one change, so I I don't agree that there were changes. Um I remember last time saying that the
majority from the drive that I took around the neighborhood was one and one and a half story. And I think that this uh colored picture shows that that that's the case. One and one and a half story is the majority. Now there are
more two stories noted here in the darker in the purplish color than um than I recall seeing. So I I I I'm torn frankly because I I don't know that you made enough changes. I still think it looks like an outlier in that broader
neighborhood, but there are some houses that are similar that in that neighborhood and there's change. I appreciate that the homeowners want more space and um retiring here and and so I want to be supportive of that, but I I I'm struggling as as Paul mentioned, he
was the lot size is 8,700 square ft and that is just a small lot which is what a lot of the homes in the neighborhood are. looking at this grid and assuming that they're similar uh many of them and and that's really why the houses are
smaller and this is a departure from that. So I was a little disappointed which I mentioned uh with the the only change being the the one and a half foot but that that is a significant 27 a little over 27 um feet in height is
is is modest for a two-story and and I understand that you want that. But the other thing that concerns me is it's a two-bedroom home 8700 square ft and there are two rooms on the second floor. Now, I know we're not a design committee. We're a zoning committee, but
I do question the size of two rooms up upstairs are really substantial. They're almost as large as the master bedrooms. So, I just I don't know. I'm torn because I understand they want more space, but but I I just worry that it's
um looks like a fourbedroom home, not a two-bedroom or a threebedroom. Well, two bedroom with a study or something. So, >> Steve, >> um I guess when I first looked at this, I was a little concerned because this is the of the topography of the land
because this is up on a little bit of a of a hill compared to its closest neighbors. So, I was a little concerned that this was going to make the house appear even bigger than it was. Um but
um you did a good job of staying within all of the dimensions of the of the um of the property, the setbacks and even the height. You dropped the heights a fair amount. I'm I'm just a little concerned that it's going to look very big just because it is up on a little bit of a hill, but you're within all of
the dimensions. So it's it's kind of difficult to argue with that. Um you better be careful because you're right up at 14.9. So, don't go over on any of those uh corner boards. But, um, you know, I I'm I'm a little bit torn. Um,
but I think that's sort of the direction that the neighborhood is moving in. So, I think I would support it. >> Yeah. From my point of view, um, I was very pleased with the height reduction. Uh,
the house to me is still too big for the lot, but as Steve just pointed out from a zoning perspective, it fits. And so we come down to the question, is
it substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than what is there now? No, it would not be. It might very well be detrimental, but certainly not
substantially more detrimental. >> Randy, >> so I move to um approve the application as presented um with the usual um conditions. Want me to read them? >> Please. >> Okay. >> Please. All construction activity and
vehicles should be contained on site or at a neighborhood neighboring property with the permission of the property owner between June 30 and Labor Day. No exterior construction will be allowed. No work should be permitted on the weekends. Construction activity between 8 and 5:00 p.m. only.
>> Paul second. >> I'll second the motion. >> Vote U. I will vote uh in light of the fact that the house is now going to be at the 27 foot uh range and it could be
up to 30. Um I would reluctantly approve. >> Dave, >> yes. Uh and Dave approves. >> Randy approves. >> Jenny, Jenny votes no. >> And I vote yes. So that you are successful four to one.
>> Thank you much. Thank you. Hope everyone stays warm. >> Thank you. >> Power will come back. >> We'll come over your house if we need. >> Okay, Sarah, we have 25-126, please. Application number 25-126
Elizabeth by care of William F. Riley, Esquire, PO Box 707, Chattam, Mass 02633, owner of property located at 60 House Lane, also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 7B, block 52, lot S25. The applicant seeks to enlarge, extend,
or change a non-conforming dwelling in 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 that and that it is located 13.2 feet from the northeasterly of butter where a 15t setback is required. The proposed
dwelling will comply with rodent and butter setback requirements. The existing building coverage is 1,459 ft 15.5% and the propo and the proposed building coverage is 1,861 ft 19.8%
where 15% is the maximum allowed. Thank you. the law is non-conforming and that it contains 9,418 square feet where 20,000 square feet is required in the R20 zoning district. A special permit is required under master general law chapter 48 section 6 and
section 5 be the B of the protective bylaw. This was continued from January 22nd, 2026 for readvertising. Okay. >> Uh good afternoon, Bill Riley on behalf of Jim and Elizabeth Diosi. The DBIS
not surprisingly had their flight cancelled so they couldn't be here but they are here virtually uh and they'd like to address the board. Um good afternoon guys again. Sorry we couldn't be here that mother nature had the final say in that but um just wanted
to introduce ourselves. Uh Jim Libby Debiazi. Um wanted to talk a little bit about the history of the house. Uh the house has been in the family since 1977 when uh Libbyy's mom and dad Keith and Louise Eden purchased it. Uh we've owned
it since Louise passed about 10 years ago. Keith worked for many years in town as a realtor uh after he retired from his his primary profession. Uh Louise after retiring from her uh job as a middle school science teacher was very very
active at St. Christopher's over the years. Uh Libby worked at the Christopher Ryder House Summers while she was in college. Um after she graduated in 1982, um she lived in Chattam for a few years and worked at uh at Meil Lynch and
Hyannis. Uh she and I were married in Chadam in 1985. So we've spent a lot of time uh at this at this house. Uh we have two great children who love Chadam. Um we recently had our first grandchild. So our goal is to create a home that
future generations of our family can enjoy for many years to come. Um and happy to answer any questions about who we are. But uh that's that's just a little background about us. >> Uh thank you Jim. Um, so the house, the
architect of the house is uh uh Lauren O'Neal. Uh, Lauren is also online, I believe. >> Yeah, I'm on the phone actually because I couldn't I couldn't log in with Teams. I apologize. >> Okay. All right. So, Lauren, would you
uh explain the process uh you went through with um Jim and Elizabeth to have this design? Sure. Yeah, sure. No problem. Hi everyone. Uh my name is Lauren O'Neal. I'm the
architect for 60 House Lane. I've been working with Jim and Libby for a while now um closely to design what I think, you know, we've done the job of designing a classic shingle style cottage um that fits in nicely with the neighborhood and coastal cadam. Um we
paid much attention to scale and detail to stay true to the the two cape shingle style. I'm from the Cape actually and I've been designing homes in the Cape and the islands for about 30 years. Um, and so the original house had a gazebo.
Uh, we replaced or the new design has a gazebo in the souththeast corner which captures the water views. Um, the original house, the gazebo was kind of a favorite room, so we um captured that in the new design. Um I think the house you
know has a modest uh common living area with just kitchen dining and living open floor plan. Um and the home is placed well within the setbacks and the height requirement. Uh the abuing neighbors
have given uh letters you know saying that they're they're fine with the design, they're fine with the size. Um so there's no real complaints about that. I think that we've really done the job of, you know, creating a classic
shingle style that fits in with the neighborhood and fits in with Chadam. >> So, >> all right. Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much, Lauren. If you have any questions >> for Lauren, she's available to answer them. So the uh
so this is a property that currently exceeds uh 15%. Uh it's a it's a small lot 9,400 square ft. And the so one question when this came
to me was, you know, is this property or this building compatible with neighboring properties? And the uh review of the other homes on House Lane shows that uh there are three other homes in close proximity
uh to house to to to the Debasi property uh that also exceed 15%. There's David Leo's house at 30 houses 15.9%.
Uh Sanchok at 40 house lane is 18%. The house immediately next door to the left as you look at the house from the street is 23% building coverage and that was approved
by this August body back in 2016. Um the current Debbiosi home is also exceeds 15%, it's 15.5%. Um and and one of the elements here that I think
uh because the lot is small, 9,400 square ft more or less, uh that means 1% of building coverage is 94 square feet. So uh you know we're increasing the billing
coverage by 4% 367 square ft. So uh this is not uh although the coverage number is tough you know as I say that given the neighboring properties it's it's pretty
much compatible with the neighboring properties and there you know there are other homes uh in the neighborhood that are they're not right on not right on house lane. Just thought I'd have some examples for you. The uh
not in terms of building coverage, but in terms of size. So the the property at 48 Nichson Lane, it's 4600 square ft. The uh
property at 34 Nichson Lane is 3,900 square ft. 24 Nichson Lane is 4,700 square ft. 12 Nichson Lane is 4,500 square ft. 67 Cabat Lane, 5,140
ft. 70 Cabat Lane is 4600 square ft. 25 Cabat Lane. It's 5,000 square feet. If you know the neighborhood, Cabat Lane is sort of the middle road. So, you have House Lane is the upper road, Cabat Lane is the middle road, and then Billings is
the one closest to the beach. And then uh 17 Cabin Lane is 6,745 ft. So in terms of compatibility, you know, our house, gross floor area of 4,364
square feet is really very much compatible with neighboring properties. Um so I think uh although you know that if you focus solely on the percentage of law coverage,
you can say well it's it seems large but it's compatible with the the homes around it and and the home itself uh at 4,300 square ft is very much compatible with the neighborhood as a Oh, again this is
an old sub. >> Can I just interrupt for a second, Bill? I think we're a lot less than 4,300 actually. >> Yeah, we are. >> Well, wait a minute wait. Lauren and I agree that it's 4,300 square feet because you have to include
the basement. So, just >> Oh, you have to include the basement. >> You have to include the basement. Anyway, so uh but I'm glad you're paying attention, Jim. All right, so >> I haven't seen that number before, so it just jumped out at me.
>> It's all right. So I'll run through the criteria. Uh adequacy, the size of the site, including but not limited to maximum ladder billing coverage. We exceed maximum the 15%. Uh but I think again
it's compatible with neighboring properties. Uh we do meet the setbacks both uh street setback and uh sideline setbacks. Uh compatibility of the size of the proposed structure with neighboring properties. Uh
our house is compatible with neighboring properties some of which exceed the 15% number. uh as I indicated the home at 66 house lane which is immediately adjacent to us uh is 23% lot coverage 40 house lane is
18 30 house lane is 16 u and there are other large homes in the neighborhood so we believe that our proposal is compatible with the neighborhood extent of the proposed increase in a non-conforming nature
uh principally the increase in non-conforming nature is the increase in the living area in the home. Uh which you know under the Bransford case constitutes an intensification because the lot is smaller than the required
20,000 square feet. It's a situation you see very frequently. suitability of the site including but not limited to impact on neighboring properties around the natural environment including slopes, vegetation, wetlands, groundwater, water
bodies and storm water runoff. Here uh the house slopes from uh back to front towards the road but the slope is quite gentle. As I note the uh the site plan shows u the ground elevation at the rear
of the home at 37.6 6 uh feet above sea level and the the road in front of the house is 34. So we're only talking about a three-foot change from front to back. Certainly not a steep slope. Uh there no
wetlands or sensitive vegetation, no impact on groundwater or any water bodies. impact of scale sighting and mass on neighborhood visual character including views, vistas and streetscapes.
Uh so like most of the properties in this neighborhood the uh the view of Nucket Sound is seems to be pretty much paramount importance. And as you uh look at the
homes in the neighborhoods, as I'm sure you have, uh most of them have a second story uh that enables them to focus on that view. Um the so that as Lauren indicated, she's come
up with a shingle design uh that she thinks fits in. There are houses in the neighborhood that have uh gamrell type uh aspects to the building and there are
others that that are standard uh cape design but the the uh >> excuse me >> the design itself I believe uh fits into the neighborhood. We do meet the setback from the street. Um the we don't impact
the the views of any of the neighboring properties and the applicants believe it's an improvement to the streetscape. Uh they also believe and I hope you agree that this proposed structure is not substantially more detrimental to
the neighborhood than the existing structure. the uh compatibility of the proposed use single family home in a single family neighborhood. Uh method of sewage disposal is on-site septic system and the water systems on
the public water system. There be no impact on traffic flow and safety. Uh no change in noise or litter and the utilities and other public services are adequate. So that would be our presentation. Thank you.
Is there anyone here today on Microsoft Teams who would like to speak in favor of this application? If so, please indicate you'd like to join the discussion. Don't see anyone. So, I'll read the correspondence first. This is a note from Judith Giorgio, health agent for the town of
Chadam. She writes on February 26th. I have no concerns regarding this project. The property has an active septic permit for a new fourbedroom dwelling. Then we have a note. This is from Ethan Arnold.
It's stated February 25th. My wife Helen and I live at 48 House Lane and want to voice our support for the plans to take down the current house and build a new one. There have been many homeowners over the years who have taken their homes down in our neighborhood and built new ones,
including ourselves back in 2014. While we have not seen the plans for the new house that the Dwasis plan to build, we are confident that it will be consistent with the architecture to the community. We appreciate that the ZBA is taking the time to review the plans. We realize
that the lot is non-conforming as is ours and that the new home will comply with road and a butter setback requirements. Then we have a note from Robert Mahoney 57 housing February 23rd. I'm writing
into support of this application. They have submitted to demolish and rebuild their home. my wife Joanne Maloney Mahoney, I'm sorry, and I fully support this project which will have no negative consequences for our neighborhood. We urge the board to
approve the special permit. That is the extent of the correspondence. Is there anyone here today or on Microsoft Teams that would like to speak either against us or has a specific question? Gentleman in the back,
>> Phillips, 374 Leans Road. Um, how tall is the building? 296. >> Yeah, it's on the site plan. Yeah. >> So, it's it's tough to speak out against this project because the house right next to it is grotesquely large. Um I
mean, it just seems like it's a little bit too tall, maybe the 27 foot mark, you know, for the neighborhood because it's not completely lost yet. But I do support the majority of this project. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to join the conversation? >> Mr. Riley, did you want to respond to
that gentleman's >> statement? >> Well, I think I'd like to hear the comments from the zoning board. you know, the the um you know, this is a generational home
and the DBIS plan for it to continue on for more generations. And so, uh having a little breathing space when you have multi-generations sharing a home,
I think, is a is a good idea. and uh there are many homes there that are close to or at the 30 foot limit. And so I I think this again, as I say, I think
this house is compatible uh with the neighboring properties, although I do have to agree with Mr. Phillips at the house next door is not winning any beauty pageantss but and and it's 23% of lot coverage too. So
anyway the uh lot >> I be pardon >> please no interruptions please please no interruptions Mr. Rally. >> Yeah. So anyway, that so I think I think the house fits in the
neighborhood and would ask you to approve it because I think it's clear that is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing house. >> Thank you, Mr. Riley. Okay, questions from the board. We'll start with Randy. >> So I understand that the height that you
want to make is um that you want to build is 296. What is the height of the existing house? I didn't notice that in any of the paperwork. I apologize if it's in front of my >> It's on the site plan. >> It is. >> If I can find the site plan.
>> I have the site plan right here and I don't see it. >> So, the existing >> problem that's not going to work. >> All right. The the existing ridge height is 57.1. Uh
I have to find the proposed ridge height is 65.7. >> So, it's going to be eight feet. How many feet? >> Uh, eight. >> Eight more or less. >> Eight feet. >> Yes. >> Okay. Just want to make sure I heard you
right. No other questions. Thank you, >> Jenny. >> I I don't have any questions. >> Dave, I don't think I have any questions either. Dave, questions. >> Uh, no questions, Dave. Thanks,
>> Paul. >> No questions. >> All right. >> So, assuming that the chair doesn't have any questions? >> That's correct. >> I will move to close public hearing and move into deliberations. >> I will second the motion and vote yes. >> Votes yes. >> Yep. >> And Randy votes yes.
>> He votes yes. >> And I vote yes. So, deliberations. Let's start with Steve. Um, well, I think it's a it's a fine design. The thing that I'm struggling with most is that it's already
um slightly over the square footage limit and it's going to um 28% higher um than what it is now, which is substantial. and and it's actually 31%
higher over the 15,000 uh >> what >> or the 15% coverage. >> Sorry, Could you just I'm I'm baffled. Can you just explain those numbers to me, please?
>> Um well, yes. uh 1,861 is 31% higher than 15,000 of the 15% coverage. >> Okay. >> So, it's it's it's the the
>> the 15% plus 31% gives you the 1800. >> Um other than that, you know, again, it's it's within the setbacks. it's within, you know, the the street setbacks and the sideline setbacks. Um I think it is
a little tall. Um but if you compare it to some of the other things in the neighborhood, maybe it's not. Um um I I think the mass of it is a little too high and I think something could be done to bring that down a little bit. >> That's it.
>> Dave H. Um, well, it looks I I like the design. I mean, I think it's a an attractive uh building. Um, and I I don't I think it fits with many of the other redoss
that have been done in the neighborhood. Um, you know, this is another one of those neighborhoods that's been um in transition for quite a while and is probably going to continue to be. And there's, you know, just like on the last one is there's some a pretty significant
contrast between some of the original homes that were there and some of the ones that in this proposal and many of the ones that have been done already on on maybe not necessarily on this street as much as although the right down the street is one is very similar. I don't
know why I'm getting feedback but um so again I think that uh and you know it is under the height um I mean six inches under the height but you know the height is the height 30t is 30 feet um so I don't really
think um uh again this doesn't to me it's a it's a good-looking building I think it will fit into the neighborhood so I I can't see it as being substantially detrimental And so I can support it. Thanks. Oh,
>> well, we keep getting these houses that max out the height and uh the overall massiveness of the house on the size of the lot is bothering. Um the the
difference is that uh in this neighborhood there are a lot of houses that have been going up that are substantial uh and the lot sizes are not substantially different from each other. But um I do have some concern about the
increased lot coverage and the u overall impact of the house. So, um, once again, I will listen to what my colleagues have to say, but I do have some concerns about whether this is just more than it
needs to be at this location. >> Randy, >> thank you, Mr. Chair. So, I agree with everything Paul just said, and I just want to point out um that we we are encourage not just encouraged, we're implored by the um zoning rules to
reduce or minimize existing adverse impacts on neighboring properties on natural resources. So, we're certainly not reducing or minimizing the fact that this is already over the coverage if we if we just stand by and allow for that.
So you're you want to go over the over on a small lot and put a huge house up. 44 64 square feet is a very big house. And it looks like on your first application you were thinking about
asking to go up um to 18.5% and then you revised it and now you want to go up on co the coverage to 19.8 eight when 15 is a is the amount by the rules and you're already over. So if you wanted to come
back with something that was just at the same coverage that you were at you are at now I think that um that would be more conducive to the um the criteria that I'm just looking for
and I just want to point out the criteria that I um have a problem with. I know one is one number one uh the adequacy of the size of the site in terms of size for the proposed use. Obviously the site is not adequate for this size because it's already over in
the first place and now you want to go even over even more. So it can't possibly compute to be an adequate size this for this house. Um so I think it follows that it's not suitable and um
the impact on neighborhood visual character number four um would be um substantially detrimental in my point of view. So I would uh not support it >> so I I do think that it's a neighborhood
in transition not unlike the property that we just were talking about before this one. um the neighborhood that is, but this one's more established. It has more homes that are larger over time and they're pretty substantial. So, I I don't really have a problem with the
proposed size, but I do have a problem with the building coverage. It's um it it's substantially more than it's already over and it's going over. In fact, when it was initially being continued, I thought, "Oh, okay. I think they realized the building coverage ask
is too much." and I thought it'd be coming back reduced somewhere in the middle and to see it go even higher. I I I think that that's you know not um something that I could support either. So for me it's criteria one adequacy of
of the size of the site. It's it's a small lot 9500 square ft and also number three which is the extent of the increase in the nonconformity but I I think it's a very attractive design if it could just be brought down. There are neighbors on all three sides and they're
close. You are meeting the setbacks, but they're they're they're close and and I just think it's a little too large for that for that site, but it's it's a beautiful project. Well, from my perspective, the increase up to 19.8 8 is just way
too much. It it you talk about 1% is this and that. Oh, okay. But this is a lot and it's roughly 30% of an
increase on something that is already over what is allowed. I don't like the fact of the infringement of the setbacks to the existing houses on the left and
right. For instance, the one on the right currently is 33 ft. Well, now it would be 22 feet. That's that's just, you know, forcing yourself on a neighbor whether they like it or not. This is just wrong to me on the
>> Well, the setback is only 20 only 15 ft. >> Please, Mr. Riley, I'm speaking. Do not interrupt. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Sorry, Dave. >> So, and the one on the left, you know, again, it's
let's see 16.7 ft away. I mean, I don't see how we can allow something that is already over the limit to be increased by 30%. that is going to
be detrimental to the neighbors just by making it closer. The noise is closer. Everything is closer. So, I I don't see how I could support this at all.
>> Would you like to call for uh >> Yeah. Well, we thought that considering how ugly the house was next door that you guys would focus on that instead of this. So, >> guess we didn't. >> Yeah. So the uh uh obviously we have to do a redesign so
we like you know two months. >> Is it possible for me to speak? No sir. No sir. >> Uh Sarah. >> Um how quickly will the architect be able to get revised plans?
>> That's what I say. I think two months would be necessary. >> So the are daily and not and not us. Um so uh we have meetings on April 9th and April 26th. I would need the plans at least
one week in advance of that. So whatever works. Or you're up to May 28th because we only have one meeting in May. >> April April 26th. That'd be good. >> 23rd. 23rd.
>> I move to um continue this case until April 23rd, 2026. >> I'll second the motion and vote yes. >> Dave Votes yes. >> Randy votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> And I vote yes. >> Thank you very much. >> 23rd it is. All right, Sarah.
26-07 007. Wow. All right. >> Application number 26-007, the James A. Doyle Revocable Trust of 2022. Care of MJ and Ardone Building and Remodeling 299 Whites Path, South Yarmouth, Mass 02664.
Owner of property located at 135 Lime Hill Road, also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map, 12E, block 18, lot B1. The applicant proposes to install an exterior mechanical system appliance generator 37.1 ft from the
road where a 40ft setback is required. The property contains 14,70 square feet in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under master law chapter 48 section 9 and section 8D2B of the protective bylaw.
>> Okay. Do we have anyone? >> They're online. >> Oh, online. All right. >> Good afternoon. Can you hear me? Okay. >> Yeah. Please introduce yourself. >> My name is Brandon Fcher. I am the project manager uh at NJ Ardone. Uh I am
here with James Nolan. He is my uh mechanical manager. Um and we are asking for a special permit at 135 Lime Hill to install a generator. >> Could we ask you to take off your hat, please? We have a problem with folks wearing hats on the TV. Thank you very
much. Handsome guy like you should be okay. There we go. >> Appreciate it. Thank you. >> Okay. So perhaps you'll explain to us why you need to have it where you want to put it. >> So as you see in the far right corner of
the uh front of the house, uh there is two existing AC units. Um and on that side of the house, it's where all the mechanicals come in, gas and power. Um it's really the only area where we can
get close to the setback. Um >> I think I think also too something to note is the generator is currently installed. Um and you know we were we were notified um you know that we needed that special permit when we when we filed that mechanical exterior mechanical permit. But the re it's a
very small generator. It's about it's a 12KW colar generator. The only reason that the homeowner is having it installed is um they did hook up the sewer and because of the elevation um I believe there's a a pump was installed right installed.
>> Um so in order during a power outage for the the homeowner to use his residence um he you know has to have power to that pump. Um so that was the primary reason um that you know the owner requested that a a generator be installed. Um the other you know issue that we had was
just general location um especially with you know keeping within setbacks of being a corner lot um with those extended setbacks required and also um with the gas code and being you know 10 ft um from any optable windows or or intakes or um all those kind of
restrictions that come along with it as well. >> Okay. Okay. Hey, would that be your presentation? >> That is >> all right. Uh, there's no correspondence, so I can't read
anything, but I can ask, is there anybody here like to speak in favor of this application? Is there anyone here or in Microsoft Teams that would like to speak against this application or has a specific question?
All right. Uh, questions from the board. Paul, well, as I understand it, it's been installed. Uh, at this point, um, we've had no correspondence from neighbors. Um, it looks to me as if it's pretty
close to where we would need for a set required setback and a logical location given the AC units that are there. Um, so I don't think it would be substantially detrimental to the neighborhood to allow this to go forward. Randy,
>> I don't have any questions either. >> No questions. >> Uh, no questions. Dave, >> uh, why does anybody think a generator is important? >> I have I think we've had a pretty good
demonstration of that recently. Thanks. No, I have no questions. Wouldn't you like to talk to the neighbors today? See how it turned out? Huh? >> Okay. So, you don't have any questions? All right. >> So, I move to close public hearing and move into deliberations. >> I will second the motion and vote yes.
>> And Dave each votes yes. >> Yeah. I vote yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes. All right. Deliberations. >> Who wants to start? >> I think I already I think I already did. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Well, you did, Paul. All right. All right. So Randy,
>> no, no, I agree with Paul and I don't think we need any conditions on this. Um, and uh I think that it meets all the criteria and um it certainly is not substantially detrimental to the neighborhood.
>> Yeah, I agree. Um you're less than three feet short of what you need and it's because it's in the front where you have a longer stretch that you have to meet. if it was on the sides, which you don't have the room on that one side, and it makes sense to bundle it with the other
mechanicals, and we definitely understand the importance of generators. So, I I would support it. >> Well, it's nice having a life-size mockup of what the finished product is going to look like. Um, you may want to just consider some
some screening or something, but I think it's it makes sense of where it is. Well, all the uh the other mechanicals are there. It's And it's done. So >> Dave, >> yeah, I've I've had um I've had some experience with locating generators uh a
couple of them and and um and it is true. I mean there there are certain lo depending on where the gas line is and where that that that only make sense and uh this I think um is one of them. And um and I'm grateful that um I think
prior to uh the most recent town meeting um in the change that was made uh allowed this to be come by special permit because prior to that it would have required a variance. So I'm grateful for that change in the bylaw
and I want to call that out. So no, I I I this we we now can see perfectly the need for a generator and why we need these things in a location like that is a very good one actually. >> So I'd like to uh ask our building
commasar if he feels feels maybe there was a better spot than this. >> No, I think this makes sense and and even without that previous town meeting approval of the bylaw, the existing AC unit doesn't meet the setback. So they could have gone for a special permit
there anyway. So I think it makes sense where they have it. >> So I move I move to approve the application as submitted. >> I'll second the motion and vote yes. >> Dave Votes yes. >> Randy votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes. Thank you gentlemen.
>> Thank you very much. All right, Sarah. I think we're down to 26-8. >> Application number 26-008. Christopher and IdaBub Laca Carob Jude Dylan 90 Hopedale Street, Hopedale, Mass
01747. Owners of property located at 58 Diane Drive. also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 6C block 77 lot G113. The applicant proposes to install an exterior mechanical system appliance
heat pump within the coastal conservancy district where a 50ft setback is required. The lot contains 20,040 ft of land area and zero square ft of buildable upland in the R20 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass Law chapter 48 section 9 and
section 8D2B of the protected bylaw. Please introduce yourself. >> Uh, >> Jude Deacondro. >> Uh, I'm just trying to install a heat pump condenser so his upper level can have some heat. And I know it's in a flood zone, so I was going to keep it 3
ft above the ground as I'm pretty sure the code is. And it's I don't think it's within any step access. It's in the going to be mounted on the back of the house, so shouldn't affect anybody. Okay. Is there anyone here today or in Microsoft Teams that would like to speak
in favor of this application? Don't see anyone. So, I'll read the correspondence. We have one note. This is from Lori and Jason Fromer. They're at 22 Diane Drive.
of February 13th, they write, "We're writing to express our support who wish to install a heat pump. They're adding value to their home with all their improvements, and this additional improvement request is no exception. We hope the ZBA will approve the request."
That's the extent of the correspondence. Is there anyone here today or on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak either against this or has a specific question? If so, please indicate you'd like to join the conversation. Seeing none,
does anybody have a question? >> Uh, I I have a a quick question that maybe the building commissioner can advance. I look at the site plan and uh I don't actually see the heat pump condenser shown on the plan other than
uh a note uh on the corner of it which uh says heat pump condenser but I don't see that in the site plan. >> Good eyes, Paul. It's not shown on the plan. It's shown on the assessor's map that's stapled to the plan on the back
of the house. I've seen a photograph of the unit on the back of the building. I believe. Um, >> and so we know where it's where it's at and it's >> it is attached to the back of the building. >> Yeah. And it is off the ground. They are in a flood plane and then they don't
meet the setback. >> All right. I have no other questions. >> Randy. >> Um, I don't have any questions. >> No, I don't. We're >> Oh, I move to >> Have we moved on >> close public hearing and move into deliberations? I'll second the motion and vote yes.
>> D votes yes. >> Randy votes yes. Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes. Okay. >> Paul think of this. >> I think I think we're presented with another situation where we don't have too much choice and where it makes sense. So I I think it makes sense that
we go forward with it. I think it'll meet the criteria which is it will not be detrimental to the established or future character of the neighborhood and the town and it's in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the bylaw. >> Well, I agree with Paul and I don't think they have any choice there is the
whole the whole area is within the cause of conservancy. So, sure I I support it. >> I agree with Paul and Randy. >> I agree as well. Oh, so I uh move to approve the
application as submitted. I don't think we need any conditions that I know of. So >> Paul seconds the motion and votes yes. >> Dich votes yes. >> Randy votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes. That's unanimous. Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Board, take care. >> I don't think there's any other business
to come before the meeting today. So >> I move I move to adjourn. >> All vote yes. >> Everyone needs to vote. >> I second that and vote yes. And David votes yes. >> And Randy votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> Steve votes yes. >> And I vote yes. And the official time,
Sarah, is >> 5:16 p.m. >> All right. >> All right. Good night. >> Very good. >> Thank you.