Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Yeah. Yeah. Good afternoon everyone. It is July 24th, 2025 and this is the meeting of the Cadam Zoning Board of Appeals. Pursuant to Governor Healey's March
28th, 2025 signing of chapter 2 of the acts of 2025 extending certain COVID measures adopted during the state of emergency um until June 30th, 2027. This meeting of the Chattam Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted in person and via
remote participation. Every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided for in the order. A reminder, persons who'd like to listen to this meeting while in progress may do so by calling
158-9454410 conference ID58184797 pound or join the meeting online via the link on the Microsoft um team's posted agenda. This is a live broadcast and simoc cast on Chattam TV, but despite our best efforts, we may not be able to
provide real time access, but a me the meeting will be posted as soon as possible on the town's website. In accordance accordance with town policy, the public can speak to any issue or business item on the agenda during the meeting when recognized by the chair.
The procedural steps are as follows. We have a roll call vote of all board members. We ask if anyone is online if they could just make their identification known. The hearing notice will be read by staff. Sarah Clark on my right.
>> You or your representative will um present the appeal or application. Anyone in favor will have up to five minutes to uh state their um opinion. After that, um I'll read any letters that we've received. And then after
that, the um people who would like to ask a question or have uh some opinions against the application will have up to five minutes to do that. There'll be a rebuttal opportunity. Then we will have questions from the board and we will
close the public hearing after that and the board itself will deliberate. There'll be no um outside um comments during that time once the public hearing is closed unless we decide to ask for that. Then uh we will usually vote on
the appeal and all votes of taken by roll call at the end of the meeting will close via verbal confirmation and note the time of adjournment. With that we will do a roll call vote with everybody saying that they approve this form of meeting starting with David
V. Uh yes, David H. Fech and I approve this meeting format. >> Uh Ed Actton, I approve. Paul C simple, I approve this format. >> Lee Hubby, I approve this format. >> Steven D. Deborne, I approve. >> Virginia Fick, I approve. >> And Randy Podash approves as well. We
have meeting minutes. Um we just have one change when we get to it. Uh the meeting was held on June 26, 2025. Paul, >> I will move to adopt the uh minutes drafted for June 26, 2025.
>> Um Dave V seconds and offers Dave V seconds and offers uh this um modest correction. Um on page nine on the line the third line down um the uh
identifying the architect it should read right now it reads Matt Hutkerchitect it should read Matt Schiffer from Hutker architect. >> Okay. Um >> and I vote to approve.
>> Okay. Anybody else have a comment? No. And who was voting that day on uh June 26th? Is it >> uh let's see here. >> So you were you Okay. So So can you vote to approve the minutes? >> Yeah. Ed Actton votes to approve.
>> Well, >> all votes to approve. >> I vote to approve. And so do I. All right. That's unanimous. All right. Well, we're going to go a little bit out of order today. The first application that we're going to do would be um one
that there's a request for a continuence and that's 25-049 Elizabeth English and Lee Williams and that is 67 School Street. Whenever Sarah's ready, she reads the the advertisement and then we take it from there.
Application number 25-049 Elizabeth English and Lee Williams care of Paul Maldune 693 Main Street Chattam Mass 02633 owners of property located at 67 school street also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 16C block 66 lot
38 the applicant proposes to change change alter or expand a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the demolition and reconstruction of the roof sunroom and deck the existing dwelling is non-conforming and that it is located 8.5 ft from School Street and
13.9 ft from the Southerntherly Abutter. The proposed uppermost level will be non-conforming that is located 8.5 ft from School Street where a 25 ft setback is required. The reconstructed sun room will be non-conforming and that it will will be located 14 ft from the
southerntherly abutter and the proposed deck will be non-conforming located 14.5 ft from the southerntherly abut where a 15t setback is required. The existing building coverage is 1,850 square feet, 16.3% and the proposed building coverage is 1,860
ft 16.4% where 15% is the maximum allowed. The law is non-conforming and that it contains 11,397 ft or 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
protected bylaw. >> Welcome. Thank you. Paul Maldun from SV Design. Um we we are re-evaluating our design and strategies after having commentary from the Cape Cod Commission and uh the Chattam Historic Commission. Uh we uh respectfully request a
continuence. >> Okay. September 25th. >> Okay. >> Okay. Paul, >> I will move to grant the requested continuence to September 25, 2025. >> Uh Dave seconds and votes. Yes.
>> Paul. Paul votes yes. >> Um Lee, >> I vote yes. And uh >> votes yes. >> As do I. It's unanimous. >> Thank you. >> We'll see you then. >> Sounds great. >> Thank you. >> All right. Moving along to 233 Barl
Cliff Avenue. I believe that would be next. And that is 25-048 Marvin Slothman and Molina Atkinson. and uh whenever sir is ready. >> Application number 25-048 Marvin
Slothman and Molina Atkinson care of Paul Maldun 693 Main Street Chattam Mass 02633 owners of property located at 233 Barcliff Avenue also shown in the town of Chadam's assessor's map 14F block 76 lot F3. The applicant seeks to enlarge
extend or change a conforming dwelling in a non-conforming lot via the construction of additions. The proposed additions will comply with all bulk and dimensional requirements of the bylaw, but is considered a substantial alteration. And under the second accept clause of section 6 of Mass General Law Chapter 48, such substantial alteration
requires the grant of a special permit. The existing building coverage is 1564 ft 14.3% and the proposed building coverage is 1,638 ft 14.95% where 15% is the maximum allowed. The
law is non-conforming and that it contains 10,979 957 square feet where 20,000 square feet is required in the R20 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5 of the protective bylaw.
>> Welcome. >> Thank you. Paul Maldun SV design here representing the Slotsman's and their project at 233 Barcliffe. Uh the existing structure uh is sit sitting in a R20 zone. So we have a small lot. We've got uh a little over 20,000 or
10,000 almost 11,000 square feet where 20,000 is required. Um our our project here is um aimed to create curb appeal, transitioning a ranch house into something that's a slightly more contemporary cape. Um our additions are
small and modest. Uh the back corner of the gar the existing garage here um will be removed and rebuilt including a small addition of uh 74 square ft in the back of that garage. Uh we'll be infilling the space of the existing entry and then
adding a bulkhead along with some some minor alterations to the exterior where we have a a front um bay window uh with a with a new roof line over the top of that. um existing uh or all the exterior materials, trim, roofing, siding will be
replaced. From a structural standpoint, we're cutting off the hat. We're taking off the existing roof and reshaping a new roof and sitting it on the the same walls and structure. Um as Sarah mentioned, our building coverage as uh 14.3 existing going up to 14.95
um percentage. Uh the setbacks on the eastern side actually improve a bit as we remove that garage space and rebuild it to to get a proper foundation underneath it. It's still a one-story structure, but you can see here we're at 17.9 ft from the eastern
property line going to 18.4. So we're gaining maybe 6 in of space in that location. Um, again, we're adding a bulkhead on that western side, but the the shape of the structure around the perimeter of the rest of the building remains.
Um, the renovation materials used uh will have uh simulated divided light windows, white trim, white uh casing around windows, um stained cedar shingles, and a asphalt roof shingle similar to what's there now, similar to
what's found in the neighborhood and throughout Cadam. Um we find these characteristics uh all throughout the town. Feel like this modestized addition uh does not uh create any adverse effect in the neighborhood. Um we did see the comments from a couple of director
Butters about parking. Our contractor Kevin Boyer is here and and we've been coordinated in the effort to ensure that all construction activities and parking will happen on the property. I think it being a a corner lot gives us a little bit more opportunity to do that where we
can absolutely fit cars, trucks, storage on both sides, Barl Cliff and on uh Blueberry Lane. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions or go into the criteria. >> Um sure, that'll be great. Thank you. >> Um number one, adequacy of the size of
the site in terms of the proposed use. Uh it's a non-conforming lot that has less than required lot area. The zoning bylaw allows up to 15% of building coverage and our proposed structure will increase that our 14.3% coverage to 14.95
remaining a conforming coverage. Uh the suitability of the site for the proposed use. Uh there is no change in use. It is a existing single family home on a residentially zoned neighborhood. Uh the impact of traffic flow and safety. There is no impact on traffic flow. No impact
on safety uh that will be created. Uh the impact on the neighborhood's visual character, including views and vistas. Uh we feel the proposed exterior upgrades are an improvement to the visual character of the existing home. We feel like it'll still fit in with uh the the neighborhood and be an
improvement in the neighborhood. Uh we don't see that there will be any issues with vistas and views uh through and around the neighborhood. Adequacy of the method of sewage disposal, source of water and drainage. Uh the previous owner had uh gotten a three-bedroom system approved. So, that's part of our
process here, part of our project that a three-bedroom uh AI system will be installed uh during the course of construction. Um it's a three-bedroom system and we're we're adding we're creating no more than three bedrooms.
Um all the water uh water sources will remain and any new uh roof runoff will be contained on site. Um adequacy of the utilities and other public services. There's an existing 100 amp service, electric service to the house. We're going to upgrade that to a 200 amp service.
Um, no additional noise or litter will be created by the modest addition. Um, compatibility of the proposed use and surrounding uses. There's no change in the use. Again, single family residential home on a in a residential neighborhood. Uh, no impact to the natural environment, uh, slopes,
vegetation, wetlands, groundwater or, um, water bodies and no, um, business establishment. >> Very good. Thank you very much. Um, is there anybody here or online that would like to speak in favor of this
application? If so, please raise your hand. And if not, I'll go on to the correspondences. First, we have a note from Judith Giorgio received on 72125 and she is our health agent. She's
reviewed the plan and the proposal was approved by the board of health to include an updated IIA system for nitrogen removal in in accordance with the uh regulation. The property is approved for three for three bedrooms and will require a deed restriction.
We have a message from Mia and Peter Angel 26 Blueberry Lane um from July 21. They're writing in response to the legal notice that they received. They live at 26 Blueberry. They're in support of the proposed project and think the plans
look nice. Their concern is parking um for the work vehicles. This the neighborhood is small and the street has been dealing with a lot of construction projects lately and work vehicles and they've created a lot of program
problems in the neighborhood. 20 230 Barl Cliff, the house directly across the street from 233 is also going to start construction uh soon. And with these two large projects commencing, extra con extra con congestion is
expected. And they say that they hope the construction companies can be mindful that Blueberry Lane, Cranberry Null, and Beach Plum Way are quite small streets and they're quiet and uh they want you to arrange for parking elsewhere.
Otherwise, thank you for your consideration and have a nice afternoon. Then we have a note from Joanne and Brian Zebrat, 11 Cranberry Null, Chadam. This letter is in response to the application for uh 233 Barlcliffe. Not
they are not also not in objection to the pro the pro um the proposed construction. They are however in strong objection to the probable congestion of vehicles that may take over their road. Cranberry Lane, Cranberry Null, Beach
Plum Way is a tight neighborhood and they've been currently suffering from construction vehicles blocking their road and they have been since last winter. it's annoying. And they say at the very least it's annoying. They understand work vehicles need to park somewhere. They ask that the company
responsible for this project um arrange for possible offsite parking. Next, Jean Deino from 24 Bayberry Road writes on July 24th that over the last few years, there's been a lot of
rebuilding in the neighborhood, making it impossible to get around all through Barl Cliff or Blueberry Lane. Blueberry Lane is the only way in and out for our subdivision with tractors, trailers, work trucks. It becomes untenable. I'm looking for at the conditions for seven
cranberry null, for example. All construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner between uh June 30th and Labor Day. No exterior construction be allowed. No work shall be permitted on
the weekends. Construction activity between 8 and 5. Bottom line is how does this get enforced? Is there an inspector going around to the construction sites? Who can this be reported to? Thanks, Jean Deino. And um
we're going to ask our building commissioner about that in a moment if I just want to continue on with that. Is there anybody here online that would like to speak against or has a specific question? No. Okay. So, at this point, um, in
instead of having you rebutt right this minute, I'm just going to ask our building commissioner to respond to how the, uh, the community development department handles such a question. >> We typically learn of com these issues through complaints that come into us.
Uh, we're out on a daily uh, routine anyway of doing inspections. So, if we see something that we know is a special permit, we can stop and contact the contractor. But uh otherwise they initiate with a a complaint to community development. Um I reach out to the
contractor through the portal and then we follow up with a site visit. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. And any rebuttal for anything? >> Just to comment on our contractor. He he's a owner project manager. So he's on site every day. He's managing the process very very cleanly and very
smoothly. You might smile while I'm talking about him. Um but uh we expect that we'll be very respectful to the to the neighborhood and to the property in general. >> Yep. Thank you very much. So now we're going to go to Yeah. Um No, you can't talk from there. You have to come up and
we've you've really Are you Is he part of your presentation? >> He's the contractor for the >> Okay. So you can be part of the rebuttal. We'll allow that today. >> Thank you so much. Just one final point and that is that as a standard matter of our practice, we go to all of the houses in the neighborhood, introduce myself,
provide them with our contact information so in the event that there is any issue, they're able to reach me personally. >> That's great. That sounds like dispositive of the issue. And uh now we'll go to questions from the board. Jenny, questions. >> Paul, I do have a couple of questions
for you. Um, so you that was so thank you for the response to the comment from Brian Zebrad. Um, I wanted to ask you about the board of health um, condition. You heard what was read today, but also there was a hearing from last July where
uh, there was discussion around the three bedrooms and there was a comment made about restricting it. So is that something we will do? Maybe that's a question here. Do we do that as part of our No. Okay. Do you have any comments about the restriction then on the three?
Because you didn't mention that in your narrative. >> It's a three-bedroom house. You It's a two-bedroom house existing. The proposed septic system was designed for a three-bedroom. Our design shows three bedrooms and that's the way it will stay. >> And so, is it AI what was put in there?
The new one. It is. >> It will be. It will be. Hasn't been installed yet, but yes. >> Okay. All right. So, that's new. All right. I I I thought that was um not new. Okay. Uh and then another um question I just had for you. So is that what you call this design? Contemporary
cape. >> Something to to that effect. Yes. >> So it has a combination of divided simulated lights and what did you call it? Um the other type of window was what? >> Um they're all simulated divided lights or or a picture window. There's a bay
window in the front that has a particular roof structure associated with it. Oh, I thought you called the windows that are off on the right hand side. I thought you called them something else. Um, okay. No, that's all I have. Thank you. >> Dave each questions. >> Um, well, I'm I'm sure you're you're uh
attentive to this and aware, but I I I think it's important to mention that you're going at 14.95% coverage and how critical it is. >> Absolutely. you not be coming back to us with an error of an overbuild
because that would mean a variance and >> uh no absolutely agree and that that was one of the reasons why we've in increased our dimension to that western side setback that we have the ability to manipulate that structure with a new foundation. So we'll be very clear and and concise with the pouring of the
foundation. >> Yeah. Well, I just felt I needed to be because more on more than one occasion and recently we we see issues where it happens. So, >> understood. >> Thanks. >> And we have a corner board issue coming up later today.
>> Yeah. Entertainment. So, um Okay, questions from Ed. Anything? >> No questions, but I think I can ask answer Virginia. So, the board of health will uh have a document that has to be signed and recorded uh at the registry
of deeds limiting it to to three bedrooms. Um but other than that, no. >> Yep. And Paul questions? >> No questions. >> Lee, >> no questions. >> And Steve? >> Um it's not really a question. I I think it's more of a comment, but I I don't think I saw any stakes there yesterday
when I was there. >> I apologize. >> Okay. You won't endeavor to be better in the future. >> Because it's a little difficult to see exactly what you're doing with >> Understood. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. So, Paul, >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> Dave, your second votes yes.
>> Paul votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> As do I. Okay. Uh deliberations. Um Ed. >> Um I I I think it's going to look nice in the neighbor. It's a little It's a
little bit different. Uh but I I like the design and uh it certainly uh meets our criteria and um I don't feel it'll be substantially detrimental in in any way to the neighborhood. >> Thank you. >> And David, >> I I agree completely.
>> Thanks, >> Lee. >> Um I agree. I think it's uh I think it's a great improvement to that little house which needs a little TLC right now. So >> meets our criteria. And Steve, >> I I think it's fine. It makes it a little more a little more livable. A
third bedroom. >> Yep. And Jenny, >> it's not historic. It's close. Um but I I agree. I think the diversity of style on the street is will be fine. >> And Paul, your thoughts? >> Definitely will improve the curb appeal and I think that's important. Um and
it's certainly not substantially more detrimental. >> Yeah. And I like the idea of the upgrade of the electric. I don't know. That just struck me as as safe. >> Agreed. >> And Yeah. And um when you look at it, you can tell that it needs to sort of get more compliance with the with the surrounding neighborhood and I think
it's going to be great and it's always an asset to improve the IA system. So, um I'm all for it. So, Paul, >> I'll move to approve the application as submitted with the standard conditions that all construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the
permission of the property owner. that between June 30th and Labor Day, no exterior construction will be allowed. No work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8 am and 5 pm only. >> David seconds and votes yes. >> All vote yes. >> I vote yes.
>> Jenny votes yes. >> As do I. It's unanimous. Congratulations. >> Thank you very much for your time. >> We'll see you next time. We appreciate it. >> Thank you for your presentation. Next we have a little shed on 100 Hardings Lane first stop of East Wind
Reality Trust care of Derek Upson and this is 25-050 Sarah application number 25-050 first stop of East Wind Realy Trust Care of Derek Upson 121 Hardings Lane Chattam
Mass 02633 owner of property located at 100 Hardings Lane also shown in the town of Chadam's Assessor's map 14C, block 33, lot 23B. The applicant seeks to construct a 96q ft garden shed. The proposed shed requires the grant of a
special permit under section 3D3H of the protective bylaw as it's proposed to be located 22.4 ft from the road where a 40ft setback is required. The lot contains 8,217 square ft where 40,000 ft is required in the R40 zoning district. A special
permit is required under Mass General Law Chapter 48 section 9 and section 8D2B of the protective bylaw. >> Mr. Upson, I presume? >> Yes, Derek Upson. Um, we recently built a small cottage on this uh property uh
for my father to move into. And uh the plan all along was to put a shed um on the property to store his bicycle and other gardening tools and things like that. And uh when we went to go we
applied for the shed um back in April, I kind of uh was under the impression that it was all setbacks for a shed under 100 square feet that were reduced to a third of what was required. So my my error and so in beginning of June, I got noticed
that it needed a special permit. So um that's why we're here. Um I can go through all the criteria. Yeah. >> I don't I don't think you need to. Okay. Um does anybody think he needs to go through the criteria >> for this little shed? No. No. Um we'll give you a break. All right. Is there
anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wish to speak in favor of the shed? Please raise your hand or let us know. No. And I have Let's see. Judith Giorgio doesn't have a problem with it. She tells us that on July 21, 2025, our
health agent. And um then we have a note from Tom and Mary Flo Floco and they tell us on July 8th that the garden shed for 100 Hardings um um
they're in support of it and they thought it was a variance but it's not. All right, that concludes the correspondence. Anybody want to speak against or have a question anywhere online or here? No.
Does anybody have any questions from the board? If so, please don't be reticent. As we say, >> are you related to Buck? >> Uncle Buck. Yes, >> Uncle Buck. I was going to say it. I >> That kills that. Okay. >> Yeah.
>> Did he tell you? >> I shouldn't have admitted to it till after the vote was taken. I would have come up with an excuse on that one. >> Yeah. Jenny, you look like you have a question. >> I didn't have a question. I just had a comment. So, so the mistake that you made is the reason why that foundation is there.
>> Yes. So, a couple of months had passed and we were trying to get that in before the landscaping and I just thought it was going to get cleared because of I thought it was a third of what was required for >> all the way around. Yeah. That's >> that's why understandable mistake and and that's what I was just wondering about that, but you I think you answered
that. So, >> anybody else have any questions? No. Paul, >> I'll move I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> Dave seconds and votes yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> I vote yes. Jenny votes yes. >> As do I. Okay. Deliberations. Dave each for us.
>> It's a fit. Uh certainly not substantially detrimental to the neighborhood in any way, shape, or form. Meets our criteria and happy to support it. >> Thank you, Ed. Anything further? >> Nope. I I agree. And Paul, >> I agree.
>> Lee, >> I agree as well. >> Steve, >> I agree also. >> And Jenny, >> I agree with my >> as do I. So, Paul, >> I'll move to approve the application as submitted. I don't think we need any construction uh hazardous or anything else on this.
>> Does everybody feel comfortable with that? >> That's fine. >> Okay, very good. >> So, David seconds and votes yes. >> I'll vote yes. >> I vote yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> As to why, it's unanimous. Congratulations and say hi to Uncle Buck. >> Thank you.
>> All right. Now we're moving along to 141 Absagami Run. And this is a care of Dennis Moran 25-054 Absagami Run LLC. Am I am I wrong? Oh, I'm sorry. I went
out. That'll be next, but I'll still reread it. Nine Chat Haba Lane. The de Deborah Carl Bois revocable trust 2012 25-051. Okay. Application number 25-051. The Deborah
B. Charlotte revocable trust 2012 Thomas Moore PO Box 2124 Brewster Mass 02631. Owners of property located at 9 Chat Harbor Lane. Also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 5B, block 21A,
lot 9A. The applicant proposes to change, alter, or expand a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the construction of an addition. The existing dwelling is non-conforming and that it is located 6.9 ft from the road and 26 ft from the coastal conservancy district. The
proposed addition will be non-conforming and that it will be located 47 ft from the coastal conservancy district where a 50-ft setback is required. The existing building coverage is 1451 ft, 21.2% and the proposed building coverage is 1562
ft 22.8% where 15% is the maximum allowed. The lot is non-conforming and that it contains 6,850 ft of buildable upland 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 protected bylaw. >> Welcome, sir. Good afternoon. Thomas Moore representing uh Tim and Deb Shalabore at 9 Chat Harbor Lane and we're requesting a special permit for a small addition to the rear of this
house. Um it's a we're essentially looking to expand the the existing kitchen because it's kind of small. Uh and it's encompassing some of the existing deck that's on the back on the rear of the house. Um
pretty simple, pretty straightforward. It the as far as the only thing it does increase the site coverage a little bit by about one and a half percentage points. Um but we feel it's not as substantially detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing
structure. Um in addressing the criteria that uh the following is submitted. I mean the ex the existing house and building coverages over the maximum. As I mentioned, there was just a small increase which is not significant. The area is a neighborhood of single
family dwellings. This is a proposed, you know, the proposed structure or addition is, you know, will fit in right with the existing house. Everything will kind of match what's there. The use does conform to the current bylaw. The proposed addition will not have any
effect on any neighboring properties. Uh all storm water runoff will be contained on the site. Yeah. As far as the scale, the proposed addition will not affect the visual character of the neighborhood. Does not affect any views or vistas. The property is a single family home in
an area of single family homes. Uh the property has a title five septic system is connected to town water and drainage will be contained with gutters and downspouts. Uh the proposed addition will not impact any flow or traffic. The proposed
addition will not create any noise and or litter and the proposed addition will not affect any utilities or public services and there'll be no visual impact on the neighborhood. And this is a project that has been approved through the historical commission and has gone
before the conservation commission um and got their approval. So we'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have. >> Thank you very much. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application or has a No. Just in favor? Anybody?
No. Okay. I will read the correspondences. The Conservation Commission, as as you mentioned, they did send us a note on July 3rd and the applicant submitted a request for determination of applicability. On May 8th, 2025, the commission issued a
negative three determination and condition to meet the performance standards under the wetlands protection act. Um, and so that was um all set there. Then we have uh Judith Giorgio telling us she has no concerns regarding
the addition to this existing three-bedroom dwelling and that was on July 21, 2025. And then Christina Bassid from the um um historical commission um tells us
that they did not find this home historically significant and so did not impose a demolition delay and that was received on July 215. That concludes the correspondences. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wish to speak against or has a
question? No. Nobody. Okay. Very good questions from the board. Lee, >> I don't have any questions. >> Okay, Paul, do you have any questions? >> My only questions, I guess, would be
what what's your plan in terms of construction? Do you uh it's obviously a narrow lane going up there? >> Looking to start after Labor Day. >> And would you be able to keep all vehicles and so forth that are involved in the construction on site? I would
expect so because the as far as the foundation, it's just going to be a pier type of a foundation. So there's not going to be a big concrete truck there. Um and there will be minimal I would expect minimal construction vehicles for such a small addition. So
>> okay, thank you. >> Okay, Dave V, questions. >> I have no I have no questions. >> No, Ed, no questions. >> And Steve, you look like you might have one. >> No, I have no questions. >> No. And leave I already asked you I think and Jenny questions. >> Yeah I have one question. Um you may not
know the answer but Sarah you may know. Is this a similar situation the building coverage being over to the flood plane map changes in 2014? Is that why they're over already? And >> um I would say most likely yes. Okay. Um
the the lot area is 27,755, but the upland is only 6,850. >> So that's part of it. Okay. >> All right. Thank you. >> Good question. >> Okay. I don't have any questions so Paul. >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> Dave each seconds and votes yes.
>> All votes yes. >> I vote yes. Jenny votes yes. >> As do I. Okay. Deliberations. Uh Steve. >> Well, I think this is a good project. Um I you know it's not going to be really visible from any of the neighbors and I think the the lot coverage is is skewed
a bit because of the the low amount of buildable upland that's available. So I don't see this as a problem at all. >> Ed, what say you? >> Yeah, I I agree. I don't think it's going to be I think it meets our criteria. Not going to be substantially
detrimental to the neighborhood. It's uh the addition looks like it's going where an existing deck was already. So, um I have no no issues. >> And Dave Pet. >> Yeah, I agree. It's it's a great fit for the house in the neighborhood. >> Um Jenny, yeah, all but 13 square feet
is what I calculated. That'll be additional, you know, over the existing deck. Um I agree. It fits in the neighborhood, not substantially more detrimental. >> And Paul, >> yeah, I think its location is such it'll have no impact on the neighborhood. U >> and I think Lee, I agree with my
colleagues. >> All right. So Paul, >> right? I'll move to approve the application as submitted with the condition that all construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner. That between June 30th and Labor Day, no exterior construction will be allowed.
No work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. only. >> Dave seconds and votes yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> As do I. It's unanimous. Congratulations. >> Thank you very much. >> All right. Have a good day.
Now we will go to 141 Absigami Run application 25-054 Absami Run LLC care of Dennis Moran and Sarah will read that advertisement and
we have a surprise applicant I mean a surprise uh representative application number 25-054 Absigami Run LLC care of Dennis MREN PO Box 6, South Har, Mass 02661. Owner
of property located at 141 Absigami Run, also shown in the town of Chadam's assessor's map 12E, block 23, lot A20. The applicant seeks to reconstruct an elevated stairway and pre-existing non-conforming private residential pier. The existing pier is non-conforming and
that it is 116 ft long and is located 83 ft from an adjacent pier to the east and 125 ft from an adjacent pier to the west. the proposed reconstructed pier will be non-conforming and that it will be located 114 will be 114 ft long and
will be located 85 ft from the adjacent pier to the east and 128 from the adjacent pier to the west where 250 ft is required. The square footage of all floats will remain non-conforming at 360 ft where 300 ft is the maximum allowed.
The property is located in the R40 zoning district and a special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 4A sections 6 and 9 and sections 5B and 8D2B of the protective bylaw. >> Attorney Lichfield, welcome. >> Thank you, Madam Chairman. Bill
Litchfield here on behalf of Absagami Run LLC, which is the Tutron family, uh, who could not be here today, but with us virtually is Dennis Moran of Thai and Bond. uh and this is uh if it's acceptable to the board go into what's
being proposed and they can talk about the technicalities and I can go into the criteria. We'll try to be brief. Uh >> sure, that'd be great. >> Short version is that there has been a pier and a set of stairs leading down to it at this property since 1986. It's
been there for a long time. At the time it was constructed, it would receive the required chapter 91 state license, permission from the conservation commission, permission from the select board was then the board of selectmen which was in charge of licensing peers
at the time. Subsequent to that, the town's bylaw changed and now peers require your review and approval. we are nonconforming uh because we pre-exist that section of the bylaw and now would like to
reconstruct the pier not precisely as it exists. It's going to be 2 ft shorter and it's going to be reoriented a little bit. So it is not uh a simple replacement in kind which arguably could be done under simple maintenance. uh it
is a very very minor change from what is there now. So with that if I can ask Dennis to tell you about the particulars of what's being proposed which is simply replacing what's there and then I'll go into the criteria. >> Okay we we can definitely keep this brief. Um so go ahead Dennis.
>> Okay. Um thank you Bill and um pleasure to be in front of the board today. Um so in the effort to keep this brief I'm going to kind of summarize the um the existing conditions and the proposed conditions. So um this is the existing pier at 140 um1 and as Bill mentioned
it's not a direct replacement in kind but it is a very very very similar pier um we are proposing to slightly modify the orientation by a couple feet to make the um structure a little bit more conforming and then provide some
improvements that were directly related to like life safety and just bring it to industry standards. So, um, as Bill, um, mentioned, here's the existing pier. It's a a timber set of stairs coming down to a timber pier. Um, and there's a
small, um, sitting area and shed here. So, all of this will be replaced in generally the same footprint in generally the same um construction material. Uh, so it is a seasonal seasonally removable pier. Um, and it, you know, again, it's minor
updates. Um the project does have an existing chapter 91 license and we are here in front of the board today because it is a non non-conforming structure. So this is the history if anybody has any questions about the permanent history of the existing structure. Um Bill already
mentioned that the you know the existing pier um is 116 ft long. We are proposing uh 114t pier and the dimensions from the abutters is slightly modified because of the orientation. So, we're a little bit
more conforming compared to what it was before. Um, staging and access um will be off of the roadway. There's plenty of room and we don't expect any large equipment. This is generally just um a couple pickup trucks as this is all going to be done
in the water. And then the limit of work is about a third of an acre. So, um this is mostly going to be done all with hand tools and um hand labor. Um a cross-section of the existing pier. Again, generally the same as before with
some slight updates to meet current industry standards and uh safety with the ballisters on the railings and fall protection. Um so, um summary of the work, we're not proposing any work during the summer months. Um no real removal of any any
vegetation. All work will be in the dry except the installation of the permanent pipe piles for so that pier can be seasonally removed. Um and the existing pier will be demoed completely. Um I kind of went through that very quickly but not sure if there's any particular
questions you would like to go through. >> We'll get there if there are. And uh so attorney Lichfield, do you want you've given us um you've given us written findings but um well for our consideration, but please highlight the ones you think are most important. >> Uh thank you. You just did. Uh that is
sufficient. You have you have my my uh written findings as you say it is not a significant change. It complies with most aspects of the bylaw site suitable. There's been a pier there for 40 years. We simply want to replace it. I think
you can readily find that it will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood >> and you got a seal of approval from uh one of your neighbors that >> and also I should note from the harbor master. >> Yep. Yep. We will get to that. We will read that. You will. >> Yeah. Very good. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak
in favor? Anything to add? >> No. >> Okay. I will read the correspondences. There are three. one from the conservation, one from the harbor master, and one from the Oppenheims. So on July 22nd, the harbor master tells us
he's reviewed the application for the proposed pier at 141 Absagami Run in Oyster Pond and found that the proposed reconstruction of the existing non-conforming 116 ft pier will not interfere with the navigation or pose any public safety
issue. The pier would also not interfere with any existing moorings within the area. Um then the conservation commission tells us that they um they write a note on July 3rd that 141
Absigami Run um was uh before them on January 28th, 2025. The project was heard again on February 12th, March 5th, and the project will be conditioned to meet the performance standards. Um,
and that's that. Then David and Gail Oppenheim of 87 Obsugami Run sent us a note on July 16th, 2025. They are the owners of 87 Obsugami next door to the applicants and have lived there for over 40 years. They are in full support of
the applicant's request to reconstruct their stairs and pier. The structure has been in place since the mid 80s and always wellmaintained and it's time to replace it and fix the materials and start in that are start could start to
fail. The two drones take m meticulous care of their home and they are we strongly urge you approve the application. Anybody on Microsoft teams or here in the audience have a question or have uh
an opinion against this application? Neither. Okay. Questions from the board. David V. >> I have no questions. Right. >> Ed. >> No questions. >> Paul, >> no questions. >> No questions. >> No questions. >> I have a question. Um, it looked like it
was a boat house, but it's really a shed is what I think Dennis called it. Is that also part of the project? I didn't see that referenced anywhere. >> It was mentioned. Uh I think it is going to be reconstructed but that if it's not before this board and Dennis you can correct me but if it's not before this
board for approval then it would have to be reconstructed in kind exactly as >> as it is now. David Dennis is that essentially correct >> that so I'm getting an echo. Um
the boat house is not going to be reconstructed. Um so it's just a timber platform. So it's a it's a smaller footprint. So the boat house is being removed. >> Oh, it's >> Oh, the boat house is staying. Oh, so sorry. Sorry. I have a colleague next to
me that's a little bit more familiar with the project. The boat house is staying as inind, but it's not being impacted as part of this project. >> Okay. Yeah, it looked like it was in good sh I had no problem with it. I just didn't see it referenced anywhere. I wanted to just confirm. >> No, I I I when I went out to the site, I
saw it. Obviously, I knew it was there anyway and I noted that it was not a part of the application. I presume that there was a reason that it was not >> right. And then um all of the floats are existing floats, right? The change is really just the rebuilding of them.
They're not. >> Yeah. Our bylaw has a limitation of 300 square feet. The existing floats, which again were permitted by the Commonwealth Massachusetts many, many years ago, total 360 square ft. They may be new materials, but they'll be located as
shown on that plan. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Very good. Um Paul, >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> Uh David seconds and votes yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> Jenny votes yes.
>> As do I. Okay. Deliberations. Jenny. Um yeah, I it's a great uh idea to rebuild and preserve the pier and the floats and um they're very they're well you can't get them today and so I'm I'm all fully
supportive of it and um the I just want to say this book that was put together by Ty and Bond was so um thorough and helpful um well done and I would support the project. >> Very good. Um Steve, >> I think it's a good project. looks like
it's it's probably time to be replaced. So, uh not a bad idea. >> And Lee, >> I agree with my colleagues. It's um it's a huge plus to have this. It's uh adds a lot and uh is useful in the same respect. So, I I would approve this.
>> And David Vch, >> I agree with all previous. It's it's certainly not substantially uh more detrimental to the neighborhood. It's a vast improvement. Y. >> Yeah, I I certainly agree. It's more of a maintenance project, it seems. So, in
support of it. >> Yeah. And I agree, Paul. >> I also agree. Yes. >> So, >> uh I'll move to approve the application as submitted. I guess my question would be what's your plan in terms of construction >> after Labor Day? So, that would be acceptable. And um normally we would say
uh construction vehicles be contained on site or at neighboring properties with permission. Um it's a very short driveway there and then you're on a circle. Would the would the vehicles that are involved in construction be on
the property or >> uh I think from what Dennis had indicated it's going to be a fairly small project in terms of hand tools and things like that. If there uh is a need to park in the circle I think Absigami
is a private way. I don't know if it's a town way. Uh the tutron have a very good relationship with their butters and they're not going to annoy anyone. So for the convenience of all if the board did not include that provision in this
one case it might be useful case there is need to occasionally park something in the culde-sac. >> Uh and in that situation we would consider it to be neighboring property with the permission of the property owners. >> That's what I was thinking. If it if it
is a if it is a private way and I honestly don't know, then that would be true because the neighbors all owned to the center of the road. >> Just ask them. >> Okay. I'll move to approve the application as submitted with the conditions that all construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neighboring property
with the permission of the property owner. Uh between June 30th and Labor Day, no exterior construction will be allowed. No work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8 a.m. and 5:00 p p.m. only. Um Dave seconds and votes yes. >> And Paul >> all votes yes.
>> I vote yes. Jenny votes yes >> as do I. That's unanimous. Congratulations. >> Thank you very much. >> We'll see you next time. >> Thank you. Have a great weekend. >> Yep. You too. Thank you. Okay. Moving on to 27 Shirley Drive, 25-057.
Georgian and Steven Denzo. um revocable living trust care of Bernardet McClude and we will have that read when Sarah's ready.
Application number 25-057 Georgian E and Steven R. Dento revocable living trust car Bernardet Mloud PO Box 439 South Orleans Mass 02662 owners of property located at 27 Shirley
Drive also shown on the town of Chadam's assessors map 1B block 9 lot N11 the applicant seeks to modify special permit number 24-074 granted on July 30th 2024 which allowed for the partial demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction
of additions. The applicant now seeks to modify the special permit to allow for an increase in building coverage. The approved building coverage was 1,675 square ft 14.2% and the constructed building coverage was 1,686
ft 14.3% where 15% is the maximum allowed. The law is non-conforming and that it contains 11,818 square ft where 20,000 ft is required. In the R20 zoning district, a special permit is required under master law chapter 48, section 6 and 14 and
sections 5B and 8D2B of the protective bylaw. Welcome. Hi. Um I'm Bernardet Mloud from Ryder and Wilcox and I'm here to modify the special permit that was granted on um July 30th, 2024. So
unfortunately when our surveyors drew the proposed plan they forgot to add the corner boards. So subsequently after the addition was built per plan and they went out to do a final
they counted the corner boards and they were 11 square feet over. So I'm here to beg forgiveness. >> Okay. Well, you don't have to beg to >> and we still conform. So, >> yes, you still conform. >> And now we're going like over. We're
adding extra square footage. We're not going to 14.9 or 15%. We are have a new policy of being under. So, very good. Enough said. Anybody here on Microsoft Teams wish to
speak in favor? If so, please make it known. Seeing none, I will read the one correspondence from David um and Kathleen Stale Steel received on July 10th and they live at 38 Shirley
Drive and they are in support of the application for a special permit period. Anybody here on Microsoft Teams wish to speak against or has a question? No
questions from the board. Are there any? Anybody? >> No. Okay, Paul, >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> JV seconds and vote yes. >> I'll vote yes. >> I vote yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> As do I. Okay, deliberations. Um, we'll start with Jenny and we just go right
around. >> Yeah. Um, I approved it last time and I would have approved it this time with that small um, uh, it's 11 square feet. I think when I went and looked at it, I didn't even recognize. I said, "I don't think I've been here before. It looked
so good and and different." Um, so I think the outcome was excellent and I would support the modification. >> Very good. And Steve, anything? >> Yeah, I don't see any problems. I think this would have been approved um initially anyway, so it's it's okay. And
they're still under coverage. So, >> right. And Lee, um, I agree. I'd like to just echo what Jenny said. It's really fun to go out and um see what's been done and see what a great job you guys did. So, great improvement to the property.
>> Yep. And Paul, >> I agree with my colleagues. >> As do I. >> As do I. >> As do I. Okay. Very good. >> I'll move to approve the application as submitted. >> Dave V seconds and votes yes. >> All votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> As do I. It's unanimous.
Congratulations. Thank you. >> And we'll see you next time. Last but not least, we have Willis Barton Row, Care of William F. Riley, 25-061, 734 Foxill Road. Sarah,
application number 25-061, Willis Barton Row, Car William F. Riley, Esquire, PO Box 707, Chattam, Mass 02633. Owner of property located at 734 Foxhill Road, also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 12M, Block One, lot W1.
The applicant seeks to enlarge, extend, or change a non-conforming dwelling on a conforming lot be the partial demolition and reconstruction of the dwelling. The existing dwelling is non-conforming and that it is located partially within the coastal conservancy district flood plane elevation 11 and located 23.2 ft from
the road. the proposed reconstructed dwelling will be non-conforming and that it will be located 23.2 ft from the road where a 40ft setback is required and partially within the coastal conservancy district where a 50ft setback is required. The existing building coverage is 235
ft and the proposed building coverage is 2945 ft or 2950 ft is the maximum allowed. The lot contains 26,988 square feet of buildable upland
and contain what and contains 40 41,888 square ft in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 4A section 6 and 9 and sections 5B and 8D2B of the
protective bylaw. >> So you can tell us what's new, Mr. Riley, if you would. The ridge is lower. >> Okay. And if anything else, >> that's it. >> Okay. >> I'll talk as long as you want. >> You brought help for that, too. Yeah.
You brought help. Um Karen can explain the changes she made. >> Yeah, please do. >> We just wanted to point out one thing. My application had errors on the gross floor area, >> but >> All right. Good to know. >> Just kind of go through how we got the
project. You made it lower, but just tell us how you how you figured that out. >> We made it lower. Um, so it is actually 1 foot n in lower than the rendering the main ridge. Um, we dropped the pitch from a 10 pitch to a nine pitch. Brought
the front of the rafters down so they're sitting on top of the first floor um studs instead of on the second floor uh floor system. And then the wall heights of the dormers have been brought down
from 8 ft to 74. >> Sounds very creative. Anybody um here on Microsoft Teams wishes to speak in favor? >> I hear a roar from the crowd. >> I know. Yeah. No. And uh seeing none.
And I will read the two correspondences that we've received. And one was from Judith Giorgio, a health agent, 721205. She's reviewed the plan to renovate and add to the property. It appears the dwelling will maintain the existing
sixbedroom layout. However, an existing floor plan is needed to confirm the bedroom count. The septic tank location will encroach on the addition and must be relocated and replaced with a 1,500galon tank. Next, we have a note
from conservation from June 3rd, 2025. The applicant um went to conservation and the project will be conditioned uh to meet the performance standards. That concludes our correspondences. Did you
want to say anything about that, Mr. Riley, at all? Nope. All right. Very good. Anybody here on Microsoft team has a question? Any questions? No. Uh any um voice of opposition, please speak.
Seeing none questions from the board. Are there any? No. Okay. Very good. Paul, >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> DV seconds and vote yes. >> All votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> Jenny votes yes.
>> As do I. Okay. Jenny, deliberations. Well, I want to thank you for well acknowledge the change. Um uh my question was what what did change and it was the height. That was the only thing. Um I do not think that it's substantially more detrimental to that
neighborhood. Um it's just under the max, but it is under the max and um I think that neighborhood can support that. >> Okay, David. >> Yeah, I'm Thank you for um taking care of that, doing that. Um the thing the
only the thing that comes to mind as a comment is that um that the um what Karen described about the framing and the rafters landing on the top of the first floor plate rather than the second floor deck
is how Cadam works came to be a foot higher than designed because they put the rafters down. It was drawn and designed that way. It was built with the rafters coming down onto the deck and that's how they ended up with the extra foot that then needed relief from us.
So, as long as you make sure that the actually gets constructed that way, that's an important part of it. Thanks. >> Yeah, that's for sure, Ed. >> Um, no, I I agree with Virginia. I think she said it well. It's uh Thank you for
the the modification and I think it's going to fit in nicely in that neighborhood. >> Yep. Enley, >> I agree and thank you for the modification and the picture you showed was very attractive. So, it will fit in very nicely in the neighborhood. >> And Steve, >> um, thank you for taking a second look
at this. I think it's a great house and it'll be a nice addition to the neighborhood. >> And Paul, >> well, after the first hearing, this is pretty easy. Uh, thank you very much. And, uh, >> I don't think I have any other comments. >> I don't need this, so let's get it done. >> I'll move to approve the application as
submitted. Uh what's your feeling on when construction is going to take place, Bill? >> I imagine it'll begin as quickly as they can. Uh you know, it's a there's plenty of room on the lot for construction vehicles
and uh it's a neighborhood of large lots. So I don't I don't think you need a condition, tell you the truth. >> Except for summertime. >> Summer time. Yeah. Okay. So between 8 and 5, no work on weekends. >> All right. I'll move to approve the application as submitted with the
condition that all construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner between June 15 and September 15. Uh no work shall be permitted on weekends and construction activity between 8 a.m. and
5:00 p.m. only. I don't think we need the no exterior construction allowed in that time frame. >> No, I don't think so. I don't think I don't think that's an issue because the lots are all very large there. >> So, um David seconds and vote chess >> June. Can I just say should it be June
30th and Labor Day? >> June Well, June 15th is our standard. >> Oh, okay. >> Uh >> sorry, that's the uh typically the the flood zone standard. Um this it but typically we use that in the Little Beach area where the lots are much much
smaller. >> So, June 30th. Yeah, that's the standard for pretty much anywhere else. >> June 30th then, uh, >> and Dave, >> between June 30th and September 15th, >> agreed. And and I second and vote yes. Paul votes yes. >> Lee,
>> I vote yes. >> Jenny. >> Jenny votes yes. >> As do I. Congratulations. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. And uh that concludes our hearing for today. And it is what time? >> 3:05. >> And motion to adjurnn. I'll move to
adjourn. >> Dave seconds and votes yes. >> Ed Actton votes yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> He votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> As do I. Good day, Chadam.