Stop. Hey. Hey. Welcome everyone to today's Town of Cadam Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. The date is May 28th, 2026.
Uh to begin the meeting, we'll have a message from our governor. That would be the governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. >> Please note that this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly hereafter for scheduled and on demand
viewing 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 Hilly's March 28th, 2025 signing of the chapter 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 30, 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 ID 224981 091 and the pound sign or join the meeting online via Microsoft Teams through the link in the posted agenda. While this is a live broadcast and simo cast on CH uh Chattam 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 issues, hearing, or business item on the agenda during
the meeting when they are recognized by the chair. Our procedures for this meeting, Steve? >> Uh the procedures for today's meeting is uh are as follows. We're going to take a roll call of the members present. We're going to ask if any citizens or
non-board members participating via the phone uh to identify themselves when speaking uh by the using the last four digits of their phone number and their name. The hearing notice will be read by Sarah Clark.
Um the applicant or the representative uh will present the appeal. Um we'll ask if anybody is in favor of the appeal and they may speak for up to five minutes. Um the chair will read um any communications that we received uh
related to the appeal. Um anyone who is uh against um the application can then speak for again up to five minutes and the applicant can um present a rebuttal if necessary. The board members will uh ask direct questions to anyone
present. Um the board will hear if there's any further information and the board will then close the public hearing. The board will deliberate on what they've been told and the board will take a vote uh on the appeal of the application. Um in state of
Massachusetts, you need four votes in the affirmative for approval. Um all votes are taken by roll call and at the end of the meeting um we'll close with verbal confirmation and note the time of German. >> So we need a roll call to start this to
approve this form of meeting. Let's start with Mr. V. >> Yes. David H. Vich and I approve this meeting format. >> Uh Ed Actton and I approve. >> David S. Nixon. I approve. >> Virginia Fenwick. I approve. >> Steven D. Dbor. And I approve. >> Lee Hubby. I approve.
>> Okay. I should say to everybody this is Lee Hubby's first meeting as an official member. Congratulations Lee. It's great to have you as a made member. Okay. Let's see. Uh Mr. H. Uh, what do
you think are the minutes from >> Well, I'd like to offer an amendment uh to the minutes to minutes. Um, on page three, um there's um during this hearing about two twothirds of the way down the page, uh
the the it st it says Miss Podash moved to close the hearing. Mr. Simple seconded want to change that to read that Mr. Simple moved to close the hearing and Mr. of each seconded and then further down towards the bottom of the page uh again sub substituting
Mr. Simple for Miss Podash as moving to approve application number 2609 as presented and Mr. Vch um seconded. So with with those amendments I will move to approve the minutes of April um
23rd 2025. >> I second and I'm going to abstain because I was not here. Okay, Jenny. >> Uh, I approve the minutes. >> Vote yes. I vote yes. I vote yes.
>> Did you vote yet? >> Who was voting? >> Steve. >> Steve. >> Steve is today's voter. >> I vote yes. >> Okay. All right. Very good. All right. So, oh, incidentally, voting today on all matters. Mr. V, myself.
All right. So Sarah, let's go on to 26-021 and 022 and 023. >> Can we do all that at once? >> Let's do it all at once.
So, under application number 26-021, Cornelia Atkins, care of Robert Perry, PO Box 1517, East Dennis, Mass, 02641, owner of property located at 0 Champlain Road, also shown on the town of Cadam's
assessor's map 13A, block 16C, lot 3. The applicant proposes to change, alter, or expand a non-conforming boat house on a non-conforming lot via the relocation, elevation, and expansion of the existing boat house. The existing boat house is non-conforming, and it is located 21 ft
from the road and 5.1 ft from the westerly abut butter. The proposed the proposed relocated boat house will be non-conforming, and that it will be located 21 ft from the road where a 40ft setback is required and 6.6 feet from the Westerly butter where a 25 ft setback is required. The building
coverage will remain 84 square ft where 2,800 ft is the maximum allowed. The law is non-conforming and that it contains 6,260 ft where 40,000 ft is required in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter
4A section 6 and section 4 A 3A and 5B of the protective bylaw. I'd say let's do this. I'm sorry. I would say let's do this one because that's a separate partial and they're all separate parcels but these two are more tied together than this one.
>> Okay. Fine. So that was zero. You just read zero. >> Yes. >> Um and then the chair would like when we get on to the other two we'll do those together. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> If that's fine with you. >> That's perfect with us. Thank you. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> I'm Bob Perry. My company is Cape Gun
Engineering and I have been working with the Atkins family. I know Cornelia is on today. Bedworks of Chadam has been collaborating on the landscape side and their contributions were in the plan that has been reviewed by the conservation commission finishing up
yesterday with the final orders of conditions. Just wanted to let you know about that and they will take a final vote in a couple of weeks I think. Um, so Zero Champlain Road is the waterfront
lot that's affiliated with 138, which is the residential lot across the street. If you've been there, you know it's a coastal thicket of uh salt bush and some low dunes and the boat house was severely damaged uh in the storms of
2023 24. So, in reviewing what's needed, uh, we'd like to effectively leave the boat house approximately where it was, not where it was shifted to, but where it was, but
with a slight improvement for the sideline setback. I think we're changing it approximately a foot and a half. The only record we have of its former location are former plans and aerial photos. And we've indicated the location
of the former location on the boat on the plan and the boat house shape that's shown with the pilings shown is the proposed location at 6.6 ft from the sideline. So the the work as I said was reviewed by
conservation. I think with regard to the zoning issues, there's a lift here. We have higher tide ranges in stage harbor. We had water come across the beach that just hit the boat house broadside. It was an atgrade structure and I think it
may have been on some kind of post, but I don't think they expected the tide to rise as high. So, this alteration fortifies the frame of the boat house. Doesn't change its architecture. You can see that on another portion of the plan,
we've provided uh elevation views, two sides of this cute little boat house, but it's an approximate 2 and a half foot lift. The ground is is variable under here. So, it's 2 and 1/2 to 3ft lift. So, the sort of moderate storms
can pass underneath. It's common to support a building like this on posts. And so it's not being elevated to the elevation that a home would have to be lifted to. It's just elevated marginally to allow water to
flow underneath it. To to accomplish that, we have added a small deck, which is a stoop and a set of steps that's an open frame um necessity to get to the door. Um was
consistent with the conservation commission performance standards. And I believe it's also a permittable item in the conservancy district. So we are in a flood zone here. We're in a conservancy district and we have a very um beachlike
backd uh area. Um the work would occur coming off the street. Um we've been engaging with the contractor that's going to do the work. Uh they're very familiar with this kind of thing. All those color or uh numbered or lettered circles you see there,
that's all uh mitigation and restoration planting. So, while we're going to access off Champlne Road, it's all going to be recovered with native shrubbery and grasses that will, I think, be better than the kind of the damaged
scrub thicket that's there today. We're dovetailing uh sort of continuing a coastal resiliency project that occurred just to the west. And although it's not part of this permit uh review
perhaps, but we are adding some sand for an artificial dune enhancement uh right at the near the foreshore. And there um there isn't much more to talk about. Uh there's just going to be a lot of vegetation management here and uh of
restoration of the existing boat house with practical improvements and a little bit of improved integrity for the structure itself, but it will have the character that it has today. Um so I
think I've summarized it in our in our submitt. went through a rather detailed summary of the criteria for special permit. I can put that on the record if you like. We have that. Thank you. Okay. All
right, Sarah. Um, do we need to read 130? >> I want to then vote on everything. You want me to do it individually? >> Yes. Do these two together, but that's one by itself. Okay. So, you want me to
finish this up? Okay. All right. Uh, thank you. Okay. Um, so if there's anybody here today or on the uh big screen that wishes to speak in favor of this, please indicate you'd like to join
the conversation. Don't see anyone. So, I'll read the correspondence. This is from the conservation commission stated May 5th. The applicant submitted a notice of intent. Project was heard by conservation on April 8th, April 22nd.
Project is scheduled for May 27th as Mr. Perry mentioned for the issuance of an order of conditions. When will be conditioned to meet the performance standards under the wetlands perfection act in the town of local wetland? And that's the entire correspondence. Is
there anyone here today or on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak against this or has a specific question? Please join the conversation if you do. Don't see anybody. Um, anybody have any questions? Any members?
Ed, what's um the 10-ft pilings? What's the material being used for for the pilings? >> Good question. Um, it would have to be it would typically be timber of um a preservative nature. And that particular
wood has to be consistent with the Chattam Conservation Commission limitations for that use of wood. And I um actually cannot tell you if CCA, for example, is allowed. It typically isn't
in water. And if it is not permitted as a uh treatment, then it could possibly be of a hardwood, green, hard, natural wood piling, which will be very durable for a very long time. Sorry, I don't
have that information. Towns change their requirements. Um, and I can't keep up with all of it. Sorry. >> Understood. Thank you. Any anyone else? Okay, Dave. Yeah. I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations.
>> Okay. >> I second and vote yes. >> Steve votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> And I vote yes. >> Okay. Deliberations. >> Okay. Dave. >> Uh well, what's not to like here? Uh
it's it's certainly necessary and and to uh um it's admirable to save the boat house and and pick it up a little bit. It's going to look just fine there. and uh it meets all of the applicable criteria for section 4 A 3A and 5B and
I'll be happy to support it. >> And um uh as as will I I don't see um any any detrimental nothing but benefits from raising this a little bit. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. Mr. Perry, you said two things that I want to reiterate. existing structure and practical improvements. I'd add a third to that which is um an improvement to the pre-existing even even though it's small the pre-existing non-conforming setback. And also I did
watch the conservation hearing and I know that their input was extensive and valuable and so appreciate hearing what they had to say and and making um improvements in that regard too. Steve, >> well, I think this is probably a good idea because the next time it might end
up in stage harbor. So, uh, you know, whatever you can do to protect that building um, would be great and, um, I think it's a good project. >> Lee, >> I agree with my colleagues. Um, I also just want to add that it's a little bit of a historical, um, boat house as well.
It's been there for quite a while and it kind of is a iconic um, boat house for that area. So, I I definitely approve. Okay. >> Well, I think the the question may come up about uh conditions. Um and we would
I think in this instance, my thinking is that we would have seek our standard um conditions which doesn't allow exterior construction during the summer months. Is that would that be >> I believe that would be acceptable. >> Okay. All right. So, um I will move
approval of um uh hearing of um 26021 uh with the following conditions. Um all construction activity and vehicles should be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner. Uh between June
30th and Labor Day, no exterior construction would be allowed. No work should be permitted on the weekends. Construction activity between 8 a.m. and 5:00 pm only. I second and vote yes. >> Steve votes yes. And >> Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes.
>> And I vote yes. >> That's a unanimous decision. Thank you very much, Mr. >> Thank you very much. >> So stay right where you are. >> I will. >> And Sarah will read 26-022 >> and both.
>> Oh, you want to do them both? Okay. Application number 26-022, Cornelia Atkins, Care of Robert Perry, PO Box 1517, East Dennis, Mass 02641, owner of property located at 130 Champlain Road, also shown on the town of Chadam's
assessor's map 13A, block 16A, lot 2B. The applicant proposes to replace non-conforming atgrade timber steps on a non-conforming lot with no alteration of the existing grade within the coastal conservancy district. The steps will remain non-conforming as they cross over
the adjacent property at 138 Champlain Road, also owned by the applicant. The lot is non-conforming and that it contains 13,269 square ft, where 40,000 square feet is required in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass
General Law Chapter 4A, section 6, and sections 4 A, 3A, and 5B of the protective bylaw. Under application number 26-023, Cornelia Atkins, care of Robert Perry, PO Box 1517, East Dennis Mass 02641,
owner of property located at 138 Champlain Road, also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 13A, block 16B, lot 1B. The applicant proposes to replace non-conforming atgrade timber steps on a non-conforming lot with no alteration of the existing grade within
the coastal conservancy district. The steps will remain non-conforming as they cross over the adjacent property at 130 Champlain Road, also owned by the applicant. Also proposed is the maintenance of an existing driveway as allowed by special permit. The lot is non-conforming and that it contains
21,66 ft where 40,000 ft is required in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 4A section 6 and sections 8 4A 3A and 5B of protective bylaw. >> Mr. Perry, please do them both. Okay,
>> I will. It's a very interchangeable. Thank you, Sarah. And by the way, um Sarah, please accept my thanks for spearheading a little help with us to understand the landscape implications of the Chattam Zoning bylaw and it's u it's
it's been appreciated. So, these are landscape um basically landscape management of existing features and I'll just start with the the driveway at 138. um which is uh intersecting with uh
Champlain Road. The driveway is not proposed to change in its curb cut. There's a border on the left hand side of the driveway that is railroad tie. It is in need of replacement. It will be replaced with granite. It'll still be uh at the elevation that it is currently
and it's to be extended 35 ft as you go around the clock 2 to 1 to noon time. Um that is approved again by conservation. Um all that work would be separated from the salt marsh area. Um there would be a
recharging of the driveway surface because it's an old native stone collection that's kind of integrated with the soil below it. Um the so the driveway is really just recharging what's there. Um there's going to be a
lot of plant alterations here which is very beneficial environmentally but I don't believe that's part of this but just wanted you to know this is a very significant ecological improvement abound here. So all that work um is
properly conditioned through the conservation commission. No changes to drainage patterns. We are in a flood zone again. We have that particular conservancy district. We have both a Vzone and an AE zone. As we go north and
we go past the residence at 138, we get into a location um where a pathway system goes up the coastal bank which is also a conservancy district. And those steps that you see on the left
hand side of the sheet, they are made of wood. they are not the right thing to be there. They uh are going to be replaced where they are but with stone. So the terraces that you see which are minor
steps will remain where they are but they will simply have their their material changed and with the vegetative improvements those pathways that you see there being on a hill they will become u better
stabilized. And that's one of the goals of this project. So you can see faintly a lot line. There's a panhandles shaped lot here that takes uh formal access up to 130 which is farther to the north. Um um up
on the top of the page we have 130 Champlain Road which has very little going on in the special permit application except for that lot. I think it's two 2B. Hang on
one second. Lot 1B is contiguous owner owned and and is assigned to go with 130. And so parcel 1B accepts several of those steps where
they do cross the lot line, which is the nonconformity that we're dealing with. They're also closer than 3 feet to the lot line on the side, but there's no proposal to change anything. So, it's a replacement
in kind. Um, but I just wanted to explain to you that that's just two dwellings, contiguous single ownership. This place has just been used as one residence. So, things kind of got crossed over in years and
decades past. So that's what's going on here and it is part of the special permit application. We did again go through the criteria and we've outlined that in the submitts. Um, again, I expect that it's all part of the record
because we submitted it. And we believe these improvements, which are not expansions, except for that extra 35 ft of border on the driveway, are in any way inconsistent with the criteria for grant of special permit. So that's the
summary, but there may be questions. I'd be happy to answer those. >> Thank you very much. Okay. So the question to folks here and also on Microsoft Teams on either of these applications, would anyone like to speak in favor?
Don't see anyone. So I will read the correspondence. Give me a second. >> And the letter is the same for both. >> Oh, Sarah just pointed out it's the same letter for both. It was written on May 5th and
essentially says applicant submitted a notice of intent. Project was heard by the conservation commission scheduled for May 27th issuance of an order of conditions as Mr. Perry pointed out and so forth. So
that's it. That's the correspondence for both of them. Is there anyone here today or on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak either against either of these applications or has a specific question? If so, please indicate you'd like to join the car conversation.
Don't see anyone. So, questions from the board either or on both. Dave, >> I have no questions. Dave >> Ed, >> no questions. Jenny, >> no questions. >> Steve, >> I have no questions. No questions.
>> Uh, nor do I. Okay, Dave. >> I will move to close the hearing, move into deliberations. >> I second and vote yes. >> Steve votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> And I vote yes. >> Deliberations. Um, >> Lee.
>> Um, well, I just want to say first of all that how well all of these were prepared. The outlining of all the criteria was very clear. Um, it was a great presentation and a great preparation. Um, I do not have any
issues with this. I think it meets all of our criteria. I think it is a needed um upgrade um replacement. So, I will be voting in favor. >> Steve? >> Yeah, I think the the steps that are
there now have lived their life and I think this is probably a good good idea to replace them. Could even be a safety issue. So, um I think it's a good idea, >> Jenny. >> Yeah, I agree. I want to echo what Lee said. I I think that there was um really
thoughtful preparation that you had and and your presentation was very clear, provided very clear explanation of what frankly was some complexity in reading the three different applications and then matching it to what we saw on site.
um you know what what's actually occurring um you know net net it's uh a wonderful property appreciate all of the items that you've the improvements these are improvements that you're making and uh meets our criteria and I would
support it >> I I agree with my colleagues I feel it it meets all of our criteria and is uh perhaps a needed improvement thank you >> Dave >> yeah I agree with all previous and and and also to point out that it it really
is a gorgeous property, beautiful Cape Cod lawn, everything. It's all it's it's very very nice. Very nice. Um and it's certainly uh it to the extent that 5B applies, it's there's no um uh no um um
detriment to the neighborhood. No uh substantial detriment to the neighborhoods, no vast improvement, so I'll support it. Sure. Thanks. >> And as the others pointed out, Mr. Perry, your uh presentation was excellent and it was so good. Usually I call for you to go through all the
criteria. Absolutely not necessary here, right? Preparations were the right. So um Dave, let's take we have to vote >> take 131. >> Okay. So um we uh so I will move um
approval of um we're going to do them separately. Correct. Yeah. >> Approval of uh number 22 26-022. Uh and I don't think the I think the only condition that we would be wanting to apply here would be the one of um
construction activity and vehicles to be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of property owner. >> Sure. >> I don't think we need the others in this with this kind of work. >> I would agree. >> Okay. So I will move that as such. >> I will second and vote yes. >> Steve votes yes. Yes.
>> Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> And I vote yes. >> Okay, that's unanimous. 138, Dave. >> Yes. So now I will uh move approval for application number 26 Z-023 with the same uh condition of all
construction activity and vehicles to be contained on site or at a neighboring property with permission of property owner. And >> I second and vote yes. >> And Steve votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes. And I vote yes. >> Again, that's unanimous. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you all very much. Have a good afternoon. >> Thank you. Yep. >> Okay. Page two, Sarah 26-032, please. Application number 26- 032. Markio in Costas Pagopoulos care of
Emerson Frios Caval 72 Thornton Drive number five Hyannes Mass 02601 owners of property located at 24 Hillrest Road also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 15H block 54 lot M6 the applicant seeks to enlarge extend or
change a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the conversion of the existing attic to habitable habitable space and under the second except clause of section 6 of Mass General law chapter 48 DA requires the grant of a special permit. The law is non-conforming and that it contains
14,600 ft where 40,000 ft is required in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law Chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw. >> Okay. Uh I know Mark is in the audience.
So, I'm Kostas Panagopoulos. I'm one of the homeowners and I'm happy to be here. I'm going to turn things over to Steve to summarize some of the details. Happy to answer any questions. >> Good afternoon, board members. Uh my name is Steve Cahill and uh I am uh acting assisting Emerson Inc. in a
project uh at Mr. Pentagoulos's house. Um Emerson Inc. is actually y >> in charge of the project and again I've been brought in just to kind of help them oversee the uh the permitting process, inspection process, etc. Um so there is currently a permitted
remodel that has been going on uh at uh the property. Um we are now seeking to uh take an existing uh it's called attic space but it's really uh spaces over the garage. Um and basically the scope of
the project is uh we're looking to to finish off that existing attic space. Um at the private home and basically turn it into a uh a study. Um there is no change to the building footprint. The exterior dimensions, the heights, the
setbacks, uh the existing garage will stay uh in place the way it is. Um really most of the things that I'm going to say to you is is more or less what it's not going to be doing. Uh the work is inside the existing house. There's no
change to the lot. uh the coverage of the setbacks. The outside size house uh height of the house will not change. The h house will remain uh compatible with the neighbors. Uh it does not increase the exterior non nonconformity. Again,
there's no change to the footprint. Um the site is suitable because it's work being done uh inside of the house and there'll be no impact to wetlands, slopes, vegetations, drainage or the nature. There'll be no visual impact to
the neighbors in terms of character, views, vistas. Um, there's no additions of any bathrooms. Uh, therefore, there will be no further taxing of the sewer or water or drainage. Uh, and there will be no u
impact to safety traffic in the neighborhood. Uh, where again it's finishing off uh existing non-finished space. So >> you a gentleman going to join the conversation or is that it?
>> Yeah. >> So would that be your presentation? >> This is our proposal. So um unless there's a specific question. >> Okay. Well, we'll get to that. And the gentleman with a hat on. We usually ask that hats be removed. >> Take your hat. >> The gentleman in the middle. >> Take your head off.
>> I think so. I think >> Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Uh we're on television and we like to see everybody's smiling faces. Okay. No worries. Okay. So, very good. I'll ask if anyone here on Microsoft Teams wishes to speak in favor of this application.
If so, we'd like to hear from you now. Don't see anybody. So, I will read the correspondence. First is from Juth Giorgio. He she is the health agent for the town of Chadam. She writes on May 27th. This is an existing five- bedroomedroom dwelling. The finished space that is
proposed office is entered through an existing bedroom and does not allow for privacy. Therefore, it does not meet the definition of a bedroom. The house will remain five bedrooms per board of health definitions.
Then we have a letter. This is from Monica and Lewis Lupy. They're at four Hillrest Road. They write on May 27th. We're writing as a Butters. We respectfully request that the board ensure that the information provided is fully and accurately reflects the scope
scope of the project currently underway. The hearing notice and application materials describe the proposal primarily as an interior attic conversion for office space with no exterior changes to the structure. However, based on the construction activity visible from the neighboring
property and our review of the submitted plans, it appears that the project includes the construction of an exterior balcony space associated with an upper level bedroom area and office space above the garage. Because the application repeatedly characterizes the
work as involving no exterior changes, we respectfully request clarification regarding one, whether the balcony is part of the project presently before the board. Two, whether revised elevations or exterior plans have been submitted.
Three, whether the balcony and related exterior features were included in the original building permit materials, and four, whether the application materials fully reflect the project as constructed or proposed. Construction activity at the property began prior to a butters
receiving notice of the present section six application. We understand the board may still consider an application after work has commenced. However, given the timing and the apparent scope of the work, we respectfully ask that the board ensure that the hearing record is complete and accurate before making the
required findings under chapter 48, section 6. We offer these comments respectfully and in the interest of supporting a fair and transp transparent review process. Thank you for your consideration.
And this is also just apartment. >> Uh let's see. Uh this is in an email to Sarah from the previous letter. Thank you for providing conditions as examples. We'd like to request all of these conditions we impose on the contractors. We hope that
the contractors will comply with these conditions, especially since it has impacted many aspects of the neighborhood, i.e. noise, construction, debris, cars and trucks spilling into Hillcrust Road from both drivers, etc. We're grateful for your attention in this matter. And what they're talking
about is the specific conditions we usually put on, which are all construction activity vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner. Two, between June 30th and Labor Day, no exterior construction
will be allowed. B, no work shall be permitted on the weekends. C. construction activity between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. only. Then we have a handwritten note. This is from Anna Marcus and she's a 30 Hillrest
Lane. She writes on May 11th. This large house is already non-conforming and should not be allowed to be enlarged. It is already pushing the boundaries and an extension would make it more inappropriate in our neighborhood. I
approve making it Oh, I'm sorry. And approve making it bigger. Okay. Uh would you gentlemen like to comment and either of those letters? >> Sure. I would simply um respond to the
concerns raised by uh Monica and Lewis Lupy about the deck that it has been uh part of a separate permit approved by the building department has been ongoing work. It's essentially complete. Um it uh um certainly met all the conditions
um and inspections to date and we'll continue to to do that. Um as far as uh the letter from um Anna I forget her last name. But in any case, Marcus, >> uh there is no expansion proposed, no
additional uh space um required. >> Uh no expansion of any kind. This is simply converting exist existing un unfinished space above the garage into livable space. >> Okay. >> No expansion of the footprint whatsoever.
>> Okay. Uh thank you. Um, is there anyone here today or on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in opposition or has a specific question? If so, please indicate now you'd like to join the correspondence. Don't see anybody. So, we'll go on to
questions from the board. Let's start with Steve. Um, I have no questions. I think um they've been answered already. Thank you, >> Lee. Yeah, I I agree. I have no questions. I think it's been um cleared up.
>> Dave each. >> Yeah. Now, I just asked whether Jay has anything to offer in addition or to or >> they have two additional permits and a shed registration already. This permit got stopped because of the need to come to ZBA before you guys today
>> for this aspect of it for the interior. >> Yeah. The other permits are underway. They have inspections. So, they've complied with everything uh all the the other permits uh and done all of that and and they're they're here before us because of this um space over
the garage >> increase inhabitable space, right? >> Okay. Thanks, Ed. Um just one question. the the windows in the attic space or the unfinished space. Were those existing windows that were already there? Has any uh light or ventilation
been added to that area? >> Uh there the windows were replaced. They're new windows that are the same dimensions as the old ones. So, >> okay. >> What? >> Insulation. Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you, Jenny.
>> Uh yeah, I I have a couple of questions. So, uh, the neighbor across four that I think, um, she had a series of questions. You didn't address four, but Jay, did that answer did um, >> are you are you
>> Well, I think the neighbor I think the neighbor thought that this was the first permit that they had applied for and work has been going on there, but like I said, there were two other permits and a shed registration to move the shed location. >> Okay. So I >> So as the building commissioner, you're
satisfied with the questions that neighbor four asked about. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. All right. I have a couple of questions about the um so I know the board of health uh said it was five bedrooms, so the septics for five. Um agree with you that you're not expanding
your footprint. Um, but the field card, I was initially confused before I I heard that the board of health had uh had said that there were five because the field card says three bedrooms and then when I was looking at the existing and the proposed floor plans, it has a
lot of bedrooms, right? So, some of them I think are mislabeled. So, can we just go through that because that may be some of the confusion that Miss Marcus had >> in um >> Okay, so the existing um second floor has two bedrooms and an attic, but then it looks like you're you're converting
that bedroom into a bathroom on the proposed. It's still labeled as a bedroom, but it's not correct. >> Yeah. So, if you'd like, I can clarify the the whole scope of the bedroom situation in the house because it might be clearer. Right. So, this house, as
you noted, has a five- bedroomedroom septic. There were originally five bedrooms in this home. Three of them were on the first floor, two of them were on the second floor. Uh, on the second floor, um, one of the bedrooms, uh, um, we are using part of that space to add, um, an additional bathroom,
which was also part of the building permits referenced earlier. Mhm. >> Uh so um the attic space is adjacent to that and could become part of a bedroom office suite situation but it will not be two separate bedrooms. It'll be one
bedroom that might be a bedroom suite bedroom office suite but it is one it is designed to be one bedroom. Uh and that means there will be two bedrooms on the second floor. Now if anything we have actually converted one of the first floor bedrooms into a laundry area
mudroom situation. So, we've actually, you know, technically um reduced the number of bedrooms in this home to four, even though the septic allows for five, and we reserve the right at at at any point to convert it back to five. But really, if anything, we're going down in the number of bedrooms, although we're
allowed to have up to five. >> Okay. All right. That's helpful. But I still have a follow-up question. So, if you look at the proposed first floor plan where you have added the deck and then also the uh balcony, >> it's labeled on here as two bedrooms, but it's not.
>> It is no longer >> Okay. >> It is no longer. >> This is the room that you're talking about. It's converted to laundry. >> Yes. One of those one of those bedrooms on the first floor has been converted converted to a mudroom laundry room. >> Okay. All right. Okay.
Um and then last question. to the the upstairs, the primary bedroom. There's it's labeled bedroom, but you have clarified that that is not a bedroom. And then there's the office. It looks like there are two bathrooms there. Is that not correct or >> Yes, there are two bathrooms. One of
them is in the hallway and there's the original bathroom and we added an adjacent >> um bathroom to the side of that that is now part of that um you know >> okay >> office bedroom space that will hopefully encompass the space over the garage.
>> Okay. And it's a bathroom even though it says on here it's a bedroom. That's a mistake. I understand. Okay. Thank you. I mean you can see when you're just looking at this it looks like there are seven bedrooms. >> Yes. I apologize. Uh, if anything, if you come to see the house, there's actually four bedrooms. >> Yeah, there will be four bedroom.
>> Thank you for clarifying. Um, it became more clear after I read the board of health. Um, and I just thought that um, it may be helpful to just reinforce that because there were neighbors that were talking about expans. >> Yes. We're also aware that you can't go through a bedroom to get to a bedroom. So, there's not an additional bedroom
space that's planned for for for that space. >> Yeah. So, it was just a little bit of of that was for clarity for me, but also um for the uh the uh neighbors that wrote in that are um you know, believe that
it's an expansion. I I thought it'd be helpful to clarify. That's okay. That's all I had. >> Are you ready to to Okay, I'll I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. I second and vote yes. >> Steve votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes.
>> I vote yes. >> I vote yes. Okay. Deliberations. Ed. >> Um I don't I don't have any issues with the the project. I I think um you know that property
could have potentially been torn down, but they they made an effort to to save what was there. Um, I do think you want to replace the siding perhaps, but >> we're working on that. >> Um, but, um, I don't certainly don't think it's going to be substantially
detrimental to the neighborhood. It's basically, um, what is there is is still there. Dave? >> Yeah. this u um you know the what we're concerned
with here and what is the application to um expand the space insulate and make livable space above the garage. There's no exterior changes as a result of this. Um and so it really isn't this this
aspect of it is not an expansion at all. Um, and it's there. So, there it's certainly not no substantial detriment to the neighborhood here. It's I think overall it's an improvement and and um and I very much support that they're working with what's there, working with
the building that's there. Uh, that's to be commended. Um, so I I will be happy to support it uh as as presented. Yeah, >> Lee. >> Yep. I I agree. I think it meets our criteria. Um, I appreciate them using
the structure that's there. Um, and I will approve it, >> Steve. >> Um, yeah, I I think this is probably good use of existing square footage without having to expand the building to to make something that you don't need.
So, um, I think this is probably a good project and, you know, you seem to be following all the procedures and, um, good luck. >> Thank you, Jenny. Yeah, the helm is 1956, so it's it's five years from being historic. Um, agree with my colleagues.
You know, you could have torn it down and I appreciate that you are renovating it and not raising it. Um, it is an undersized lot and you are proposing no changes as was mentioned u by you and by by my colleagues to the footprint. So,
um, and that's really what you know what we look at. I I do, you know, the renovations are underway and I um I I I think it's great. It looks great. The improvements have been um it is a substantial improvement to what was
there before. And um so I believe too it meets all of our criteria and I would support it. >> You know, it's interesting the the support for renovating what's there. Uh I know there have been some other homes in that neighborhood
that didn't quite make it to that point, but uh which is not to say they didn't come out great because they did. So it's two ways. It's a two-way street >> and they both can work if it's done right. >> So congratulations.
>> So uh with that I will move approval for uh application number 26-032. um with respect to conditions um uh I don't think I mean I I I hear the concerns of the neighbors but again
we're we're just talking about what's proposed to be interior work anyway. So I think really the only condition that we might want to impose would be number one all construction activity in vehicles should be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the
permission of the property owner if that's Yeah, I don't know. I would add in timewise >> that that's a good deal. So So the timing then we would allow certainly allow that, but that that we add um between June 30th and Labor Day, no work
shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. only. I think that's a >> Okay. All right. >> I second and vote yes. >> Uh Steve votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> And I vote yes. That's a unanimous
decision, gentlemen. Thank you very much. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you, board members. >> 26-033, please. >> Application number 26-033, Salt Meadows Limited Partnership, Care of James M. Norcross, Esquire, PO box
707 Chattam, Mass 02633, owner of property located at 45 Old Harbor Lane, also shown in the town of Chadam's assessor's map 16i, Block 6, lot MR1. The applicant proposes to change, alter, or expand a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the partial
demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of additions. The existing dwelling is non-conforming and that it is located 19.8 8 ft from the northerly of butter, 25.7 ft and 25.7 ft from the coastal conservancy district. The proposed addition will be
non-conforming and that it will be located 19.8 ft from the norly butter where a 25 ft setback is required and 25 ft from the coastal conservancy district where a 50ft setback is required. The existing building coverage is 3,555t
5.4% 4% and the proposed building coverage is 3,760 ft, 5.7% where 10% is the maximum allowed. The lot is non-conforming and that it contains 0 feet of frontage where 150 ft is required in the R40
zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protected bylaw. >> Welcome, Attorney Norcross. And no, we're not going to give you a pass on the criteria. Uh you're doing such a great job we want to hear it.
>> Happy to run through it, Mr. Chairman. Uh Jamie Norcross uh representing Salt Meadows Limited Partnership. Um this uh project before you, this proposal is uh three I describe as very modest uh changes to the existing structure. Um if
you have the site plan, >> great. Thank you very much. Uh so for the application we have uh two additions on the front. There is a covered entryway which is going to service as a mudroom uh for the Todd family that owns the property.
Is that Oh, that is the uh that still has the rent station on it. Thank you. Uh, that's the most recent one that Maddie sent me. >> It's on the website.
>> Well, sorry. So, there was the May 19th version. So the only difference from the >> I can describe the difference. Yeah. >> If you put up the the version you had. Sorry. That's >> okay. So the changes uh we're proposing today
the uh mudroom addition on the front of the home that you see on the left hand side uh covered porch area front entryway. There's also uh existing patio area to be removed with a proposed screen porch on the front side of the home with an extension of the existing
deck above. And then on the back side on the smaller section on the north side, uh that section is going to have a new foundation put underneath. And then there's going to be the creation of a uh walkout basement on the side facing the water along with uh a retaining wall.
This plan shows a on the top on the north side a proposed rent station that's no longer part of the proposal. Uh conservation uh commission uh had an objection to that uh rent station in that location. So that's being has been removed as part of the application. And
so it's just the three changes uh that I mentioned. And so um the ex in terms of nonconformities uh the lot size is over two and two two and a half acres. So we have plenty of square footage. Uh it does not have any
street frontage. So it is a non-conforming lot because it does not have any uh frontage on the street. The existing structure uh there are two nonconformities. It is on the north side. It's 19.8 ft from the lot line where a 25 foot setback is required and it is 25.7 ft.
>> I didn't find anything with that date >> from the uh conservancy district where a 50- foot setback is required. Uh the north lot line uh setback will not be changing. That will remain the same at 19.8 ft. There will be a slight
encroachment further encroachment into the conservancy setback. Not the structure itself. Uh but the retaining wall that's going to be used is necessary for the walkout basement uh to the conservancy district will be just under a foot closer to the conservancy district than the existing structure.
uh we are adding a total of 170 square ft to the building footprint uh which results in a a building coverage percentage of 5.7% which is still well below the 10% maximum permitted for this property. Uh moving into the criteria
adequacy of the site in terms of size I would suggest the size is certainly adequate for the proposal. Uh we have over 107 107,000 square ft of lot area and over 60,000 ft of buildable upland. Uh the proposed mudroom and screen porch
on the front of the house will meet all required setbacks and the slight increase to the conservancy district is just as a result of the walkout basement with the retaining wall and not any increase in the footprint of the structure itself. Compatibility of the size of the proposed structure with neighboring properties. Uh this
neighborhood contains a number of larger structures located on rather large lots. Um I submitted uh as part of the analysis a gross floor area comparison and you can see that this property is certainly comparable with neighboring properties in terms of gross floor area.
Number three, extent of the proposed increase in non-conforming nature of the structure or use. Uh the only uh proposed increase would again be that slight less than one foot increase uh toward the um setback of the conservancy district as a result of the retaining
wall for the uh walkout basement. Uh number four, suitability of the site uh with regards to natural environment. Uh I would suggest the site is suitable for the project and will have no negative impact on neighboring properties or on the natural environment. Uh you have a letter from the conservation
conservation commission, excuse me. They've reviewed the project and found that it can be approved with conditions. Uh number five, impact of scale signing and mass on neighborhood visual character. I don't think the project will have a negative impact at all on neighborhood visual character. The proposed additions to the front of the
structure are not creating any significant massing and are largely unseen uh from budding properties. The mass is seen from the wateride is not increasing and will not have a detrimental impact on neighborhood visual character as a whole. Uh it is a residential use in a residential
neighborhood and therefore compatible. Uh it has adequate water drainage and an existing title 5 septic system. There will be no negative impact on traffic flow and safety. Uh no issues with noise and litters noise and litter as a a result of uh a residential use of this
property. it has adequate utilities and numbers 11 and 12 of your criteria are not applicable for this project. So just in summation again I think it meets the criteria for a special permit and is uh certainly not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Thank you. >> Thank you. Is there anyone here today or
in Microsoft Teams or wishes to speak in favor of this application? If so, please let us know. Don't see anyone. So I'll read the correspondence. Juth Juth Giorgio, our town of Chattam
health agent, writes on May 27th, I have no concerns regarding this proposal. Then we have a note on May 7th. This is from Christina Basset. She's running for the Department of Well, historical
commission. Um, she writes, "The Chattam Historical Commission found this home historically significant, but the proposed changes do not materially diminish its historical significance, so they did not impose a demo delay."
And then we have a note from the Conservation Commission on May 5th. Just as Jamie said, the applicant submitted a notice of intent. The project was heard by the commission on April 22nd. uh it was and the project was continued
to May 27th and we just heard from him about that for revisions in order to be conditioned to meet the performance standard and so forth. So that's the extent of the correspondence. Is there anyone here today or in Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak either a against it or has a
specific question? If so, please enter the conversation now. Seeing no one. So we'll have questions from the board. Jenny, >> I just want to confirm. So, um, Mr. Riley, I mean, uh, Sean, is it Riley?
Yeah. Um, >> yes. >> So, it it one of the items said, um, re you were going to replace the rinse station because conservation didn't like where it was. And then an updated site plan says you're removing it all together. So, I just want to confirm
that. That is correct. It has been removed. It has been removed alto together. And um if I could just share my screen. This is the most recent plan. Uh there may must have just been some miscommunication
uh for that plan. But you can see in the area um on the plan that it was removed in entirety and along with the trellis uh that was in within that area that you see on your plan. >> The trellis too. Okay. Um thank you. >> Correct. Thank you, >> Steve.
Um, I don't think I have any questions. >> Lee, >> no questions. >> Dave Vich, >> no questions. Ed, >> uh, a question for Sean. The the the raising of the house. Um, do you know what approximate? Well, I'm sure you
knew exactly actually what elevation uh, it's being raised to. So, it's essentially there is a uh concrete uh CMU block foundation, an old foundation underneath that section, that northern wing. Uh it's going to be just
elevated um jacked up and that is going to be removed and replaced with a full concrete uh cast inplace foundation. It's not coming up in elevation. There's no additions upstairs. It's just a replacement of that so that the lower level can be utilized.
>> Okay. Thank you. Okay. >> Um, I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> I second and vote yes. >> Steve votes yes. >> Jenny votes. >> I vote yes. >> And I vote yes. >> Okay. At deliberations. Dave each.
>> Well, I think it's a um I think it's a good project. uh it's uh maintaining uh you know the house very much as it is and and a few changes and additions and um and in such that I
don't think it's going to have any uh certainly no substantial um detriment to the neighborhood. I think it's going to be an improvement. Uh it's going to look very nice when it's all said and finished. And my only complaint is having sent me out
there with those 24 in by 36 in plants. Fortunately, I I I was there on a day when I could open them up and hang on to them and actually shovel them. So, uh but other than that, >> you didn't blow away. >> No, I didn't. I probably could have set
a sail and we and and gone, but no. Um I will absolutely support this. Thanks, Ed. Um, yeah, it's it's an iconic property, you know, from the water and it and it's it's going to stay that way and um uh
certainly um it's not going to be detrimental in any way to to to anyone. I think it's going to maintain the character and and the um the views. It will look very similar from what what they are today from from the water. It's
really the only place you see it. So, I certainly support the project. Jenny, >> yeah, I um I know they had a lot to work with here. They have a coastal bank, a dune, a 50- foot buffer zone, 100 foot
buffer zone, wet land, and so um I you know that that was a lot to to maneuver. And uh I I think it's hard to improve on perfection, which I think the house is already, but um it's a it's a wonderful I support the improvements that is going to continue to have that iconic home, as
Ed pointed out, I agree, um live on even longer. And it's a magnificent property. And I appreciate and I'm grateful to the uh the work, Sean, that you did and for the homeowners in wanting to make these improvements for the longevity of this really special um home.
>> Steve, >> well, I think this is uh fairly modest um additions or improvements to to a very beautiful house. It seems um sort of ironic that with a piece of property that large that you run a foul of some
setback issues, but I guess that's what we all have to live with. Um but I think it's a great project and um I I don't think it's detrimental to anything. >> Lee, >> yep, I agree with my colleagues. Um just wanted to reiterate, beautiful,
beautiful home, beautiful place. >> Yeah, I agree. I I never cease to be amazed. I'd never been down Freeman's Way uh before. And um uh not only I love the boat house, I mean the u house. I love the garage
slash I think it's a studio and all that. I mean uh it was just wonderful. So I'm glad they're doing this. Makes sense, makes it a little better and certainly doesn't disrupt it or in any way detrimental.
So, uh, the, um, I guess the qu the question would be, uh, conditions. Um, I mean, there's only a few neighbors to be affected, but I I I would be inclined to impose our standard conditions in this agree >> matter. Uh, okay. So, I will move um
approval of application number 26-033 uh, with the following conditions. uh all construction activity in vehicles should be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner and that between June 30th and Labor Day, no exterior
construction be allowed. No work will be permitted on the weekends. Construction activity between 8 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. only. >> I second and vote yes. >> Steve votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes. And I vote yes. That's a unanimous decision. Thank you very much,
>> Mr. Norest. >> Thank you all. Okay sir. So lastly we have 26-035 please. >> Application number 26-035 Hardings Beach Road Realy Trust care of Jonathan Welch 55 Woodview Drive
Brewster Mass 02631. owner of property located at 70 Hardings Beach Road. Also shown on the Town of Chadam's assessor's map 9C, block 56, lot M4. The applicant proposes to change, alter, or expand a non-conforming structure retaining walls on a non-conforming lot via the
demolition of the existing walls and the construction of new retaining walls within the 50oot setback to the conser coastal conservancy district. The lot contains 15,891 square feet 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. >> Gentlemen, >> hi. How are you? My name is Jonathan Welch of Ford Design. >> Nicholas Maker, Even Tide Landscaping. >> Uh this first started out as simply a safety visit to the house for the retaining wall, which is kind of
spiraled into a little bit more. >> Um I'm sure you all visited the site. It's pretty obvious that there was a safety issue. She recently purchased a home like that. Um, it's gone through several owners, I believe four that we could track down in the in the past that
it's just kind of stayed that same uh shape it's currently in. Uh, we have uh gotten approval, which we've already done, taking the two trees down um just because that was a major concern more than anything, the trees. Uh, at this
point, we're we're simply just looking to replace the retaining walls that are currently there. uh with a different material which Nick will review with you. Um the the owner David Clark and Andrew from Yarmouth Port Design are still dealing with uh
conservation as far as the plantings. There's a lot of mitigation going on there. Uh and I think they're going back and forth. I believe they have an upcoming meeting the first week of June if I'm not correct, Sarah. And uh uh but that's that's pretty much it. We're just
looking to replace those walls and and eliminate her having any safety issue. >> Before we go on, um you mentioned the trees. Uh they were substantial. Why did they have to go? >> Well, after that last big storm, uh a
lot of the canopy had fallen. Uh and you know, we were already in the middle of talking about doing some work on the front of the home there. Uh so we we did put in the request for that. I did get a letter from an arborist uh explaining
the situation with the trees and uh we just felt as if we were we're trying to get ahead of maybe a situation that could have happened, you know. >> Okay. >> Yeah. The the trees were clearly outgrowing their spot um where they were. Um they had the one of them had a
giant crack down the down the middle of it and uh I you know once you start um tearing into these walls they're going to the trees were not going to survive. Um not they weren't really alive as as it was. So um you could tell that they
had the uh the wasp a few years ago as well and that's probably why they were as poor health as they were. Uh again, he got a letter from an arborist, so um he might know more, but that's just my opinion on that. Uh the biggest thing here, um is like if you do you guys have
the plan the Yeah, that that won't work. It's appears like the walls are growing in size, but they're actually getting pushed further away from the house, away from the wetland. They're going from a 6x6 crusole um railroad timber that
we're pulling out that is all rebar enforced. Get rid of that. And we're just going to do stone base modular blocks. Um like those are the concrete blocks that you stack. Granite steps. Um all things the conservation approves of.
And uh yeah, I mean the the the wall layout does change a little bit, but it should change because the septic's there. The trees without them being there, we're able to to lay it out a little little nicer and actually not have as much up like top of wall
showing, which I think would will benefit as well and obviously the safety. >> Would that be your presentation? >> That's pretty much it. Yeah. >> Okay. All right. Is there anyone here today on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application?
Please indicate you'd like to join the conversation. Don't see anyone. >> Hi, my name is My name is Trisha. Can you hear me? Okay. >> Okay. >> I'm the property owner, so I am here present to help answer any questions
that I can. >> So, you're speaking in favor, huh? Okay. Okay. Well, good. Thank you. All right, I'll read the correspondence. This is uh dated May 27th. It's from Jewish Giorgio, town of Chadam Health
Agent. The retaining worlds walls as proposed are acceptable as long as the footings for the wall do not extend into the existing leech trench and the final grade of all components is no greater
than 3 ft below grade. Then we have a note from the conservation commission is stated May 19th. Says applicant submitted a notice of intent on April 28th. Project was heard by the commission on May 13th.
Project is scheduled for June 10th to review revisions requested by the commission. The project will then be scheduled for the issuance of an order and conditions when will be conditioned to meet the performance standards under the wetlands protection act and so forth. Okay, that's the extent of the
correspondence. Um, is there anyone who wishes to speak against this or has a question? No one here left here. So, on Microsoft Teams, don't see anybody. So, we'll have questions from the board. Ed,
>> uh, I have I have no questions. Jenny, >> I have no questions. Steve, >> uh, one of the things that the conscom said that they, um, you're scheduled to go back on June 10th, it looks like, to review some revisions.
What revisions are being made that would affect the overall project. >> So, there's there's no revisions being made to the wall themselves. The revisions, I believe, are with the mitigation in the rear of the property.
there's some dispute on uh you know how far they own into the marshland and and what's been cut, what hasn't been cut. So okay, I think that's that's really what that's getting into. >> So there's nothing else you have to worry about as far as the wall >> and the the stumps that are there from
the trees. Are you going to try to remove them or grind them or what are you going to do with those? >> No, we're going to pull we're going to pull the stumps. >> Okay. >> Most of them are are are out of grade anyways. Yeah. >> You know. >> Oh. Oh. Okay. All right. Thank you, >> Lee. >> No questions, >> Dave each.
>> I have no questions, Dave. So, I will move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> I second and vote yes. >> Steve votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> And I vote yes. >> Okay. Deliberations. Uh Steve.
>> Uh well, this looks like it's it's a pretty precarious situation going on and and I think this is probably much needed. It looks like it may have been needed to be done a while ago. Um, so I think anything that you can do to preserve that house and and uh make that
a better situation, you know, I think a car could even fall down into the house if if if collapsed. So I think uh this is well overdue to be fixed. So >> I think it's a good project, >> Lee.
>> Yeah, I agree. It's um a very tricky situation right now. It's going to be a big project. Um, but I I agree with you. Getting the trees out is going to be helpful. Um, you know, recreating the the uh retaining walls is
going to be very beneficial. Um, hopefully the septic tank, the septic system will be okay because it's right there, too. >> Yeah, I agree. Um, you know, I I noticed that and and you know, bemoan the loss
of mature trees that size, but you know, I I I looked at those and and and I was thinking about the night of the most recent storm and wondering if the tree that was moving as rapidly as was right next to my bedroom was going to hit the
house this time or not, you know. So, uh, it certainly understood that that I think it's it was time and it was those needed to go. Um, and and and it's very clear that improvements need to take place here and and uh um I will support them
>> and um yeah, I just I agree with my colleagues and the the removal of the the old railroad ties certainly um is going to be a benefit to the environment. So, uh certainly approve. Yeah, I I was going to make the comment
about the trees as well. What Dave said, I'm actually relieved to see when we went there the size of the trees and that they were taken down. And I normally do not like to have the tree removal. So, it it's um and the replacement of the um the railroad ties to a better, you know, more sub uh
substantial and sustainable material um is an improvement to the project. So, um I would support it as well. So, uh I uh I think um and and with respect to conditions, I think we only need the first condition uh on on this
with this type of work. I mean, it's essentially landscape type work, I'm thinking, but um I don't know what anyone else is if anyone else has different thoughts of >> Well, are you concerned about work going on during the summer?
Well, I think I I think if we we could do the the timing of the work, but I'm I I mean, I guess what I'm what I'm thinking is well, we normally talk about no exterior
construction during the summer, but I don't know how I don't know how landscaping, heartscaping gets interpreted in those instances, honestly. So I I don't you know I I'm I'm inclined
to not apply that part here. Jay, do you >> Jay anything to say on that? >> Yeah. Anything with machinery and whatnot we considered exterior construction. So >> So it definitely be >> So if you need a special permit then it's a problem. But if you don't then >> I see. Okay. Yeah.
>> It's a green light. I I I guess we could ask the applicant of when you'd like to do the work, but obviously for safety reasons, those need to be replaced quickly. I would think that the that was one of our biggest things is the disruption on Harding
Beach Road because it's tricky there. >> So, we've thought about that in length. Um I' I've spoken to Bev Locka, the the excavation team we we use often out of Sandwich. I'm going to use him because he has bigger machinery. He can spend
one day there from the top, pull everything out of there, then after that, Nick can get in there and do the landscape from the bottom. There'll be no disruption. Um, so it'll be maybe one day of uh a little bit of disruption. We
would time that, you know, on a on a good day to do it, I guess, if there is one. But a lot of this is going to fall on conservation as well. You know, they still need to get through that process. So, >> and there is a lot of driveway space. I mean, at least in my opinion, I I am only showing up with two or three
trucks. I'm not, you know, it's not nothing that we can't handle being able to park and stay in the driveway there. So, like you said, once Bevlock was out of there, I won't have any need to be in the road at all. >> Yeah. Yeah.
you our our dilemma is um the amount of folks using that road, whether it be walkers, bikers, you name it. Um I personally um would not want to see anything going
on in the summer. I mean, I I just wouldn't. But how would that work with you if we said >> I think my only argument to that if I could say is normally I would agree but in the shape that the wall is currently in I just I don't agree. I think it just needs to
get fixed. You know it's a it's definitely a safety thing. You know maybe it should have been addressed earlier. >> So that falls on us. But the situation I'm in now is I just I'd like to get it fixed for her more than anything. >> Right. Right.
Yeah, it's kind of tough because you you you still have your appointment with conservation on June 10th, right? >> And you really can't do much until you've had got that green light and you don't know if you're going to get a green light, >> right? >> It's difficult.
>> It's difficult, >> you know. Do we do we restrict it or not? I mean, I I don't want to see anything going on in the summer. I really don't. I understand their concern, but it's been this way for years. >> The process is probably going to take
you >> by the time you get through conservation, get it signed. The appeal period, >> we don't know yet, right? >> You're you're going to probably be looking to do this not until, you know, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it I don't think until late August
you'll actually be >> have everything in place. So if we actually had a condition that nothing going on this summer, >> he can't start until Labor Day, do you think that's being really mean and nasty
or is it realistic? >> Well, when I mean we could impose the condition, we've done it in a number of times. if something comes along and they always they they want to they they see a window an opportunity maybe it's a week
or two ahead of what we've said here uh if they can get in and we well that's I guess Sarah's going well I don't know >> Sarah's Sarah's taking reservations for Christmas so >> yeah not really all you know uh well I
don't know about the rest of it but I I think we should restrict this. No work before Labor Day. I really do. It's just, you know, I I hate to see it delayed, but >> can I >> Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> Can I ask a question? Um maybe if there was a a detail for that one day that they need to pull everything out. >> Yeah. >> I don't know if that would be acceptable. Um that certainly would you know the
detail there would be able to handle any pedestrians any direct any traffic and then you know that's I think you only have to have the equipment there one day and then and then you can just put the landscape trucks in the driveway when you're perhaps installing
>> mo and most of my sorry most of my work will be down below as it is so we really won't be seeing much from the road until we get to the very end of it. I I >> so >> I just I just I like I like that idea. I I think what has swayed me is the one
day or the very minimal time and also the fact that a lot of the existing property can support some extra vehicles. Um the third thing is this is this is different in my view from an elective application of someone that
wants to beautify their home. this is really a a necessity and I think if it's if it was a necessity but it was going to go on for the the entire summer then then maybe we weigh it more but if we think we can be in and out in a day or
two with careful preparation um >> I I I would hate to really see it delayed >> you know in the perfect world uh Ed's idea is good but we don't live in a perfect world do
So it's it's like suppose the one detail really has to be two or three or something happens. You know I it's just too iffy to me. I um I think we should condition it that
nothing goes on until after Labor Day. But we can take a vote if anybody has a different feel. >> I step in as a property owner. I will point out it's a giant eyes sore currently to anyone who drives down that road. So I know you're um concerned
about traffic uh or disrupting traffic. If for some reason uh conservation approves everything on June 10th, is is there a window of opportunity as a possibility for um time period to to get it done before then?
Well, that's difficult because um Sarah, you know, plans out usually 60 days in advance because she has so much she's so popular. That's the thing. And so everybody wants to have their project done. I I hear what you're saying,
ma'am. But it's it's not just the traffic. It's the safety of everything. That's what that's what gets me. Well, anyway, so how do we Let's just take a little vote and I'll make it nice and simple. How do you feel about nothing can happen in the
construction wise until Labor Day? Lee, how would you want? >> I am in favor of that. I think the road and I think where the house is on the road, it's right there. I think it makes sense to be safer rather than >> Yeah. Okay, Steve.
Um, well, that that's going to become a very heavily traveled road in the next few weeks, and I'm not sure. I think with the timing with getting approvals of of uh permits and things, I think it's going to be probably August or
September anyway. So, I think I think it's wise to hold off until then. Jin. >> Well, I think the scope of this project is the really big equipment is such a short period of time that I um the rest
of the project is landscaping mostly and parking in the driveway. So, I I don't I just see that one day or two days very short period of time with that big equipment. So, and because it's not an elective project, it's really a
necessity. I I would be willing to be lenient on the conditions for this >> and Ed I agree with Jeannie. Okay, Dave. >> Yeah. And and I'm I'm in in Jinny's camp on this one. Um, so I don't know how you
want to I mean, you know, if we're looking at votes and and how people feel. >> Well, uh, so, so if if we we actually took a vote, what we're talking about is three for Labor Day, two, sorry, I can't
vote. Uh, two. So, right. I I mean, I recognize that and that and so I guess that >> uh that then that prevails that that um um sentiment would prevail, I guess. And
and so I will um offer that for approval of 26 uh 035 with the following conditions. Um, all construction activity in vehicles shall be contained on site or at neighboring property
permission of property owner June June 30th and Labor Day. No exterior construction will be allowed. No work to be permitted on weekends. Construction activity between 8 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. only. So you understand no exterior
construction has any machines and all that kind of stuff as the commissioner said to him. Okay. Okay. Lee, how do you vote on that? I second and I vote yes. >> Steve votes yes. >> Jie votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> And I vote yes.
>> Thank you gentlemen. Appreciate it. >> Okay. >> Thank you everyone. >> Okay. Good luck. >> These are these are prepared with every meeting, right? >> Yeah. >> Trash. >> Okay. Hey, I don't think there's
anything else to come for for the board today. So, I move uh adjournment. >> I second. And vote yes. >> Steve votes yes. >> And Jenny votes yes. >> Yes. And I vote yes. >> You do.
>> Ed votes yes. >> Okay, there you go. Thank you one and all. And we're back here next week. >> Yes, we are.