e e e e e n w [Music] [Music] welcome everybody to the where's my paper May May 9th meeting of the chadam zoning board of appeals um pursuant to Governor Healey's March 29th 2023 signing the acts of 2023 extending certain covid measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law until March 31st 2025 this meeting of the chadam zoning board of appeals is being conducted in person and via remote participation every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately 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 be do may do so by calling the telephone number 508 94544 conference ID 53167 349 pound or join the meeting online Microsoft teams through the link in the posted agenda while this is a live broadcast and simoc cast on chadam TV despite our best efforts we may not be able to provide for realtime access we will post a record of this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible in accordance with Town policy the public can speak to any issue hearing or business item on the agenda during the meeting when recognized by the chair we start meetings by having a roll call vote of all members to um agree to this form of meeting so we'll start with Virginia Fenwick uh Virginia Fenwick agrees Steve dor Steve dor agrees Lee Hy agrees all C simple I agree David S Nixon I agree uh Ed Acton I agree uh David H Fe I agree and Randy partes I agree as well um so pursuant to our rules here at zoning board we um have the procedural steps as follows um we had our roll call vote we ask if any citizens or non non-board members participating by phone that they give their last four digits of their phone number for identification purposes if there are any um the hearing notice is read by staff Sarah Clark our Central Permitting coordinator you are your representative presents the appeal or application anyone in favor of the appeal or application may speak for a 5 minute time limit then I will read all letters received by the board anyone against the appeal or application may speak or ask a question there's also a five minute time limit and the applicant May then rebut testimony board members may direct questions to anyone present the board hear further information closes the public hearing deliberates and votes on on the application most of the time all votes are taken by roll call and at the end of the meeting we close via a verbal confirmation and note the time of adjournment with that are there any um minutes I believe we have the minutes of April 4th and April 11th I'll move to approve those as published I if we could go one at a time then maybe all right let's start with April 4 2024 I'll move to approve that D seconds are there any edits um I think there are um so we do a roll call at the beginning of the meeting at the end of the meeting but Ed Acton was not voting on April 4th and there's roll call after the hearings which I don't think there should be it was in it was inconsistently listed there in that he was shown and then not shown and then shown so on April 4th um Ed was not a voting member so any of the hearing should not include him as having voted okay that's what I thought so two of them do um addex WR um addex on page three and also Juniper Lane on page seven thank you for that with those edits should we now I'll move to approve them with it edit and I will second that and vote Yes yes and um how do you V oh you're not voting today I can vote on this if you'd like yes exactly I vot I'll go back to who's voting today the moment Virginia Jenny votes yes and Steve did were you voting on that do you remember um I must have been okay because Ed wasn't right Lee wasn't here okay so so I will vote to approve what the uh changes made and Paul I vote to approve and I do as well okay let's try to get through the next one all right then we have a second set of minutes which would be uh April 11th I'll move to approve those minuts as published and I will second now any edits on that one yes M no no oh how do you vote Jenny votes yes and who was there that time all votes yes I vote Yes and each votes yes as do I okay so two other things I'm going to talk about who's voting today and also that any cell phones or anything that makes any noise please silence them thank you okay um so today the voting members will be as follows Dave e regular member um Virginia Fenwick Lee Hy associate member Paul simple and myself except for Dave Nixon will be voting on one of the applications that he has been to at a a a time in the past he didn't have a chance to go to the applications he was away so um that's how that's going to work today so with all that first application application number 24-39 estate of Cathleen Lee care of William F Riley Esquire PO Box 707 chattam Mass 02633 owner of property located at 83 old Mail Road also shown on the town of chadam assessors map 14i Block 17 lot 15a the applicant proposes to change alter or expand a non-conforming dwelling and a non-conforming lot via the demolition of the existing dwelling and garage and the construction of a new dwelling the existing dwelling is non-conforming and it is located 7.7 ft from the road and the existing garage is non-conforming and that is located 12.5 ft from the easterly ab butter where a 15t setback is required and 13.4 ft from the road the proposed dwelling will be non-conforming in that it will be located 20.5 ft from the road where a 4 foot setback is required the existing building coverage is 1,193 ft and the proposed building coverage is 2,541 square ft where 2850 ft is the maximum allowed the lot is non-conforming and that it contains 22,43 ft or 40,000 ft is required in the R40 zoning District a special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5 be of protective bylaw Mr Riley welcome please go ahead uh good afternoon Bill Riley on behalf of the estate of Katherine Lee um so uh this is a proposal to remove the existing building which was built in 1942 uh with a modern three-bedroom home the uh under the gross floor area requirements of the board uh we are by far the largest gross floor area structure on the street um I think that uh it's important to note that um Karen Kempton designed the structure uh to minimize the mass of the building uh by the use of dog what they call dogghouse dormers on the front of the roof rather than having uh raising the uh the plate line uh and having a a larger vertical front to the building the uh there is a full Dormer on the backside uh another thing that you know uh should be noted is that there is a sun room on the rear of the building uh with the basement and that totals over 500 square feet of gross floor area but it's not visible from the street um so the uh uh although it's going to have the largest gross floor area on the street we think that uh when you drive up and down the street and look at the buildings that are there um the house itself isn't uh at least in my opinion doesn't appear more massive than the other structures on the street that have been modified or updated the U so here uh uh so for instance so this is looking from uh the South to the north and you can see even though uh the building is taller than the other buildings the existence of a shed on the on the adjacent property basically blocks out the view of the house I me so in other words it you know when you go obviously when you go front of it you'll see the entire house but uh you know this is uh and if you go back to the previous picture right I mean now that that picture so I think that uh I don't think that looks particularly massive so they've added a sec you know a two-car garage which the previous building only had a onecar garage so that's an increase in the growth floor area uh but I think if you look at this design compared to the other designs on the street if you've been up and down the street as we have uh I think the design is much is very much in keeping with the neighborhood buildings um in the uh uh in we're proposing that the building be set back 20 feet from the street line from the front lot line uh because most of the houses on the street have that form of setback and we wanted we thought it would be uh more harmonious in the neighborhood if if we matched uh the setbacks of the other buildings the um but if you look at the site plan you can see that the uh the pavement the traveled surface is uh 10 ft away 10 feet away from the from the lot line so in actuality if if you're on the traveled way the building is 30 feet away from the traveled way uh so that even though we're only we're 20 feet from the lot line we're 30 feet from the traveled way which we think again uh I mean it was really all about trying to line the buildings up uh so that the property looks consistent a problem with moving the building back is the grade of of the lot drops off pretty dramatically in the back and so the further back we move the house the more fill we have to bring in because we wanted the house to be at street level the front door to be at street level and so uh by keeping the building closer to the street it reduces the amount of field we'd have to bring in uh which we think is beneficial to the neighborhood it's also beneficial to the property owner because we have a larger rear yard where uh the children can play so uh that's how we got to this uh location I think you know one another reason why the gross floor area so large is that uh they put a dormer on the garage and they put some space up there uh and that's another 500 square feet of gross floor area but when you look at the garage it's just a a small shed Dormer uh with yeah with the three windows so you know I think a very modest uh way to add usable space uh to the house uh so I think when you when you look at the house you don't say wow 5,778 gross Flor what a huge house but the way it presents to the street and the way Karen designed it uh I don't think it presents that way I think it presents as a modest one and a half or one and 3/4 story house uh that while a little bit larger structure-wise uh is very much in keeping with the neighborhood we're uh just a little over 10% of building coverage rather than the 15% theoretically allowed we're several feet below the maximum Ridge height so uh you know this is a a structure that was not designed to maximize the possibilities under the zoning bylaw we think it's a sensible design that fits in the neighborhood so I'll I'll go through the criteria so adequacy of the size of the site in terms of the size of the proposed use so we believe that site's adequate uh we're only proposing a building coverage of 11 and a half% where 15% would be allowed uh we do not meet the front yard setback because we thought it was important to maintain a similar setback from the street with the other houses on the street the existing house is only 7.7 ft from this from the front property line and we are proposing to be uh 20 feet from that line as I then as because the asphalt is 10 feet from the property line in appearance we have the effect of a 30- foot setback from the traveled way compatibility of the size of the proposed structure with the neighboring properties so most of the properties here are three-bedroom homes this is a three-bedroom home uh the gross floor area is significantly larger than the other homes on the street uh we still believe it's compatible because as the building faces the street uh you know it has the appearance of a one and a half story building through the utilization of dormers on the front side and the utilization of some space over the garage with that small Dormer we we pointed out um and as I pointed out the sun room on the back and the basement under it counts for over 500 square feet of gross floor area so the um you know still at 5200 square feet of gross flare it's still the largest house on the street but I just think it's important to note that some part of the gross flare area is not visible from the street and really what we're thinking about is what's the visual impact of this home home on the neighborhood that's really the you know the most important aspect I think of our zoning bylaw so extend of the proposed increase in a non-conforming nature of the structure or use so the principal increase in fact I think the only increase in non-conforming nature is the increase in living area uh which is considered an intensification of non-conformity when the lot on which the building sits does not meet the current uh area requirement and why somebody thought it was a good idea to Zone this R40 is beyond me but uh because all all the lots are basically half acre or smaller Lots but who's to doubt the wisdom of our town planners but the uh suitability of the site including but not limited to impact on neighboring Properties or on the natural envir including slopes vegetation Wetlands ground water water bodies and storm water runoff so we don't have any Wetlands or storm or or water bodies or wetlands in the neighborhood uh in terms of impact on neighboring properties our neighbor to the rear uh Tom leblan had planted some arui on uh this property uh you know as separation between his house at the rear and this house and he reached out to us uh and asked if they could remain and if we've committed to him that they'll be allowed to remain so we think that you know in terms of our impact on his property his he's got a buffer between us of these LEL and Cyprus uh that will minimize the visual change uh for him and I believe he signed one of our form letter is saying he doesn't object to the change the U and with regard to storm water runoff you know there is a a drop off in grade from the street to our rear lot uh we think what effec of keeping the building closer to the front and not bringing in Phil that would move that line further back on the lot is that to the extent there is any storm waterer runoff from our yard into the rear yard uh we're far enough away so we don't think there's any risk of that affecting the neighboring properties the way the house has been designed uh the storm uh the the gutters uh from the roof go into dry Wells so that uh we minimize the storm water runoff in that respect so we think the site is suitable for our proposed project impact of scale sighting and Mass on the neighborhood visual character including views Vistas and Street Scapes so again we we think that Karen kempton's design uh is a very is significant Improvement uh over the existing house quite a bit larger but again she's taken steps to minimize uh the increase in size by using by using Dormers the uh I don't know why they name them dogghouse Dormers but the ones on the roof that's what they tell me they call them dogghouse Dormers or Earth anyway so the um again to reiterate the house is closer to the street than a normal setback requirement but we thought in terms of visual impact that it was important to keep the house in align uh with the other homes in the neighborhood so we we think that the uh uh we believe that you know the introduction of this house in this neighborhood is going to uh raise the value of the houses around us uh so we think that the proposed structure including scale sighting and masses are not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing structure compatibility the proposed use for neighboring uses you know it's a single family house a three bedrooms uh which most of the other houses in the street are also three bedroom homes the uh method of sewage disposal the Board of Health has determined our method of sewage disposal is adequate and as I indicated Dave Clark has designed ground drainage structures to take care of storm water runoff from the roofs of the structure impact on traffic flow and safety We Believe there'll be no negative impact on traffic flow and safety or on noise and litter so that would be our presentation happy to take any questions okay thank you is there anyone here are on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application if so please make it known no okay now I'm going to read the correspondence there are several I'm going to read one of the form letters only because they all say the same thing and then I but I will indicate who wrote them uh who who submitted them I should say um okay so first one is from Judith Georgio our health a agent on 5624 she states I reviewed the plan to demo and rebuild the dwelling at this property I conducted a site visit and determined this is an existing three-bedroom dwelling therefore the plan to build a new three-bedroom dwelling with a new septic system is acceptable the proposed floor plan has an office which is greater than 70 square fet which meets the board of health definition of a bedroom this must be removed or revised in to include a six foot cased opening the bonus room must maintain the open rail at the top and bottom and may not be counted or used as a bedroom I will request that the property be deed restricted to three bedrooms next we have um a correspondence from Christina Basset um from the CHC and they determine on uh April 25th 2024 that the home at 83 mil road is not historically sign significant and did not impose a demolition delay then we have a note from Christina McCarthy on May 8th 2024 I am reaching out again but um about this application because I never heard back from you when I sent my original email the estate of Kathleen uh uh lee care of William rally is set to appear before the zoning board there's an outstanding real estate real estate tax balance I have attached the updated uh Paro balance to this property thank you in advance for your assistance and that is for uh looks like this one $1,529 yeah Madam chair uh we notified the attorney for the estate uh when we get the first notice uh and we sent a second notice when we get the second notice so okay presumably it'll be paid shortly next we have a letter from Kathleen Edwards on May 7th 2024 um she gave her post office box at 343 um chattam and let's see oh she said I live at 62 old Mail Road I have seen the plans um for 83 I am aware of the other houses of this design that had been built in chadam by Eastwood homes including one five years a go at 43 old mail that house however sits on a parcel at least 2 acres and the site of old male is only a half an acre and sits in front of the yard at another home to me this design will overwhelm the property and that stretch of old Mail Road I understand though that the abuts behind the property have no objection to the design as long as there is no pool since there is no pool in the plan I defer to them finally I wish the best to Allison Jonathan and David Lee and their ears and sellers of the property we will miss them in the neighborhood next I have a letter from the colors of chadam on May 5th 2024 I am writing to express my and my wife's enthusiastic support of the proposed build at 83 uh old Mail Road we live at 41 and feel the proposed build will fit in and enhance the neighborhood by Leaps and Bounds we hope the zba will look for work favorably on the proposed plan by Eastwood companies we willing to assist you or the zba if if that's needed next we have a note from let's see Jacqueline crims written on are received on let's see May oh yep May 9th 2024 I have been the owner of 110 Old Mill Road since 1988 the properties on Old Mill are zoned for R4 but the size of the southwest side of the street range from 8,712 sare Ft to 13, 49 Square ft approximately a half an acre the site of the Northeast side of the road uh of the street ranges from 21742 Square ft to 304 434 Square ft approximately a half an acre there is a disparity of site sizes dividing the street down the middle however the old Mail Road area has has remained Off the Grid with relatively homogeneous building built dwellings the gross living area from 832 to two is from 832 squ fet to 237 Square fet the average uh gross living area at 1,180 Square ft and the median at 1,111 Square ft homogeneous except there is one outer layer at 41 outl at 41 built in 2017 this property has a site size of 40 thou 4,140 ft and the dwelling with a gross living area of 3,27 square ft this house was built on the S by the same developer proposing the dwelling at 83 in fact the dwelling at 41 is the same dwelling that's proposed for 83 CSS is property card the difference other than site size the site size at 41 old male is double the sight size of 83 old male is the dwelling at 41 old male road is set back from the road 154 ft while the dwelling at 83 old mail row will be set back 20 feet from the road the dwelling at 83 old ma Road will be built closer to the road than most of the dwellings on Old M Road the dwelling 83 um with a site size of 22,43 square ft² is a t down and the developer wants to build the same house that's located at 41 Old Mail Road though the permit says building will have a gross living area of 2541 ft the plan says it totally finished will be 3,160 square ft 41 M old Mail Road has finished area of 3,27 square ft the square foot um does not include the sunro or walk out basement also to be finished question mark are a pool if this plan is is approved old m road will become a street divided the proposed dwelling at 83 old m road will not be homogeneous with the neighborhood and will not enhance the neighborhood character it will be an overbuilt monstrosity sitting 20 feet from the street a mcmansion sincerely Jacqueline crims now I have several form letters I'm going to read one and then I'm going to read who who sent them all um on May 1st we have a form letter from Joyce Lance we have been the owner of 70 old Mail Road for many years um we have reviewed Eastwood company's site and house plans for 83 old Mail Road I feel that the plans are well done and think that the proposed work will enhance the neighborhood character we the board we hope the board will act favorably on this appeal thank you for your consideration and and then the other letters that say the same thing are from Randall and Deborah Harwood of 101 old Mail Road in chadam and and then I think these all came they all came on May 1st um Sean and Florence rosi at 135 Market Street Apartment B Portsmith New Hampshire but they have a a home on 36 old Mail Road since 2016 then there's James Holm uh post office box 522 who has who owns a home on 69 old Mail Road for many years and we have Mary Bowers and she's at 42 Old Mail Road Again these all came in on May 1st Matthew and Allison Gavin one Nancy Lane chapaa New York who owned a home on 80 old millroad for many years so that think concludes the correspondence yes yes and now is there anybody here are on Microsoft teams that has a question or wishes to speak against this application if so make it known seeing none questions from the board um Steve I have a few questions and just maybe CL y have a few questions and maybe just a couple of clarifications to get some information on the record there's a page um that was submitted I think probably by you it's has on the top of it a state of Kathleen Kathleen Lee and the first sentence says the applicant seeks a special permit to move the existing dwelling That was supposed to be remove right so but I just wanted get that on the record so that it's uh that doesn't go down in in history as someone's going to be looking for this house somewhere down the road um the uh where's my cover sheet um the things that the Health Board brought up are going to be addressed oh absolutely can't get a building permit without them okay um and that I just want to clarify again for the record um the the only setback I think that's going to be at issue is the front um the two Sid setbacks in the rear um fall within um the requirements that's correct okay I just wanted to make sure that that was that was uh um brought to everyone's attention and the the last thing is that um you you mentioned some Phill um I'm assuming that there's going to be some retaining walls to hold that fill in can you just sort of describe those and where they're going to be and how they're going to be constructed well if you look on the site plan okay so if you see on the left hand side of the property of the building there that's where the uh those are the retaining walls designed to keep the front yard up at street level I understand and about how how tall are they approximately looks like three feet each one's because it so the level behind the house is 60.8 shown on the proposed patio the space between theall walls is 63 and then the space on top of the wall is 66 to 68 so uh yeah three feet uh each Hall wall would be three feet in fact they they can't exceed three feet because they're within the setback okay okay thank you thank you oh yes um let's see Ed questions uh I have no questions dve yeah the there's a build is a pretty significant tree behind the existing house that looks to me like that's uh slated to be removed in order to accommodate the new dwelling is that we have the S the planting plan there you go well it doesn't mention I believe you're right though I believe it is going to be I mean the from the side from the side PL it looks like the back wall the house basically goes right through the middle of the tree so I would say that probably means so my question would be was there any consideration given to um um leaving that tree in place and working the building around it in some way shape or form well the uh I think I think the simple answer is uh they might have looked at it briefly but as you probably know Carpenters like to build things in a straight line some Carpenters to some of them so the uh and because yeah we want well I no I I asked with respect to building sighting not whether it's a straight line or not you know that's that was my question whether it was taken into consideration in the design uh or were they looked at possibilities in that regard uh as far as I know so Karen is Karen available to answer these questions or no okay well that's who I would have directed the question to um so um well I mean you know I I think I mean my own answer would be well they feel bad about it but you know the uh know if they whether they put the house where it is or move the house further back I mean the tree was going to have to the tree was going to have to go but they do have a substantial planting plan uh that I think is going to enhance the property so yeah okay that that's the only question I had with that comes to mind anyway thanks okay Dave Nixon any questions on this one yeah uh Mr Riley 41 was designed also by Karen Kempton correct as far as I know yes and was built by Eastwood is that correct right so it's very similar so what we're looking at there is what we're going to be seeing at 83 correct right I mean I okay no I don't have a photograph of 41 in my head but yeah yeah no okay I just wanted to thank you Jenny questions uh yeah so I want to start with the tree also I had a same question as Dave v um was there consideration given to keeping the tree um it sounds like uh maybe no I I I do want to just add that it's a it's a silver popl which is not necessarily a special tree but it's 200 it's almost 200 years old that tree and the diameter of that tree is 11 feet that's how big the tree is so it's so significant the neighborhood I'm I was surprised there wasn't any correspondence addressing the tree um but I think that is pretty significant I don't I I I do think it's a little unfortunate the location because at the 20 feet from the street which is your what you're proposing it's um you know it's right at the back of the house if you go back farther uh which is one one another question I have is why can't you go farther back um but let me stick to the tree for a second if you go back to like 40t for example then it's right in right in front front of the house so it's right it's right in the middle of the house so well I mean the it's right uh not not in centered in the house but like right up against the front of the house like it'd be over where that Breezeway is kind of I know but the I know but the problem is if we move the house back then we bring in Phil right and the Phil would kill the tree because the elevation the elevation where the tree is is uh where's the clock we need around 60 feet 69 well 69 is what is what's going to be uh put in there when it's in a box that's what they're going to create but it's below that now so when they move back well I it sounds like we're speculating a little bit here but I I think that that's that's a question um because I do think the house is a little bit too close to the street so my other question was um it's currently 10 feet from the street I know the site plants say seven but that's the Portico the house itself is really about 10 ft so so it's an additional 10 feet you're going back but the house is so substantially large much larger that I was wondering if you could move it back but you answered before that it's really a matter of the fill well no I mean the simple answer is yes we could move it back but uh you know so if we went back to 25 feet for instance then we have we just have to bring in more fill I mean it's so I mean it's we're trying to balance uh things here so um one of the and again I know Karen's not on the line but instead of the one lateral length of the house I mean the lot's pretty square and that house is kind of more of a rectangle um if there could be any consider generation of breaking it up that would help a little bit too if it can't go back um but okay one more question plans for a pool somebody mentioned there was a discussion about no pool but is that I mean was that your understanding that there's nobody's discussed the pool with me I just as far as I know closing so my question was is that why it's not going farther back but really you said it's the fill it really is the fill okay that's all I have okay um Lee questions um I I like the idea of the detached garage has that ever been discussed I think the detached garage instead of making it one long one long home I think that would break up the mass I think that would help with the streetcape um I don't know if it's ever been discussed well most new construction you know the the market wants the attached garage so you know when you come back from the grocery store you know you're undercover and you walk into the house without walking outside but I mean so I would say you know they're building it for the market so I would say that they probably did not consider a detach garage okay thank you and Paul questions well I always always curious we talk about bonus rooms can you explain to me what a bonus room is if someone would explain it to me I'd be happy to explain it to you the uh you know it's not a bedroom and it's you know why don't they call it a playroom or a second office I mean I it's just part of the BAC I mean you're probably better off asking Jay what a bonus room is than me well I'll be glad to do that Jay what do you consider a bonus room I don't for for the building perit purpose they would need to designate that room as something more definite I don't usually accept bonus room or loft or things of that nature it needs to have a designated kind of common use right associated with it I mean it seems to me that that term is used just just for a room another room that you want to have as it's not a bonus to anything well that's true in in in my experience most of them uh are used either as an office or as an area where uh you know youngsters can go and hang out and watch TV and play games and and the like either of those two uses are have been my experience what they've been used for well my my concern on this particular project is that uh old Mail Road when you go down it is a is a fairly small Road narrow and uh all of the houses there pretty much all of the houses there are much smaller in size than what's being proposed here um and this is a very nice design and so forth and I can see that Karen has uh has taken real effort to try and minimize its look but it's still substantially different from anything else on that road until you get towards the very end of the road when there are some larger properties um closer to Stony Hill Road right right but going back I mean there's a drop off there which is significant uh which presents a real problem I don't think I have any other questions well I guess you know what we would suggest is you know these are a series of smaller older homes that were built in the 40s and 50s and so when they're being replaced they're being replaced with homes that families with the amenities the families expect today and again we think that uh you know it enhances the value of the neighbor brings up the value of all the properties in the neighborhood I I understand that we've we've seen other projects on Old Mill fairly recently uh which do not take this approach but uh in any case those was the only questions I had so um there's some retaining walls on the site plan and I I'm going to ask the building inspector if he has any questions about those um I just looked at the fill in the backyard there is fill ranging from anywhere 3 feet to 10 ft deep in the backyard um I see the retaining wall in the front that's tying in some grades so they can maintain that level with the street I don't know what the retaining wall behind that does it doesn't appear to be necessary and then they've got another one on the back of the house on the L the center of the house which is picking up grades around the patio area yeah do you have any answer for that Mr Riley at all or you I'm sorry do you you know do you understand the reason for all those retaining walls well I understand the retaining wall that goes off the back of the building because they they're proposing a patio with elevation of 60 on the uh on the left hand side uh and on the right hand side they're proposing a patio at elevation 69 uh and if you if you look at the Contours the uh so I mean my understanding is when you see a solid line that constitutes a change and so what they're doing is they're going to they're going to have this patio level with the first floor and then they're going to grade back to the mean grade of the yard whereas on the on the left- hand side they're putting the patio at the existing grade and so they have the retaining wall you know to protect that uh I think there's also uh so there's a door in there somewhere too I think that um yeah you see there's a there's a door right there that comes out of the basement area onto the proposed patio so yeah so Mr Nixon mentioned number 41 and the site plan is it's quite similar um um did you know that 41 is actually not even as long as this one are you aware of that so this is actually longer well the uh you just want to bring it up yes yeah no I mean the the uh I didn't go out and measure them that's for sure yeah yeah sure okay um Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations each seconds and how you V and vote Yes and Lee how do you vote I vote Yes JY I vote Yes all vote Yes as do I okay deliberations uh Dave Beach um well this um I guess the short version is that I'm I I'm seeing a lot of different sides of this and and different feelings and opinions uh it's I guess I'm I can reluctantly um conclude that it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood I think there are ways in which it's could be considered as standing out certainly one side of the street uh is different from the other side [Music] with respect to lot sizes as well as the buildings um but this is one of the somewhat larger Lots on that other side of the street um you know the neighboring lot is pretty good sized and is now a one story building who knows what we may be seeing in the future with respect to that so there's a certain kind of imbalance one side of the street to the other um I think that um addressing I I think their sighting of the building is not inappropriate um given the um the way the other buildings face and and form sort of the the street wall or streetcape um I don't I'm sorry to see the tree go but I understand and I and I don't feel that um I mean it's I think it's the their right to um use uh to if if developing that patio as our proposing to do and the grading and and and things with respect to where that tree where that tree is now and the grades and what they want to do with the CH makes makes it um a a much heavier lift to figure out how to leave that tree and and and work around it it could be done on some way shape or form there's quite a bit of land on this on this lot it probably could be done but I don't think it's in the interests of the the um applicants to explore uh trying to do that so um uh all of that said it it's close in my mind but it's not I I think I could find it's not substantially more detrimental in neighborhood and I could support it Lee if you were voting oh you are voting you are voting yes so leee please I am voting sorry um uh well first of all I I I want to say it's a very attractive house it really is I think it's um my first impression was that it's way too big for the street um the rendering helped that a little bit um and I don't have a problem with the location uh the 20 um feet away from the street I think that's actually appropriate I just still think it's a little too big for the street though I think um to to either make it a little smaller or do a detached garage something to break it up a little bit would help a lot um I understand it can't go further back um but something to to make it less of a substantial house on that street okay Dave Nixon if you were voting thank you madam chair if I were voting yes um I believe this is uh substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood when you look at at the neighborhood it's in transition and I think as Paul mentioned we've had some other homes along there that are really modest compared to this as far as what's been done how it ends up so when you look at this and as Randy pointed out when I looked at 41 I said oh that's the same house but and it's it's huge it's you know looking back there and as Randy pointed out yeah but that's even smaller than what they would like to put here so it's uh to me another case of a developer uh maxing things out for profit and good that's not one of our criterias but that's what it is and we have to face that and incidentally uh Paul another definition of a bonus room is a room ready to become something else after you get your occupancy permit whatever that might be so anyway I I'm saying that that's true in your case Mr well I'm just saying in J's case it is okay so um I would have I I would have to feel that this is substantially more Dental than neighborhood is simply too much and losing the tree and as Dave pointed out there's not much we can do about this but boy you know we've lost the tree in front of the library it's got nothing to do with this I know but it's just it's just part of what's happening and the tree across the street and I think we have another one today stop you know please stop can't you save it yeah you could and it's a Jenny it's you looked at the tree is a very healthy that this uh I I thought it looked great I mean it caught my eye right away it's it's a stunning tree the size of it okay anyway so uh I would vote no should I be voting which I'm not Madam chair I'm the the hearing is closed right now Mr Riley so no David said David said maximizing and we're nowhere near maximiz I've already asked you not to speak so please let us continue on our deliberations and then we may ask you if you have any more comments um Ed Acton if you were voting um I think there's there's perhaps a ways to make this fit into the neighborhood a little bit better perhaps a onecar garage uh perhaps a reduction in the Breezeway connecting it to the house um I I think there's probably you know if you could make a little bit of an effort I think Karen's done a great job um making the structure fit in with the neighborhood but the overall length of the house just seems um a little bit too much um so I guess if I were voting I'd like to see a little bit of a of a reduction um as far as that tree it is a beautiful tree I don't know how you save it I mean it's tough it's right in the in the middle of the site uh if you move the house back you're going to lose the you're going to lose that tree um I don't think there's uh there's I don't see a a way to sort of design around it but I I think there is a way to maybe take the impact of that house down a little bit thank you okay thank you Paul uh well as I uh as I indic earlier I the the size of the the house does uh create concerns for me given the nature of the road and the nature of the other uh houses that are there um it seems to me that it is not compatible with the other neighboring structures and U it needs to be downsized I don't know that you can save the tree one way or another um that's up to you to consider but uh um I don't think that I could say that it is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood I think it is substantially more detrimental as proposed and if we approved it the next time we went down old mail uh with that structure there we would say gez that is huge by comparison with the road and the neighboring structures so that would be my view okay Steve if you were voting um well if I were voting I think this is borderline uh detrimental to the neighborhood I think it is much larger than um some of the other structures on on the on the on the street um you know possible um things that can be done I think Ed kind of touched on this a little bit um the elimination of the the Breezeway which would pick up 16 ft right there and the Breezeway doesn't really seem to match the rest of the the house it's got two columns in the front that there's no columns on the rest of the house and I don't know really know why they're there in fact one of them is directly in front or one of the windows um so I don't really know the reason for that Breezeway if you shifted the garage over and may maybe made it a onecar garage um it would be out of the way of the tree and we could probably save that tree or even if you had to shift the house um to the left 5 feet um you you would probably still be within the the setbacks on the on the left side of the house um and we we'd still have a 200 year old tree um so I think that this is probably borderline detrimental to the neighborhood and really doesn't fit in um as it is right now I probably wouldn't support it because I think there's other things that can be done okay Jenny yeah I agree with various aspects of all my colleagues um I'm going to add a few things um agree with Mr Riley and and others comments that Karen's design with the Dormers um it's it's very attractive and it and having that Eve you know going across the roof line definitely helps with the mass I I do acknowledge agree with that and and I think that helps with um more more of the mass but I I'm struggling with the sighting and the scale more than the mass because the height is actually pretty good at 276 um I'm not sure I I do see Mr Riley what you're saying about one side of the street larger Lots but I went down the street and I counted 16 out of 20 homes on both sides are single story or one and a half story so and and not all the houses are um in need of being updated some of them have recently been updated so I I don't know that we're going to see one side large houses I think it's a great Street and I see um more smaller homes than larger homes um I looked at your gross floor area and um it is if you take out the one um on Stony Hill which I think is really not applicable the one on the corner it's the largest house on of the whole list right uh and and to Ed's point it is quite long it's 84 feet in length which um is just as my as many of my colleagues commented on so um I I also want to comment on 41 because several comments are made out 41 that is the same house with the different Dormer a little and even as uh Madame chair pointed out a little bit shorter but that house is 170 feet from the street and we're talking 20 so that's why I was asking about possibly moving it back and I understand you can't move it back uh because of the fill the shoe and that and the topography but then I think it needs to to um uh be reduced in size that's that's what I would think too okay so um before I say anything did you want chance to say anything well the uh with regard to ste's comment on that side the left side we're right at the setback so we we can't move the house in that direction you mentioned moving 5 fet that would so we can't move it that way the uh we always want the benefit of the chair's comments as well the uh but as I've said before I can count and uh yeah I see we don't have the votes and so I at this point would be respecting respectfully requesting uh a continuance I think the redesign actually will will be pretty easy yeah I just so you know I I I like the house a lot I like it better than 41 I like the Dormers and um I love the fact that you're setting it back um although I am a tree hugger I know it's not in our purview and we cannot force them to do anything with that tree um so I just put it out of my mind I just separate myself from the tree because it's not anything I could control that we can control we can make noise about it but it's not uh anything more than that um and I just I I I think it's great looking house but I agree with all my colleagues in terms of the the scale sighting and mass and I would just point out numbers one two four and five on our criteria are are um all dinged by this house in that spot so all right thank you sure so so uh you move to continue yes please and how much time will you need for the redesign oh I would say a month how about July 11th that'd be great all right great Paul I'll move to Grant the requested continuous to July 11 uh 2024 Dave V seconds and votes yes and uh Jenny Jenny votes yes I vote Yes all all votes yes and I do as well thank you so much thank you very much okay all right exactly as all right Sarah whenever you're ready next application 151 old Harbor Road application number 24-40 Keith and Wendy Mets care of th Eldridge 1038 Main Street chattam Mass 02633 owners of property located at 151 old Harbor Road also shown on the town of chadam assessor map 15f block 1 lot 60 the applicant proposes to change alter expand a non-conforming dwelling on a conform ing lot via the construction of an addition the existing non-conforming accessory structure will remain unchanged the proposed addition will conform to Road and a butter setback requirements the existing building coverage is 5,300 ft 15.9% and the proposed building coverage is 5,603 Ft 16.8% or 10% is the maximum allowed the lot contains 33,42 ft where 20,000 ft is required in the R20 zoning District a special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw Mr Eldridge thank you good afternoon for the record that Eldridge east Southeast um I have a few things for cleanup to start off with the CHC filing has not been made on this yet and so I I'd like to move forward with the discussion now if we need to continue this to some other date after the CHC has reviewed this I'm more than happy to to work with you on that uh they're not planning on starting construction till the fall anyhow so we have time so we could have the hearing today in your view and do everything but vote out of courtesy to the CHC and put it over for just the vote on another date that sounds wonderful to me does anyone have any objections to that here I could go through one by one but if you don't that's great okay only if Mr eldrige can do his presentation in five minutes or less that we I've heard that before I don't know we're going to have another tree debate on this one because there's a a beautiful maple tree right off the building um the roots are starting to affect the foundation and the roof has been suffering so the um the Mets have been looking at this tree for a while as a who planted this here um they are more than willing to plant another maple tree on the property a little bit further from the house and the proposed Edition so we have a property conforming property two structures are on it we have a barn that's right up against the property line um that's been the backdrop for the elementary school for years I um I have a few pictures of myself back there with that in the background so individually the buildings are more reasonably sized but combined we do get up to over 15% of the property the Mets they um they open up their home in the summertime um small plug for the chatam Anglers they um they are always looking for host families it's a wonderful experience the Mets go above and beyond with that we actually have one of the cookouts there every year they do have enough room for an entire baseball team with the coaches and all of the host families there so obviously the lot is adequately sized for a 300t addition so that's really what we're looking at here 303 Square ft we're over the coverage at this point and this will just put us over by more the size of the proposed structure with neighboring properties um this one is going to be one of the largest in the neighborhood uh just the house alone uh there is a 600t porch on the front of the property front of the building um and if you discounted the porch then right in the middle they don't want to take out any of the historic Barn which would give them square footage so they kind of want to keep things the way that it is um The Proposal will have a minimum impact on neighboring properties talking 80 ft from old Academy Road 50 ft from old Harbor Road 120 ft from the closest to butter and the Wetland were 135 ft away from the proposed addition was designed to match the AR architectural style we will eventually hear from the the historic commission that they're happy with it with all good hope we're keeping the com um use the same residential the existing septic system is fine but the tank will have to move for this my clients are just looking for a little more space for their for their bedroom suite and a walk-in closet the other criteria don't really apply and and I'm happy to answer it and keep under the F minute presentation oh very good thank you um is there anybody here are on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application if so please indicate see none I will read the correspondence there are two short correspondences first one is from Judith Georgio on May 6 2024 I reviewed the plan to add an addition to this existing six-bedroom dwelling the addition as proposed will maintain six-bedroom design however the septic system must be relocated to meet the required setbacks to the dwelling Foundation approved by the health Divi approval by the health division is required and then we have a note from Christina Basset also on May 6 just indicating that they haven't received their application yet at the CHC um is everybody anybody here are on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak against this application or has a specific question please make it known seeing none uh questions from the board Jenny no questions uh Steve um I don't have any questions Lee no questions Paul no questions Dave no questions no questions Dave no questions nor do I Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations da each seconds and how do you vote and votes yes and Jenny Jenny votes yes yes all votes yes as do I do you think we should Okay so we've just uh decided that we're going to wait for deliberations till we get the report and uh so at this point we'll conclude part one of your hearing um Mr alge will need to request a continuance I would like to request a continuance to the second meeting in July uh I believe that's July 25th I'll move to Grant the requested continuance to July 26 2024 one second so we can verify let me just confirm uh July 25th 25 July 25th uh dve second votes yes and J any votes yes yes well all votes yes as do I thank you so much see you next time great afternoon okay whenever you're ready Sarah we'll go to the next application 103 abami run application number 24-4 41 uh Robert and we are R of order hang on one moment that's that's the one I got so this is actually 789 foill pardon Us application number 24- 041 Robert and Elizabeth Campanelli care of BL Construction Group 218 West Main Street Suite 3E hyanis Mass 02601 owners of property located at 789 Fox Hill Road also shown on the town of chadam assessors map 12 L block 5 Lot 10 the applicant proposes to change alter expand a non-conforming dwelling under non-conforming lot VI the construction of a deck the existing dwelling is non-conforming and that is located 25 ft from the road proposed deck will be non-conforming and that it will be located 25.2 ft from the road where a 40ft setback is required the building coverage will remain 1,195 squ ft or 2,900 ft is the maximum allowed the law is non-conforming and that it contains 29,40 ft or 40,000 ft is required in the R4 zoning District a special permit is required under master General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of protected bylaw good afternoon please State your names good afternoon this is dieg BDL construction um I'm here to talk more about the structure um I mean you guys just mentioned the set packs uh we have 25.2 from the road uh we're going to build a deck uh more for accessibility because as the landing slopes down uh um in the front of the house is the only flat spot that we have to access the back of the house uh we're going to have a slider door that's going to connect uh that's going to be connected on the deck on the back side and we also have a small deck that give it access for for the kitchen so this all going to be so the deck the existing deck is going to be removed and we're going to add a deck M more as a hallway you know more as an access to the back of the house to make it easier axis as we have a big slope down towards the water site right okay good afternoon Rob chapelli I'm the home owner um to Diego's Point uh for those of you who saw the property the wooden Landing that's there is uh right off the kitchen it's rather Steep and as you can see in the elevation on on the survey that there's about a 37 foot down to about a 34ot decline there before you get to the first step of the landing to then walk back up the steps to get to uh the kitchen area so that uh the proposal is to put a deck walkway along the north side of the house which is uh the portion where uh on the northwest side of that deck walkway we're at 25.2 feet from the road good so in terms of structure um we're going to do a cable railings so that's going to like improve a little bit of the look on from the road side um also we're just going to use like regular composite attacking boards uh we're going to do like just regular footings for the foundation they're all going to be dug by hand uh no machines at all on the side so everything pretty straightforward in that case okay so in your view this is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood does that sound right no this is not detrimental to the neighborhood so with that um if there's anybody here on Microsoft are on Microsoft team that wishes to speak in favor please make it known seeing none I will read the correspondence and there are uh six letters we have here and um first one is from Judith Georgio a health agent on May 7th has no comments that's her comment next one is from let's see Conservation Commission and that was on May 1st 2024 the project was issued in negative3 determination of applicability the project as proposed meets the performance standards of the wetlands protections act the town of chadam local Wetland bylaw and then next we have a letter from Michelle middleman and she says I'm on uh let's see May 2nd I'm writing to support in support to add my vote of approval to the zba approval of applicant's proposed addition to the of a deck to the dwelling my mom walks across walks Cross by their home on the waterfront though I had not known the applicants prior to their purchase of the home I've had the pleasure of meeting with them briefly talking about their plans watching as this house comes alive again their upgrading aesthetic enhancements and approach has all been remarkable they are adding so much within this wonderful to this wonderful Community please share this letter of support with everybody on the zba and um that's that Dawn and Gloria Campanelli from on April 22nd right we are the owners of property at 27 Avalon Point Road and have been residents in chadam since 1995 although we are not a Butters we are a party of Interest since Robert and Elizabeth are family members we support their application for a special permit to construct a deck on their property the new owners are investing in improvements that are in C with the scale and history of the house at 789 boxill Road and reflect a sensitivity to the greater Avalon Point neighborhood we enthusiastically support their plan and encourage members of the zoning board to approve the request April 27th no 22nd 2024 we have a note uh sent by Ken e Joy 30 Avalon Point Road he's writing also to recommend the zba approve the application um of the addition of a deck to this dwelling Rob and Liz purchased the property last year rather than raise it as has been the trend on our Avalon Point neighborhood they are upgrading improving the existing dwelling their proposal is a lovely Improvement at that location their proposal is scheduled for a hearing on the zoning board on May 9th I hope they approve it then we have a handwritten letter from Edith ward of 9 Avalon Point Road from April 19th a letter of support to request uh that the deck be built on the home it's an improvement and an asset and an up nice updating of the property is appreciated by all thank you for your consideration and that concludes the letters is there anybody here are on Microsoft team that wishes to speak against this application or has a specific question seeing none none questions on the board Dave I have no questions uh no questions no questions Jenny no questions Steve no questions no questions no questions all right Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations Dave be seconds and votes yes yes and Jenny Jenny votes yes Lee I vote Yes all vote Yes as do I deliberations Lee um first of all beautiful home beautiful property um it's I feel that this walkway is not only in Improvement but it's a safety issue um to get into the house safely so I completely support it it is not substantially detrimental to the neighborhood jitty agree with Lee um I had written down Improvement but also an intelligent update because I think it's wise to have fewer steps um it's a beautiful property I think that the deck on the side the northern side makes sense for the access to the house completely and then of course the deck in the back for bassing Harbor um I also wanted to point out I thought it was um nice and some restraint to not have the deck go all the way across the back um you certainly could it's the back but um you pulled it short and I think it adds a little more interest in character so um not substantially more detrimental and i would support it thank Steve uh I have no no issues with this I think it would be an enhancement to um an already beautiful house and I good luck and Paul I agree with the previous comments I think it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood Dave Nixon should be approved and Ed Aton uh yes um not not substantially more detrimental to me and I agree with all previous oh as do I Paul I will move to approve the application as submitted I guess the question is uh the construction activity uh clearly you you can't have anything sitting on on the road there CU there isn't much road to begin with so are you able to I understand you're not going to have any equipment there to do this work are you able to keep uh construction vehicles or employees Vehicles off of the road um yes we do have a dumpster that takes like let's say 50% of the driveway and we only have like a room for one more car and the on the driveway so we do have a little bump in the yard right that we've been used and that's the only spot actually that we have for it but in terms of materials we can definitely I mean the roof is being done and the sign is going to it's going to be done in the next couple days so those will go away in the next couple days for sure when do you expect that the project would be completed um with the approval I would say like a couple more weeks or maybe three more weeks so after the appeal period of 30 days or so it would be another month or so is that what you're anticipating something around that yeah okay well I would move to approve the application as submitted with a condition that all construction activity and vehicles be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner um I don't know that we need conditions with respect to the June 30th Labor Day time frame um given that the project should be completed before that but um Paul I just would remind that there's a grace period I think isn't that 30 days before they can start right that's what I was talking about yeah so typically um from the date that it's stamped in with the town clerk's office which we have 14 days to do usually isn't that long um there is the 21 20-day appeals period starting the day after it's stamped in so we'll get we'll get pretty close to June 30th no matter what we do all right well why don't we add that the well I don't know that we need to uh restrict construction from June 30th on um I would say that we perhaps we should add that between June 30th and Labor Day there'd be no work permitted on weekends with construction activity between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m only may I make a comment please sure um I my parents live two doors down on 27 Avalon point and there has been massive amounts of construction on the point for the last couple of years to the detriment of the community there have been no such restrictions to anyone else in terms of their ability to do construction on their already ahead of the game right now so I want to just on there because as you can see we're heading towards not restricting you okay just yeah so the the uh the and the construction activity as I recall it is is primarily on the Avalon Point Road which is a much more substantial Road and with much more room um so um completely agree on what I was going to say is that we've been mindful of parking already and we have been making sure that the cars are already on either Avalon point or in my father's driveway who's been very gracious to let us put cars there all right well I'm glad to hear that so those are the restrictions I'm suggesting does anybody have any objections or would like to add to that in any way no I I think that's appropriate and and I would second uh second it yeah and how do you vote and I'm voting yes and Jenny Jenny votes yes Lee Lee votes yes PA as Dwight unanimous congratulations thank you thank you thank you folks have a good one all right now 103 abami run application number 24-42 Missy Abbey LLC care of Michael D Ford Esquire PO Box 485 West harch Mass 02671 owner of property located at 103 absam run also shown on the town of chadam assessor map 12E block 23g lot a15 the applicant seeks dimensional variance from the required Road setback for the installation of a swimming pool the swimming pool is proposed to be located 25.5 ft from the road where a 40ft setback is required the property contains 2,928 ft within the R40 zoning District a dimensional variance is required under master C Law chapter 4A section 10 and section 82c of protective bylaw so I just want to uh State first this is the one where Mr Nixon will be voting because he had already been to the property and so um that's the only change in voting on this application attorney Ford Mr oppenheim welcome thank you uh thank you madam chair members of the uh zoning board uh attorney Mike Ford representing really the oppenheim family here today uh the technical application uh applicant and owner is Miss ABI LLC um in the oppenheim uh family that's principally Emily's house Emily oppenheim is here as well here in the second row um this is a uh a property that was uhu laid out on a lanor plan uh back in 1983 back when it was in an R20 zoning district and the house was built at that time uh I ironically uh the setbacks at that time were um 25 ft front yard 15 a butter and the house was built so that when this was rezoned to R40 it actually met the R40 requirements um so in terms of a front yard setback anyway there is no non-conformity uh to the front yard that currently exist so um this is a proposal to install an inground pool on the property and um as you can see in looking at the site plan um there isn't a lot of places to be able to locate um the inground pool on the site uh and be able to meet uh the setbacks so I conferred with the oppenheim and indicated that it did not appear that a special permit Avenue was available to them because even though the lot is non-conforming uh in terms of area and uh we've got some Mechanicals in the back a butter setback that are non-conforming you can no longer under the cases that have come down since this house was built um use that as a non-conforming condition for the front yard uh because there isn't any non-conforming structure in the front yard and so it was my opinion that a dimensional variance from the front yard setback was required in order for the pool to be located in the location in which it's shown on the site plan and uh the Building Commissioner uh in Sarah in conferring with them both uh agreed again ironically U when this area was rezoned R40 there was a footnote as I recall I think it's footnote 7 in the dimensional regulations in the protective zoning bylaw that says if the lot in an R20 Zone uh dates 1987 and it's a vacant lot then the front yard set Pack's only 30 ft and um it doesn't actually say a vacant lot it just says Lots created before 1987 the front yard setback shall be 30 feet but custom has been uh that that uh footnote 7 has only applied to vacant lots and so um uh we recognized that and uh that was one other option we looked at uh before we ended up with the advenal uh uh variance approach so that's the background from a regulatory standpoint that's what we're here for and I think however makes sense with your permission Madam chair before I get into the variance criteria that I have Mr offenheim just kind of describe what it is they' like to do there and why they ended up in this particular location if I might please go ahead David um David oppenheim um my daughter obviously and her family uh we bought this house approximately 10 years ago go uh family as as the family we live down uh our our driveway is the direct to butter to the East and that goes down to our house um and the butter to the South is Mr bagot who I believe has sent a letter of support um I developed this property in I think in 82 83 I don't remember exact dates and when designing the the property and the road we had previously developed the subdivision next to it um in coming in uh rather than make a left-hand turn and stuff we decided to sweep the road it would be more attractive so at the time when 125 ft was was required we ended up with I think 270 ft of Frontage um uh obviously 273 273 excuse me um Arie Felman bought the lot in 83 and built the house and arie's very good Builder and he built a really nice house um and kind of set the house really nice from a street skate stamp and everything else and from the time he built the house uh in ' 83 the the the Westerly side has been fenced off as the backyard and and as you can see you have a rounded driveway on the front for entering and and exiting the house and then the gravel driveway on the left which goes into the two-car garage um we uh we bought the house for my daughter and her family to use for the Summers um and with the idea that eventually they would probably come down here as their kids got a little older and this might be their this would likely be their year round home um excuse me when uh we we renovated the house we did a complete uh renovation of the house about a year and a half ago it was completed which included everything bathrooms kitchens Windows roofs we didn't add a square foot to the house the house is fine size it's more than meets the family's needs and um at the time I'm sure you've been out there if you look on on the side with the Stockade fences there were two very large trees there you can see the stumps that are flush cut I think they're 10 to 12 inch caliper trees there were trees there uh we decided when we renovated the house the the fence that was there was in disrepair so we replac the fence completely uh with a new stockade fence with the intention of doing plantings um probably not the trees at the same time they were putting the sewer in uh lots of stuff going on uh there and um we also if you see right next to the house between the house and the pool there's an area next to it with a garden bed which has a condenser has the famous grinder pumps one of the famous grinder pumps um to to deal with the sewage and everything but we decided to get everything done um so I went around we we tried to figure out what would be a pool that would be workable for the family without we check with pool companies and as you I'm sure you know the Pools range from all different sizes there's a lot of pools in the neighborhood so we went around and looked at the pools um the people across the street the failin they have a fairly large pool that is behind their house um there's a new pool that was just put in at the entrance it's right along the street um there's a pool next to our house at 87 over on oyster Bluff that's a quite a very large pool um the big house at the end has a pool but it's it's got all sorts of hot tubs and Al it's very nice it's beautifully done and everything else and then we found our another neighbor at the end of had a pool that was cuz most of most the recommendations were 20 to 24 ft wide and anywhere from 36 to 40t Long which is which is a big pool and so the Neighbors at the End of the Street have a pool that is 16 by 32 it's nice it's more than enough and so we decided to go with a smaller pool as you can see we can meet the setbacks on the southern side the neighbor that's actually most affected and he's fine and um and then we are able to meet the narrowest point it's a 255 and it goes up there there is um you know I've talked to all the neighbors uh pretty much all there was I think one that was still away in Florida they were all supportive with a couple of concerns I think you have one letter with has some concerns um we feel that and Mike when he goes through his uh proposed conditions I think we've properly addressed those those uh there's no issues of course with building in the summer we're certainly not even interested in doing it it hopefully would be done for next summer um excuse me and as far as the the U plantings along the road it it's always been our intent to put a mixture of shrubs we we're not particularly partial to big gigantic Hedges we don't think they really fit in with a neighborhood so we have 10 ft of depth between the road and so our plan is to plant I mean we nursed back to heal the Rose beautiful rose bush which now is even higher than the than the actual fence so our plan would be to do a mixture of ariety taller plants that would be above the um fencing and then other plants to give it depth maybe hydrangeas and things to add some color so there's a dense colorful planting that does screening and also adds to the the whole uh route um Mike again will go over uh uh I mean this is clear a sidey yard from our perspective it's a it's it's doesn't have the third of butter like every other lot has um so we're proposing to sort of put a restriction on that would sort of make it consistent with that um I can certainly answer any other questions that you have but I think it would be appropriate for Mike to give the his his thoughts on the criteria and recommendations should you be inclined to approve this thank you David uh bam she with your permission I'll I'll go through variance uh criteria please please do so the variance criteria is always a difficult U uh bar um it's set forth both in the bylaw and in chapter 48 section 10 and there's usually um uh a three-prong test and uh it's conjunctive you've got to meet all three prongs in order to even be eligible for the board uh to consider a variance and usually most of the discussion is had in and around um criteria number one and Sarah perhaps if you could I sent over a plan that um maybe you could there it is okay so first uh criteria is owing to circumstances relating to soil conditions we're not here on soil conditions shape we are here on shape topography we're not here on topography uh of the land or structures we're not here on the structures so what are we here on we're here on the unique shape of this particular lot we suggest the lot is unique in in in its shape um as you can see there I looked at all the Lots in the subdivision there is not another lot with this amount of Frontage with this kind of shape almost uh Celestial in nature I'd suggest kind of a half moon um the linear Frontage on this particular lot uh within that shape is longer than any of the Lots I could find in the subdivision um by uh it looks like at least 100 ft so if you take the uh current setback of 40 ft you'll see there's an area on this lot and that's why I had it colored so the board could see that of uh 9,610 square feet that's unusable as a result of the shape being on the road and as David said having just three sides um and the longest side of course is is the front yard so um we then have to show that if you agree with us that that shape is unique and we would hope that you would we then have to show you how a literal enforcement of the bylaw creates a hardship so the bylaw if we enforce the 40 ft you'll see we've got to be in the white with anything not just a swimming pool any sort of accessory structure or anything else and so i' just respectfully you really do have a variance condition here that is a result of this unique shape that applying the bylaw literally creates a hardship being unable to locate any sort of accessory structure frankly in addition to a swimming pool um on this particular lot so um that's the first prong of the three prong criteria um the lot Itself by the way is 21,000 Square ft so uh the 96 uh 100 square ft is you know probably about 45% of the lot area of the entire lot I couldn't find on in any other lot in subdivision that is affected this dramatically and I think it's affected that way because of the shape because of the unique shape and then applying the bylaw literally so that's prong one prong two you got to find that the relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good so here what I try to do was to examine the letters the board has received what are what are the comments from the neighbors uh about public good well most of the letters fortunately um uh David as usually does went to every neighbor um had conversations showed them the plans and uh there were two letters that stuck out at me that had a concern and both of those uh dealt with uh Aesthetics or noise so if you look at the lot um you'll see where the pool is going um which is in the the gray area um let me see if I can uh work this so thank you Sarah uh this is the gray area that you're looking at on the other um where the pool is going this is the stockade fence that Mr oppenheim indicated a year and a half ago they just had replaced and uh the large trees used to be in this area here one taken down by the tornado and the other a victim uh of the grinder pump so um there is a minimum of 10 ft of buffer between uh that fence and uh the layout of abami there's even more room to the actual Madam but we're looking at just property lines here so given that the fact that the concerns were kind of Aesthetics and noise um we've fashioned a condition and you'll see it at the end of my uh findings that um if the is granted there would be a requirement for the planting that Mr oppenheim described various trees and shrubs all along that section of the fence um with trees higher than the fence the fence is 10t high so we'll get some get some height in there fence is 6 and half ft 6 and A2 ft High 10 ft would have been a spite fence and that's just not you I get it thank you so um they'd be higher than 7 feet at their planting and then uh filled in with hopefully some colorful uh ornamental shrubs to kind of break it up so it isn't just a solid wall hedge as he said but that planting would be a requirement and so I reason that under prong 2 provided the VAR if the variance was granted with that condition that there would be no detriment to the public good because we would have answered the questions that were um u in the two letters that had any concern at all and uh we think that planning will provide an aesthetic and a sound buffer that is sufficient uh to mitigate that so that brings us to prong number three prong number three is that we've got to show that in granting the variance the board isn't nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent and purpose um of the ordinance or bylaw so we went back uh with some guidance and we looked at uh the definition of uh the street set act it's in SE two of the bylaw paragraph 94 and I've quoted it in number three and it is the required distance from the street away upon which a lot has a right of access and so again we reasoned that okay we'll take this area of the lot and the area I'm talking about in the proposed condition is uh from the southwest corner here up to the uh Northerly terminus of the um 10 ft off uh on the street the Northerly Terminus of the fence so this section here it's about 70 ft in length and the condition would be that there can be no driveway or access from abami run into the lot in this area and so in that I thought we would be fulfilling um the intent of the front yard Seath provision with which is to have a required setback from that portion of the way over which you have a right of access and by saying that we're limiting it to no access in that area then we might be addressing that and then the board might be able to feel comfortable that um the variance was not substantially derogating from the purpose and intent of the ordinance so we've offered a condition to that effect in the conditions that uh are at the end and so that's our argument on the on the three prongs let me just review quickly the conditions I've kind of mentioned them as I've gone along in in the argument um they're listed on the second page number one is the one we just talked about which is no driveway access shall be permitted from the southwest corner of the premises fronting on abami run to a point on abami Run 10 ft offset from the Northern end of that stockade fence so basically all in that buffer zone area um it's a distance of approximately 70 feet so that's condition number one again I think it's helpful to the board on prong three number two is the uh row of plantings consisting of shrubs and trees at least the height of the existing stockade fence and shall be planted and maintained uh in the approximate 10-ft buffer between absam run and the existing stcave fence again this going to no substantial detriment to the public good based upon the comments that the board received in terms of U Aesthetics and noise and then three it just we have no objections to the standard conditions the board generally has on timing of work and and vehicles so I put that in as number three and so Madam chair that would be our U argument with respect to the dimensional uh variance that we've requested happy to take questions thank you so much so is there anybody here are on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application if so please indicate seeing none I will read the correspondences there are eight Judith Georgio writes on May 7th 2024 this property is connected to town sewer therefore I have no concerns regarding the installation of a residential swimming pool as proposed next on May 5th we have a letter from gird and Norma Wagner of um see where do they live 118 abami run uh is located directly across from the proposed 16x 32t swimming pool and therefore we are basically opposed to the oversized pool squeezed into a small area furthermore we will be fully exposed to and could can foresee the news noise pollution created by the summer residents who are going to occupy the premises we realize of course that the commotion is the nature of life around any pool but theow listed stipulations are meant to preserve the TR Tranquility of the neighborhood as best as possible other existing pools are positioned behind homes however we are reluctantly willing to accept the situation if the owner of the property is agreeable to the conditions uh requested as follows completely cover six sections of the existing Stockade Fence running parallel to abami run and facing the pool with exterior sound absorbing panels plant at least let's see eight 12 by 10 by 12 foot high evergreen trees um Abra G Green Giant are equal on the outside of the starcade fence as a noise attenuation measure number three commence construction after Labor Day 2024 and no work is to be performed on Saturdays and Sundays okay that one and we have a letter from Mark Morris from let's see May 3rd 2024 I am the owner of a property at 104 obami run our home directly faces the area where the pool be installed I am concerned about the noise that will result from the use of the pool I have no objection to the installation of the pool as long as tall plantings evergreen trees are added along the fence line to absorb absorb any excess noise resulting from the pool use if you have any questions please feel free to call me then we have a note from Nur Liber Bo sorry about that uh May 4th 2024 and we have submitting a letter of support for application 24-42 which is made by our neighbors at 103 abami we we've known the Dow family since purchasing our home on obami run over six years ago we uh having completed a swimming pool on our property in 2020 we know the enjoyment it has brought our family and friends and we hope they have the opportunity to enjoy a pool for many years to come and we have a note from Michael Brown 83 abami run from May 1st my wife and I are but is on the property located at 103 and are writing in support of the dimensional variant requested for the proposed proposal of an installing a swimming pool on the premises Emily and Matt Dow and their twin sons have been very good neighbors it is our hope that the addition of the swimming pool will add enjoyment to their property next we have a letter from David and Cynthia failen of 106 obami run from April 30th this email is to register our support for the application um to permit a pool be located within less than 40 ft of the setback my wife Cynthia faen and I have discussed The Proposal with the applicant and do not object to the requested variance we have also have a pool and we we uh support the value of the property in our neighborhood our one request would be that the pool construction not occur during summer months then we have a note from George bagot from 125 obami run from April 29th I wish to voice my approval approval if you have any questions please call me and he lists his phone number which I will not State um then we have Amy tatron from 141 abag gami run Amy and Tony tatron we are neighbors of the do family and have resided just down the street from them at 141 abami run for many years we have received and reviewed the plans for the proposed pool and we are in support of building a pool for the family we in fact have installed the pool for our family we are excited for them to be able to do the same feel fre please feel free to reach out if you have any questions or concerns is there anybody here sorry our Microsoft teams that wishes to speak against this application or has a specific question is there anybody no very good questions from the board Dave each um yeah I just that I I went through this somewhat Jay I wanted to ask you this question um there are certain aspects and some of the footnotes and the schedules in the bylaw that talk about when properties are on have about two streets and and change there's changes to to the required setbacks in those conditions I know that's not the case here but in terms of my thinking I'm just trying to think about how the the some of the the condition or the bylaw addresses the fact that many properties on two uh uh uh streets that generally might meet at a right angle do can you tell me about any of those or I mean they would need to meet the road setback from both streets unless they didn't have rights of use of one of the two streets so they the generally as far as a bylaws you have to meet both streets even unless they don't have rights to that one of the roads yes and then it would be in a butter setback okay okay all right okay great that that's that's all I have thanks Ed questions yeah just one question it looks like to me if the East Side uh the current proposed pool east side if if the if the pool was moved so that the west side was now the east side it you could fit the pool in there without a a variance am I am I reading that right there's there's not no there's not enough room basically if if if you take the I can take my measuring if if you see where it says um you'll see a gate at the end of the driveway the gravel driveway that goes into the two-car garage y okay that gate right there if you go through that gate you it's not shown there's a bed that there's a a flower bed bed that where the AC heat is and the grinder pump and everything else which comes out almost to that gate so by leaving that gate open and leaving the pool is you're able to get in uh from from the edge of the pool the what would be the easterly side of the proposed pool to the edge of that bed is approximately 14 ft if you assume that you're going to put a deck around the pool you know patio area where you can have chairs and or Shay's Lounge they recommend anywhere from 8 to 10 feet if you put 8 feet it only leaves you six feet of space for uh the landscapers to come in with their lawnmowers from that gate uh there's no way we could meet the 40 ft under any circumstances that would put it just about touching the house um so the answer is we we've we've moved it we've Shrunk the pool down to 16 ft uh to make it a minimal obviously the the distance from the fence gets in as you go north it it goes from 25 ft is 255 is the closest it gets it grows as you go north M but we felt that this was We Shrunk the pool as I said we saw our neighbors pool this this would work fine um and this allows us to put decking around there there's very little room to put any on the North side um and because that's also where the Sur line goes um for the grinder pump we we allowed for all this stuff and we did it um we've we've searched out every other location and we feel as you as you know I'm sure when you're out there there's a huge trampoline um where my grandson Sun's play that will be uh removed from that location which I would suggest is probably removing a lot of noise uh when when the boys are out there with their friends um that's coming up over the fence that's coming up that's that's already taller than the fence uh so this is really about the only place it fits okay thank you and you'd need a variance if you moved it anywhere else anyway so okay questions David Nixon yes uh Mr Ford are the uh your points are excellent and understandable um you didn't specifically have a point that says hardship but from what uh I got out of your presentation the hardship has to do with that uh 9610 square foot ring that goes around the two sides or the one quiry side and if I understood you right what this does it really doesn't allow you to put any kind of a structure I mean you just don't have enough room it does say that yeah so so so if I wasn't clear if I could follow up with your permission Madam chair to I think where Mr Nixon's coming from with his question the hardship here is when you apply the bylaw literally which is all that gray areas can't use it creates a hardship because you have no other space to to put anything that that's the resulting hardship from applying the bylaw literally to the shape of the law yeah okay yeah and that's that's what I thought and I just I like to have and that's going to be 0.1 well it is 1 a I guess it might might be okay uh thank you very much okay Jenny questions um so just a 273 is 150 what you would standard what you would need 150 fet uh back when this was laate out I think it was probably 125 but but like 15 and you're at 273 right so you are at an excess of 82% looking at that way right so it is I agree that that I just wanted to make sure I was thinking about the 150 the right way so you really um you have that excess which you need there that's how I look at that excess okay I just wanted to reconcile the 273 with the 150 Steve Deo questions I was just I was just going to ask I think two things just for clarification um I was going to ask the same question about why it can't be mooved closer to the house but I think you've explained that thank you um the other question I was going to ask was is there a fence around the pool or you going to have some sort of an auto cover or something over the pool itself you'd be required to have at least an auto cover right um if you generally we have a fence around the property that would meet if the fence requirements so the fence will remain okay so the backyard will be secure plus there would be an auto cover via the fence that's already in yeah the fence that's already there there's 5 and a half or almost essentially if you go on the absam you'll see from the from the shoulder of the road in the 10 ft in there's a 1ot high dry laid stone wall and the fences above that and the fence not counting the posts is 5 1/2 ft so it's 6 and 1/2 ft above the road itself and then we're and then of course the shrubs would be above that and that's that's sufficient um protection for on the pool and to the extent there's any doubt in that they're putting a pool cover on it as well right okay okay so that that would be checked at time of inspection on the pool okay and then the last thing um you talked about plantings and mitigation um along the I guess it would be the West Side yep um is there a similar plan for the south side or is there something there already well uh this butter uh who's the closest to it right wrote a letter without any requirements for anything he was fine so we tried to focus on these people on the other side of the street that had problems uh with noise and Aesthetics so we we filled up this area which is about 70 ft with the requirement yes for all of those plantings and and if I may add the pool itself is meets the setback from Mr baggett's property 25 ft if we were going to do plantings we'd have to do it on his property really to get anything and he's not requested that he's fine with the fine with the proposal thank you all right thank you Le questions no no questions all questions um I'm beginning to feel a little bit like the skunk at the picnic uh let me ask my question I guess I'll ask one address this question skunk at the long long part lawn party I think is yes well either way um hopefully it's not at the pool party an at the an at the the the issue I'm having trouble with is the hardship issue and the hardship uh um I'm having difficulty understanding how the inability to have a pool becomes the hardship within the meeting of the statute so the statute I think you would agree with me um says first you got to have this unique condition and let's just assume that you buy that this is a unique condition within the subdivision then it says if you apply the bylaw literally that's why I had that 40 ft to show the 9,600 Ft as a result of the shape that's applying the bylaw literally the 40 ft all of that area is gone from the lot any structure so my argument is that applying that the bylaw literally you can't place accessory structures anywhere on the lot frankly I mean they're too close to the house or they're too close to the the butters line or whatever because the front yard is given the shape and given the length of the frontage um takes so much of the lot out out of play I don't think you have to in my experience anyway with a variance show that oh um you know I'm not going to be able to have this or I'm not going to be able to have that and that is the hardship it's applying the bylaw literally this is the real test creates the hardship and it does here because it takes so much of the lot out of play that never mind a swimming pool you can't have any accessory structure there and that's the relationship between those two terms in that first prong okay I understand your argument thank you and I don't have any other questions okay Paul great I just have a question about the noise ordinance uh in town I'm sure you're going to know the answer isn't it when people are at least 150 feet away I mean maybe J I mean there there is a certain deciel level no well I don't know if it's a decibel it's a people it's a certain decibel level within 150 ft yeah yeah and that's enforced by the police department not by the building department but you if I if I could further comment we need to we need to change that it it's the only time I've run into it in absam is when my daughter was married on our property um the band was a little loud a little late um and that's a long time ago um Mr bagot who lives directly to the South is the one that's most effective this is right next to his property I would suggest to you on the West Side you not only have the 25 foot set that we're proposing which increases we have the uh the 33t road and if you talk about for example Wagner's house um the front of their house from the edge of the pool to their houses is north of 100 ft and that's what I'm trying to say and they have you know and and and and again I I we certainly appreciate their concerns and we think we've addressed it their backyard AB buts the backyard of the failin who have a pool right their backyard backs up to the backyard of the morrises who are installing a pool I don't think I think the cars going by are going to make a lot more noise than uh I hope my my my my grandsons are going to I was pointing out that they are far away yeah they're far away that's all I'm pointing out okay Paul um I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations Dave V seconds and vess and Dave Nixon yes Jenny yes Paul Paul v as do I okay deliberations uh we'll start with you Paul okay um I think that uh the proposal that's being made uh is as successful a proposal as you can make with respect to a pool uh at this location uh the difficulty I have with it is um I do not think that the inability to put in a pool as a result of the configuration of the lot satisfies the hardship requirement uh set forth in the statute so for that reason reason I would not vote to approve uh with respect to this uh application um that would be my view okay thank you Dave V Del liberations um well I think uh yeah I'm I'm um swayed by the arguments that uh the attorney's made um you know I mean this is definitely a unique I think situation I just the shape of the lot is very much unique um and having that much Frontage and and as Micah said a literal interpretation of the bylaw takes a large large portion of the laot and may it basically says it's not buildable and I I I would interpret that to be considered a hardship under those circumstances uh and I think you know they've what they're proposing to do here is is the proposal is they have a 25.5 ft uh which would it were this to be in a butter that would be a sufficient uh distance um and and you know kind of more importantly in some ways in in the R40 District um you know where we have 25t a butter setbacks to me the bylaw is presupposing that a 50 ft distance from a structure like this which those neighbors across the way are more than 50 ft uh is is the bylaw considers it sufficient for a budding property so I'm not sure when you get far further away how much leverage you have in in in complaining but uh that said also I I mean I I've realized that I live next door to a swimming pool and um so I thought about this issue of noise and um and I I have to say that uh you know in this case from time to time maybe the the grandkids are are at the at the pool and I don't consider any noise that I've heard from my neighbor swimming pool to even come vaguely close to the noise emanating from the landscapers that take care of their property uh so so I I really I can't it's hard for me to to to find that that uh potential noise from a pool is is I just don't see it as likely a problem um so any and but that's an aside I don't think that's really part of our criteria in a way but I think that they have satisfied the criteria and and uh should be allowed and I'm happy to Grant the variance okay Dave Nixon deliberations well it was an excellent presentation absolutely and um hitting all the points so uh yeah the noise complain about the neighbor what's there now with a trampoline you know when you get rid of that you just saved yourself a tremendous headache I mean I don't understand what your neighbor's talking about but anyway it means nothing to me so going back to this and as Paul uh the problem to me is does this hit the test of a hardship and so what I did as I kind of and I don't know if you can see this or not but I've taken this half moon that was done and as far as I'm concerned the 40 ft up here is what counts and that's what the time was talking about that's the exis that's the entrance and all that and then the rest of it is really restricted by the conditions so that to me this goes to the 25 ft it makes total sense to me and the hardship is enforcing this for what the front should be and is then why should the side which is not used for anything restricted by a condition I I just can't think that using the C criteria that this is now a hardship it just doesn't make sense to me so I will be voting in support of it Ed Acton I didn't mean to skip over you deliberations yeah sorry about that um I'm not voting today but uh this is a it's a difficult one but but um originally you know listening to Paul I don't see how you know a pool NE necessarily is a hardship not having a pool per se but uh David's made a great point where you know this this this area over here it's it's really a side yard it shouldn't be considered as a front yard so um you know the this the the ceiling for a variance is very tough and it and it should be very hard to get but I feel like you've made a good presentation and after taking into consideration uh you know this really is a sidey I I I could vote for this if I was Voting thank you Lee deliberations um I I agree with um Dave Nixon and and Ed um in my opinion this is a very good example of a case where Common Sense should come into play um the lot is the definitely a unique shape and you know if you take this as the frontage um to the Street then it's the it's the sidey yard and you know is it a hardship that you can't put a pool in no but it's a hardship that you can't do anything with that area so um you know if I were voting I I would vote to approve this um I I I think it it doesn't um it it's not detrimental to the public good it doesn't nullify or derogate from the bylaws at all okay thank you and uh Steve if you were voting deliberations um well I I guess not having a pool is not really doesn't justify a hardship um you can certainly you know have a nice yard where a pool however this is a very unique I think this is not sort of a standard corner lot where you would have a 90 degree turn and and and where this pool is going would basically be a sidey yard um um the way it is now it turns out to be a very extended front yard um so um if it were a basic 90 degree corner lot um we probably wouldn't be here right now um talking about this because you would be uh able to to put to put in a pool or whatever else you wanted so I I think that if I were voting um because of some of the reasons that Dave Nixon explained I I think I would probably support this okay very good Jenny um yeah Mr Ford I agree with your narrative I think the lot shape is unique visually just visually it isn't just I call it a baseball field not a half moon but but it's um it's not only in the perimeter it's this entire picture I don't see any shape like that anywhere and that's a lot of homes so I think that the lot is unique and I think you made a nice argument for that um V that's visually numerically I mentioned before the 273 feet of Frontage where 150 is required is 82% excess Frontage which um I think is is what makes in my mind it not being substantially derating from the ENT of the bylaw because that excess Frontage is at the expense of being able to do anything with um any part of the yard especially the west side that where you want to put the pool so I take the pool out of it um because it's preventing you from putting any structure in that area now you could you just your structure happens to be a pool but I think that's secondary to what would be um meeting our criteria so I think you have have have met the three prong and i would support it so I'm going to support it as well I just have a question I I don't think you have to put the automatic pool cover but I would like you to and I'd like it to be a condition that's fine okay great so um with that Paul um I will move to approve the application as submitted with the condition that uh no driveway access shall be permitted from the southwest corner of the premises fronting an abami road to a point on abami road uh abami runs excuse me uh 10 ft off set from the Northern end of the existing Stockade Fence a distance of approximately 70 ft along absam run and two a row of plantings consisting of shrubs and trees at least the height of the existing Stockade Fence shall be planted and maintained in the approximate 10 foot buffer between abami run and the existing stockade fence and three the board's standard conditions which would be uh let me rumber these so instead of uh three would be all construction activity and vehicles would be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner or two uh between excuse me four uh between June 30th and Labor Day uh no exterior construction would be allowed no work would would be permitted on weekends and construction activity would be between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. only Dave V seconds and votes yes daveon yes oh yes and also the auto cover um Paul I'm sorry yes Sor I'll add that uh condition five and auto auto cover be uh included with respect to the installation of the pool okay and uh I second that and vote Yes with the new when I vote Yes Jenny I vote Yes and uh Paul I'm going to vote no I do not think that the hardship requirement has been met and I am going to vote Yes uh it's not unanimous but you have succeeded thank you very much for your time thank you very much we're going to take a five minute break and we'll be right back e e e e e e e e all right welcome back everybody um this is a continuation of the May 9th zba meeting in chadam and we will continue When Sarah's ready with the next application which is I think 24-44 application number application number 24- 044 59 Knob Hill Road realy trust care Richard Avery PO Box 2416 Mash P Mass 02649 owner of property located at at 79 or 59 Knob Hill Road also shown on the town of chadam assessors map 13g block 31 lot t44 the applicant seeks to enlarge extend or change a conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot be the removal of the second second floor and construction of a new second floor an addition and a storage shed the existing dwelling and proposed additions will comply with all bulk conventional requirements of the bylaw but is considered a substantial alteration and under the second accept Clause of section six of chapter 4A such substantial alteration requires the grant of a special permit the existing building coverage is 768 square feet 7.13% and the proposed building coverage is 1,335 Ft 12.4% or 15% is the maximum allowed the law is non-conforming and that it contains 10,765 ft or 20,000 squ feet is required in the R20 zoning District a special permit is required under master General Law chapter 48 section and section 5 b of protective bylaw Mr Mr litfield good afternoon Madam chairman members of the board Bill Lichfield here on behalf of Susan and Jonathan Avery who are in uh the middle of the room with I'm sorry Susan and Jonathan Miller with their Builder Richard Avery uh who is with them today uh the Millers are here for what we think is a fairly simple request a Borland request so-called because all that they are seeking to do do complies with the bylaw uh Susan has family in chadam sort of around the corner from a well treed Street in North chadam or at least currently well treed Street in north chadam um they have been renting uh in chatam for about 20 years and they were fortunate after a lot of hard work to be able to purchase this home uh it needs a lot of work uh it has lots of code deficiencies the stairs need rebuilding they want to expand the second floor because Susan's parents will be living in the house on a year- round basis at some point uh they would like to be here too and thus they would like to have an alarge second floor so they can have a full bath on the first floor full bath on the second floor uh and make some changes their parents are retired and would like to have first four living uh Jonathan and Susan won't be here immediately because they have a high school student and I think a seventh grader uh so after that they have tuition and probably decades before they can retire but that's a separate issue it has been a long afternoon for you so I will try to be relatively brief that is the site uh we are seeking to build an addition of 216 square feet in the rear and also to locate a shed further back in the rear everything complies we relocating the bulkhead but the house itself is almost 40 ft back from the street it will remain there only 25 ft as required re ired the proposed shed in the rear meets the sidelines and again everything does comply so I'll go directly into the criteria as the adequacy of site it is a m midsized house which is entirely adequate for M midsized loss lot rather which is adequate for the existing house which meets all setbacks if you approve the special permit you can do so based on finding that the site is adequate for the addition of a 216 ft kitchen at the rear a modified upper story and the shed all of which meet all set packs and are completely compliant as to coverage as to compatibility of size the neighborhood was developed under the old r10 zoning uh we have a lot that's a little bit larger than several but it's a typical lot for the neighborhood the house is modest and is compatible and it will remain compatible if you approve the special permit the addition is shown there is at the right top right photograph it's in the rear of the shed and the porches while increase in coverage is a reasonable request and it will remain compatible compatible meeting all dimensional requirements as to the extent of increase of non-conformity that's easy there is none uh there is no nonconformity involved this is a classic Borland case certainly far from mcmansion interestingly Dormers one of the things we're requesting to do and sheds were specifically cited in the Borland case as not being intensification an argument I suppose is that because we're adding the 200 square ft uh 216 Square ft we are intensifying but hardly in a detrimental fashion as to suitability of site the site has been developed for residential use since 1966 there were no Wetlands or environmental issues as the scale sighting Mass fuse and Vistas there's no particular Mass from the small full Cape that's there now and I think you can find what is up there right now to be an appropriate and classic simple design with a shed Dormer on the front as as well as a covered entryway and a kitchen addition at the rear the last page of your handout shows the proposed quivet shed it's not quivet uh over in Dennis they say quivet no one knows why but they do in there town uh but that it's a pine Harbor design very simple so there's no change in views and Vistas as to compatibility of use it's residential use it would be a family around residential use adequacy of water and sewer uh the Millers put in a new septic system sufficient for three bedrooms we on Town water so there is no change there as you know the question is whether what we're proposing to do reconstructing the second floor adding a small covered entry in the front some porches and enlarging the kitchen of the rear all of which are completely compliant with all the requirements of the bylaw without any any change in setbacks whether that is substantially more detrimental the neighborhood than the existing conforming house and a non-conforming lot we are aware of course of the correspondence and I'll be be happy if the chair will allow me to to respond to some of the issues that are raised but we would suggest we would volunteer uh request to too strong of a word but we would suggest that you do impose the standard summertime conditions which will assuage any concerns that neighbors have and also that all parking uh be contained on site as I indicated Borland was differential to exactly the sorts of compliant changes that we are proposing here uh the issue is whether there's any detriment from this intensification these are small but useful changes that be constructed in complete compliance with the bylaw and I think that you can find based on the criteria and the plans that reconstructing the upper story adding the covered entryway and porches and the addition in the rear meeting all dimensional requirements and all other requirements of the bylaw I think that you can find that not to be substantially more detrimental be happy to answer any questions oh thank you is anybody here are on Microsoft teams interested in speaking in favor of this application if so please make it known seeing none I will now read the correspondence there are six all right first one Judith Georgio 56 2024 I have received the plan to add in addition to this existing three-bedroom dwelling a new septic system for the existing three-bedroom dwelling was recently approved and installed by the health division the addition as proposed will maintain a three-bedroom design and will not encroach on the existing septic system we have a note from Judy Smith on May 8th 2024 and she said says I was the Mills real estate agent when they purchased the home uh on 59 Knob Hill the home inspector Jeff Smith who is no relation to me did not find any asbestos at the property the Miller in the mills in their family look forward to becoming good stewards of knill uh neighborhood and that they are they are not building a mcmansion they are doing a modest renovation keep in keeping with the neighborhood um next we have a note from James shock from May 8th 2024 90 Knob Hill Road in chadam as a president of chadam and neighbor of the Miller family I'm ready to offer my support for the proposed uh addition it enhances the neighborhood and improves the street then we have a note from May 6th Megan Mahala Mahal Alo Weaver and she uh lives at 21 Knob Hill Road writing uh in regard to the special permit um and she also attached some photos which if anybody was interested interested they're on the internet uh on our site our backyard is directly next to 59 we we're all about we were all built during the same time and there was there will be need to be extensive there will need to be extensive lead and asbestos removal from and during the gut renovation that our neighbors have planned to their home having known the previous homeowner there's been very little but for cosmetic changes done to the home since it was built meaning it's likely LED exist in the home and perhaps other hazardous materials like asbestos we have two young children and a baby on the way and it's of great concern to us that the home be completely tested before any re Renovations uh and demolition begin as children are especially vulnerable to these concerns uh children play uh children's playet is feet from 59 Knob Hill our most important important request is that proper care be taken to remove lead and asbestos safely according to the mass code to ensure that kid the kids equipment in our yard do not get debris from this project on them and cause harm to our health we're also concerned with Summer approaching uh construction is a nuisance especially to owners like us oh we are only able to live full-time on the cap from June to September and prefer to be outside side most of the time we are requesting no construction during the summer months and when it does start certain work hours 8 to four and days of the week no weekends be observed our neighbors and the owners of 59 knobhill are great people have been very trans transparent through their planning process they have let us know the project will take close to a year to complete we would appreciate the board taking all this into consideration then we have a note from John and Jacqueline Collier from April 22 2024 my husband and I are next door neighbors to 59 knobhill and we have several concerns regarding the property at the proposed removal and the proposed removal of the second floor and construction of a new second floor plus an addition and storage shed our neighborhood experienced a similar situation last year where the homeowners constructed their home on a small lot the town of chadam specifically designed their zoning ordinance and bylaws to address the small lots and dwelling sizes suitable for Nill Road taking into consideration the narrowest street lack of sidewalks L narrow lot Frontage far on street parking giving a variance to every Homeowner of a small Cape or ranch style home on a small lot will completely change the character of no Hill Road and other similar streets and will completely disregard the zoning ordinance and bylaws where does it end we purchased our home PRI primarily for summer use and our deck faces 59 Knob Hill deconstruction and construction of this house beginning in June per the Builder will be a nightmare for our summer dealing with demolition noise and debris in addition we wonder if there's asbestos or lead paint in the demolition debris my husband has stage four lung cancer as a nonsmoker and our expectation is that he has a limit number of summons Summers to enjoy and chatam vehicle parking is an additional concern with last Summer's construction on Knob Hill we constantly had cars and vehicles parked everywhere on the street where are the regulations dealing for on street parking during deconstruction and construction situations are these vehicles allowed to park in front of our neighbors homes what are the regulations regarding dumpsters chadam really needs to rethink the overbuilding and parking issues in these smaller neighborhoods or otherwise will be experiencing Ci City living instead of suburban living and the charm and character of chatam will be destroyed some of chatam streets and neighborhoods just weren't designed for overbuilt homes and on street parking we should follow the ordinances and bylaws as written okay now we have a note from Susan Linds goog on April 23rd 2024 she writes we are writing in regard to a special permit for the non-conforming lot at 59 Knob Hill Road where full-time residents on this small street we requ we question the approval of homes being over improved or torn down and rebuilt with all the issues in the town of chadam is facing our road road is an old short and narrow road our neighborhood consists mostly of ranches and small capes and our home was bought brand new by grandparents in 1966 sometimes we experienced trucks and other vehicles cutting through Heritage Lane and stepping stone as a shortcut we're concerned with Summer approaching that this will be a real inconvenience especially to owners who come down just for the summer and for any of us that have family and friends that visit with the construction going on it will it will not be our quiet little neighborhood we are requesting no construction during the summer and when it does start certain work hours 8 to four and days of the week no weekends to be considered we were told this project may take up to a year it's a real concern of crew parking equipment and dumpster issues have there been any inspections done for asbestos or lead paint for when the second floor is ripped off there is nothing personal about the way we feel and welcome our new neighbors but again question the size of Renovations and over improving on a non-conforming lot we would appreciate your board taking all this into consideration John and Susan Lind Cog of 15 Knob Hill and that concludes the correspondence is there anybody here or in Microsoft teams that wishes to speak against this application or has a specific question if so please make it known seeing none questions from the board Jenny Mr Mr L if I could I'll be brief thank you to respond thank you I I think first of all I hope that the standard conditions as to Summertime construction being limited and parking on site address a major SE section segment of those thoughts I sympathize with the health situation referenced in one letter but you know the concerns about lead paint could be raised on every single house that you deal with at least anything built before 1978 uh as for asbest they might apply as well to most cases with one particular exception um that exception is this property because we had an inspection or the Millers had an inspection I've also spoken with Jay about processes Mr Avery understands that whenever you're dealing with u what I've learned is ACM possible asbestos containing material you have to deal with it very carefully we have no reason to think there is any however is traditional fiberglass installation in the house finally it's important to note as you do that uh there's a difference between variances and special permits we are dealing with our bylaw as was correctly noted but no variance is being sought rather we are doing what one of the letter writers suggested we are precisely following the bylaw because all of the requested changes comply with the bylaw I thank you sure thank you chairman um excuse me excuse me sir um whoa whoa whoa whoa first of all um um if you are you the Builder um actually right now we've already you know gone through anyone that wants to speak in favor anyone that wants to speak opposed so I I'm trying to think of the rule while I'm talking to you at the same time and basically no Jenny questions from the board no questions uh Steve um I guess I don't have any qu I guess I don't really have a question I guess but what I would have liked to have seen were some um existing conditions we have proposed drawings and elevations but there's it's kind of difficult to compare them uh to something that we don't have so I'm it's this just a comment um other than that I don't have any other questions I I can respond semide defensively that I did not do the filing and was not involved in this at the outset okay okay Lee questions no questions well no questions D yeah I'd like to hear what Mr Avery was going to have do that so this is part of the rules that if a board member wants to bring somebody into the uh conversation he may do so and he knows that and just state your name when you get to the microphone please I'm Richard Avery Cape Cod remodeling I've been involved I don't sound like it with my accent but I've been involved in Remodeling and Cape Cod for 25 years started in 1999 and I've remodeled houses from uh actually from Falmouth up through Wellfleet remodeling not new bills so I know about asbest and I know about lead and this has has no asbest and no lead let me tell you why because on your town record records uh if you look at the Town property summary report it says year built 2006 a major remodel was done on this house in 2006 and if there was any asbest or lead Jay wouldn't have let them do the remodel and get it approved so Jay or the previous commissioner so there is no lead I've seen no evidence of lead I've seen no evidence of asbest and I've been studying the house for over five months now okay thank you Mr Avery didn't make plain but he's from South chadam the source of the accent all right so that was that was my uh that was my only question all right Ed afteron questions uh no questions Dave Nixon no thank no uh seed Paul no questions and Jenny did I ask you yet and yeah no I meant Lee did I ask you yet yes all right s good Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into Del liberations and Dave V seconds and votes yes all right and Dave Nixon how yes no no I'm not we not voting no we're back to we're back to Lee voting right on this one Lee I vote Yes and Jenny yes and Paul I vote Yes as do I okay deliberations Lee um well I think this is um a great project I think it's a great Improvement while the homes on Knob Hill are modest this is um larger but it's still very appropriate and I think it's going to be great and certainly not substantially more detrimental Paul what do you think I agree I agree with what Le has said it seems to me it's certainly not a substantially detrimental uh project and I will vote in favor and Steve dor I think it's a nice project it looks the house from what we can see from some of the pictures Ed a little help and um I think this is going to go a long way in doing that and Jenny um I agree it's a small lot but it's a very nicely done proposal um modest kitchen and shed in the back of the property um modest building coverage increase um the proposed additions comply with the bylaw as you pointed out no increased to non-conformities um I like the front roof line having the Dormers added to it I think it makes it more attractive um and it's very attractive so I think it meets our criteria not substantially more detrimental and i would support it Dave Nixon if you were voting well if I was Voting I'd certainly be in favor of this and my only recommendation to the applicants is they have a cocktail party and just find out what's with your neighbors already I mean come on all right uh Ed did I I didn't ask you liberations uh no it it's certainly not substantial detrimental to the neighborhood I think it's very reasonable um you know lead and asbestos is really out of our purview but uh Mr Avery easily you could go to a hardware store and and get a little lead tester and I know how to do that and test the paint and maybe test the sheetrock and and that should alleviate any of your neighbors concerns perhaps Dave Dave yeah this is this is a first I've been on the board for a while not as long as some other members but for a while and this is the first referencing to lead painter asbest that I recall seeing or hearing um so and and I agree with that this is that's not really part of our purview and I'm sure there are laws that will be followed that address those those concerns um I certainly not substantially more detrimental neighborhood I think it's an improvement as is po was pointed out by the neighbors um small Lots fairly small houses and we're here to part of our our job is to in in you know when areas like this get rezoned which was was developed under r10 and rezoned is R20 um they come to us ask us you know whether what we think with respect to the criteria um and it it this I know there's across the street there was recently another uh Remodel and I wouldn't be surprised to see further remod is going on in this neighborhood as we go along and um I I think that the only other thing that I would say to is yes it's a it's a narrow road and um even with the best of of our um criteria and intentions and things it when construction projects are going on it's still a disruptive process and some of these neighbors have been through recent construction and so they're responding to that I would say probably as well but um it's good it's a good project and I will support it okay and so the only thing I would say is um is it would it be overstepping to have that those tests done if it's if it's easy to test for lead and test for those and just show that to your neighbors or show it to I'll speak with the Millers about that because they want to be good neighbors in fact they they've talk to their neighbors throughout which is yeah well but I mean if you have little children I mean that that I would be saying the same thing oh that's an old house and wonder what's going to happen when they start to pull that apart you know should we send the kids out with masks you know so I I don't know if it can be a condition but I'm just bringing it up I don't I don't think it should be all right well that's really stepping Beyond stepping Beyond that's why I'm asking very good the only other thing I would say is that of course we are going to condition this for time of year right right but I I happen to notice that of those neighbors who rais those concerns um the prevailing summer winds blow from the southwest and the prevailing Winter Winds from the Northwest both of those directions are U not towards these neighbors properties so okay well uh I will move to approve the application as submitted with the condition that all construction activity and vehicles be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner that uh between June 30th and Labor Day no exterior construction will be allowed no work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity would be between 8:00 am and 5:00 p.m only David seconds and votes yes and Jenny Jenny votes yes and Lee Lee votes yes V as do I it's unanimous congratulations thank you very much all right we have one more application we will get to in a moment now we're going to the dogghouse yeah okay Sarah whenever you're ready application number 24- 045 the chadam dog Club LLC care of James M Norcross Esquire PE box 707 chadam master 02633 lesie of properties located at 82 and 102 Meeting House Road also shown in the town of chadam assessors map 4E block 25e lot a and map 4E block 15 lot 0er the applicant proposes to incorporate an overnight kennel use to the existing personal and household service use dog care and Training Facility with repail component which requires the grant of a special permit the lot contains 42,8 27 ft in an industrial zoning District a special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 9 and 8 d2b of and a pedix one of the protective bylaw uh good evening Jamie Norcross representing the chat of dog club uh the owner an Corgan is in the back uh this evening as well uh so this uh Ann's been operating this business at uh 82 meeting house since uh 2015 and it's use currently is essentially a dog daycare so the hour are 7:30 in the morning to 5:30 at night uh folks drop off their dogs in the morning pick them up at night and during the day Ann and her staff engage in they feed the dogs the dogs play take care of the dogs throughout the course of the day just like child daycare but with the dogs and then um the facility itself currently it's the metal building at 82 Meeting House Road so there's an interior space for the dogs a little bit of office space and then there's uh exterior play space for the dogs on the front facing 137 and at at the back of the building um excuse me since opening in 2015 um and the the business has become very very popular uh under the 2015 approval an is allowed to have up to 40 dogs at one time at the at the uh property and believe it or not she is a weit list so um credit to Ann and her staff they've done such a great job with operating the facilities they have a a ton of happy customers and more customers that are hoping to get into the space at some point in the future um during the course of her ownership an has consistently heard hey what about overnight um people trying to go away for the weekend want to go on vacation they got nowhere to put the dogs or it's tough to find somebody to watch the dogs and I don't believe there's a facility in chadam currently I think the closest one is in harch on the dentist border and perhaps one in Orleans but there's not much uh by way of overnight dog hair in the lower Cape at all so we think it's going to be a real nice feature for the town and a real need that Ann has heard about from clients so this year she decided to um try and incorporate an overnight boarding service into her business and so the plan would be um an leases currently uh this is 82 meeting house this is the metal building and she leases uh 102 meeting house which is the uh the dwelling on this property right here and so uh for 1082 meeting house she proposes um boarding up to 20 dogs overnight and then at 80 excuse me 102 Meeting House the home she proposes boarding up to six dogs on that building those would be dogs that need Specialized Care or have certain issues in which they are going to be separated from the rest of the dogs and um in more of a private setting here also an is is um planning to have her manager who's worked with her for seven years she's going to reside at the single family house so she's going to be there there's going to be somebody there 24 hours a day um and so not only is she able to monitor the dogs that are going to be uh in the house right here but there's also going to be cameras and monitors so that she can see what's going on uh at the big facility overnight so if there's an issue somebody's there to address it uh on the weekends um there would be sort of reduced schedule uh and said there'd be a few staff that would come in take the dogs out so they can play a little bit feed them but it really would just be a morning afternoon and an evening check-in otherwise it would be far less than what they have during a normal Monday through Friday schedule the um currently in terms of pickup and drop off um and started during Co a curbside service for the dogs so instead of somebody parking and bringing the dogs in they have cameras on the outside people pull up here the staff sees the cameras they go out they get the dogs they bring them in she's found that's worked out great for the staff for the dogs and for the um the dog owners uh in terms of less disturbance or an easier U transition for everyone one important Point uh to note is that uh in terms of the dogs that are going to stay overnight Ann's only going to use the pool of dogs that already part of her daycare facility so she's not going to introduce new dogs that are not already part of her program it would just be for clients and customers who were already using the the daycare dog care facility they would have the ability to stay overnight with her and schedule that so they're not introducing new customers new cars new dogs into the program we just be using her existing clientele and provide the service for the overnight care so because this is overnight boarding it is now considered or would be considered a kennel under the chadam zoning bylaw and therefore that's why we're here today for a special permit um a kennel is allowed by special permit in the industrial Zone which is where this property is located and the criteria for that is under 8 C4 which I will go through now uh number one is adequacy of the site in terms of size as the uh publication that Sarah red mentioned we have over 40,000 square feet combined between the uh metal building lot and the single family lot at 102 the business has been in operation for almost 10 years and has proven to be more than uh have more than adequate parking uh the property as I mentioned is located in the industrial Zone and with the exception of a few residential homes across the street um it is largely surrounded by commercial buildings and commercial uses applicant is not had any issues with noise and the additional use proposed by this application will not significantly alter the the overall use of the property therefore we believe the size is adequate number two suitability of the site for the proposed use it's been used in this fashion for 10 years I think it's proven to be suitable the additional use of the overnight I don't think is a significant change and therefore I believe it remains suitable for the use impact on traffic flow and safety I don't think there'll be a negative impact on traffic flow and safety again they do the curbside pickup and also they are going to be doing overnight um boarding from their existing clientele of dogs so you're not introducing more cars into the picture it's really just the same amount of cars um and so we don't think there's an issue there in terms of traffic flow and safety uh I'd suggest there's no impact on or negative impact on neighborhood visual character adequacy a method of sewage disposal of source of water and drainage uh property is adequate source of water and there are no issues with drainage um the health department had raised a concern prior to the planning board meeting relative to the sewers Disposal system so we've met with the health agent twice and they actually did a visit earlier this week out the property to get a better understanding of what goes on now what the plan is in terms of the usage and any significant increase in the usage and you'll note and read into the a record a letter from Judy Georgio and she's not concerned with the uh proposed use and its impact on the septic system she does also point out that town sewer I believe is actually already in the road but it hasn't had an order to connect but that'd be coming in the next couple years so the proper these two properties and the not so distant future are going to be on town sewer uh adequacy of utilities and other public services uh those are both adequate noise and litter um again the property the business has been operating here for almost 10 years there's been no issues with noise and litter we don't think there'll be any appreciable increase in noise and certainly no increase in litter caused by the proposed use uh compatibility proposed use with surrounding land uses again it's in the industrial Zone and while a kennel is also allowed in residential zones via special permit I think really this is kind of the perfect zone for this type of use that's proposed today in terms of minimizing impact on any neighboring properties uh impact on natural environment including slopes vegetation Wetlands Etc um property is not located with any Wetlands or water bodies uh we don't believe there'll be a negative impact on the natural environment caused by this additional use of the overnight boarding at the property and number 10 it's not a formula business so that is not applicable um we'd suggest that this additional use is not significantly detrimental to the neighborhood that an's proven to be a good business owner a good neighbor at this site and uh with that we'd be happy to answer any questions oh thank you very much is there anybody here are on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application if so please make it known seeing none I will read the two correspondences that we have one is from Judith Georgio um as indicated on 57 2024 she says I've reviewed the site plan and and proposed use of the above property for overnight kennel in addition to the daycare facility I have conducted a site visit to the existing dog daycare facility to determine its current use and condition after visiting the facility researching the usage of the property and the proposal I have concluded that the addition of overnight kennel will not significantly increase the usage or intensity of the property over what is currently there the daycare facility is up up to 40 dogs and the day I visited there were about 30 on the property the conditions were excellent very clean wellmaintained and organized the exterior of the property is set up with two fenced in areas of artificial turf over sand gravel and base um feces are collected by hand and bag for disposal inside the floors are mopped there is a mop sink available for disposal of mop water the property is adjacent to the town of chadam sewer and will be required to connect when that uh becomes uh adequate I mean active in two to three years this will will negate the use of the septic system at the property which is operating with no issues then we have a note from Annie Hayes of the Community Development uh secretary and about the planning board uh who had heard this application on February 12th 20124 um and approved with conditions the um amended site plan and change of use and that was on May 7th that note now if there's anybody here r on Microsoft team that is opposed to this application or has a specific question please indicate yes ma'am please go up to the mic hi Gloria Hicks I live at 95 Meeting House Road directly across the street from the chadam dog Club um as stated um there have not been noise issues um is completely false um there's been a lot of noise um at this site and the police are well aware of it as is the dog officer as is Mr Stell who is the owner of the property because I personally have called all these people um there this would be a hardship on the neighbors um to say that the owner has been a good neighbor is also false um there have been dog fights out front um I called one uh I called the owner I think I left a message we did speak on the phone 11:00 at night on a Saturday there was a dog clearly inside this building for an overnight um that barked for hours so not only is that a problem for noise but it's also a problem I wonder if I'm a dog owner I'm a dog lover um was the dog in distress um I there was another issue with um constant barking I called Mr Stell directly and asked him to please deal with it because she has been um less than polite when you deal with her um my neighbor went over there uh at 87 The Bakers had a son who was napping in the afternoons and on multiple occasions she went over there to complain about the dogs barking because it was waking up her son um the last time that it happened the police were called and the police were in her driveway so to say that she's cooperative and a good neighbor is simply not true um there are three dogs at 105 meeting house that are a constant problem the dog officer knows them quite well um and um it sets off others dogs as well to have that many dogs at this facility would be absolutely unbearable for those of us that live across the street it's too many dogs it's too much noise it's more traffic um and it's been a constant problem quite frankly since this business opened um I realize that it's a you know we have a very small neighborhood across the street but it's a huge problem um so I very strongly oppose this permit and if you do in fact go to approve it I would ask that you have very strong conditions I'm talking about five dogs I'm talking about somebody in the facility they're already talking about not having somebody on site on the weekends so this is going to be a continued problem and especially for those of us that live there thank you thank you ma'am is there anybody else that wants to speak uh against this application or has a specific question seeing none uh qu questions from oh yes um yes if I may for a moment I've I mean I've not spoken with the abutter I had not heard from her until just now so I wasn't aware of her concerns until she spoke um I'm also not aware of any issues with the town they didn't uh comment the police and the um staff report at all that was submitted so I'm not aware that there been constant concerns when I met with the health agent she said she has not heard anything relative to any uh issues with the property so for someone to say there have been constant issues that is new information to me so I guess we're a little bit of a disadvantage in terms of how to respond because I again we haven't um I haven't heard that and speaking with the town I'm not aware that they've been getting constant U complaints I have not spoken to Mr Stella who's the property owner um so again I the the use that's there now was approved in 2015 by the town what we're here for today is to do the overnight so again I don't think anybody wants to create issues for their neighbors I can appreciate noise um you know there is going to be somebody there 24 hours a day not in the metal building but they're going to be in the house next door with uh monitoring cameras so uh and they're going to be there on the weekend so I mean there is going to be somebody there fulltime essentially to uh hopefully address any concerns and um again if there were such significant issues that have been raised with the town I'm surprised it didn't come forward in any sort of Department comments okay fair enough say again um Jamie just here are typically I do not see comments from the police department okay so that's why it wouldn't have been included but it would have been in the planning board staff report and I don't believe we received anything no there was no comments in the planning board staff report from from any of those departments fire or police okay so um questions from the board Jenny yeah could you clarify Jamie um so Town gave the permit for use in 2015 um and that's just for during the day and what are those hours I don't believe there were a restriction on the hours but they currently operate 7:30 to 5:30 Monday through Friday the only restriction I should say where on the weekends during July June July and August there could be no dogs outside from 400 pm on Saturday to I think noon on Sunday because of the church next door during mass times okay so it is seven days a week but it's during the day they're approved for seven days a week they currently um essentially just operate Monday through Friday okay and in addition to the adding the overnight they want to have it go through the weekend as well for the dogs that are staying overnight so they're not going to introduce um the daycare the dog care whatever you want to call it for all the dogs on Saturday and Sunday it just be for the dogs that are staying as part of the boarding which is 26 is the application that's what we proposed total between the two 20 in the main facility and six in the house which when you say the house you're talking 82 uh 102 82 is actually the the metal building oh the metal building okay 82 is the um or 102 excuse me 102 102 um was there I think you said or could you clarify there will be someone 247 in both buildings or just one building just in 102 just in the house that's going to become the residence of Ann's manager and that's only going to be for the six dogs that need like special care she's living there so obviously she's with the six dogs but she's also going to have a camera set up with a monitor into the 82 the big facility so that noise issues ETC she has eyes on that as well okay from the house that's the oversight is that and and she's right there next door in a different building she can run over if it's I don't know 100 yards or so all right thank you yep so Jamie um Mr Norcross attorney Norcross so after confirming with our chair ameritus and myself um we would like to ask you to come back with um Mr Stell and maybe have a report from the police to just clarify all this and um and the report might uh Sarah might be the correct one to request the police report but you should invite Mr Stell to come here in person sure yeah and and I just so you know my one concern really is all those dogs being in that metal building without anybody in there um I just want to let you know that yeah they were hoping that um you know the the next door aspect of things would be sufficient um my understanding too is a lot of kennels actually don't have anybody there overnight so they thought that was kind of an extra step that's not good either okay so when would you like to come back Sarah has nothing on her agenda is coming up I'm sure um I mean I don't think it'll take us that I don't I got to talk to Mr Stell I don't think it'll take us that long to get comment from the police but obviously you have very full uh agenda items I know maybe sometime in end of June if um we could so public I even me requesting any records about the property would still have to be a public records request we can turn it around a little quicker um typically so right now and if you give me one second I can just see what we have on the other agendas and how bad they are sure do you have a sense of urgency for the service or can you it's good to wait and do it right yeah no that's fine it's not nothing that has to happen immediate obviously it'd be nice to have it sooner than later for planning purposes because in terms of the house and everything for use by the manager but yeah next one um the first non-complicated agenda or less complicated agenda um is June 13th possibly June 27th or July 11th um do you have any preference an I guess it's the 13th if that's uh okay with you and the board is fine with us thank you thank you for your patience sure no no problem we you know when somebody comes and we have any letters so yeah it happens official request and vote off yes I would uh respectfully ask for a continuance until your June 13th meeting please Paul I'll move to Grant the requested continuance to June 13 2024 dve read seconds and votes yes and Jenny jny votes yes Lee Lee votes yes yes as I thank you so much thank you very much and see just the time motion motion we had a motion to I will move to adjourn Dave seconds and votes yes and jny votes yes we all Steve Steve deor votes yes Lee votes yes all votes yes yes Ed yes Dave and as do I all right and the time is 6:07 p.m. all right good night shadam thank you [Music] [Music]