e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e [Music] [Music] [Music] good afternoon everyone it's July 25th 2024 and this is the chadam zoning board of appeals meeting the town of chadam pursuant to Governor hey's March 29th 2023 signing the acts of 2023 extending certain covid-19 measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law until March 31 2025 this meeting meeting of the chadam zoning board of appeals is being conducted both 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'd like to listen to this meeting while in progress may do so by calling 508 945 4410 conference ID 560 967 528 pound or join the meeting via Microsoft teams in the link on 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 accord with 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 first we'll start with a roll call of all board members authorizing this form of meeting Dave V uh David h v uh and I authorized this form of meeting dve Nixon David S Nixon I agree Virginia Fenwick I agree we just keep going all the way Steve dor approves Lee hubby approves Alie SLE I approve and Randy pares I approve as well if any citizens or non-board members participating in the call via the phone please give your name and the last four digits of your telephone number for identification purposes the way that meetings are run is that we shut off all cell phones or anything that makes a noise for starters and after that a he the hearing notice will be read by our staff S Clark to my right you or your representative will present your appeal or application anyone in favor we'll have an opportunity to do that up to five minutes um I'll read all letters that have been received anyone against the application can speak um for up to 5 minutes and if there's any questions that would be allowed during that time slot as well the applicant May then rebut any testimony members may direct questions to anyone present we'll hear further information deliberate no we'll um ask questions close the public hearing then deliberate um we will usually vote on the appeal or application all votes be taken by roll call and at the end of the meeting we will close with a verbal confirmation and note the time of adjournment with that we will get started on let's see we have minut minutes yes I'll move to approve the minutes of June 27 2024 as published uh Dave V seconds and votes yes oh before we vote is there any changes no okay now you can vote Yes yes and and Mr Nixon yes yes and who was Voting last time on that um I was okay I I approve all right um Paul I don't I'll approve also okay and as do I so now we were gonna we're going to start at the end of the list uh because it's a short uh one and that is 37 clamshell Drive Sarah whenever you're ready application number 24- 077 all real real estate trust care of Donnie Don Donnie Dunham 42 wanu Avenue 1164 austerville Mass 02655 owner of property located at 37 clamshell drive also shown on the town of chadam assessors map 16a block 29 LW H6 76 the applicant seeks to modify special permit number 22- 070 granted on October 27th 2022 which allowed for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a new dwelling the applicant now seeks to modify the special permit to allow for additional building coverage the approved building coverage was 860 squ ft and the proposed building coverage is 863 Square ft where 2800 ft is the maximum allowed the law is non-conforming and that it contains 0o Square F feet of buildable Upland where 20,000 ft² is required and contains 5,674 ft² of land area where 40,000 ft is required in the R40 zoning District a special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 4A section 6 and 9 and section sections 5B and A2B of the protective bylaw okay and we have received a letter on July 11th 2024 um please take this email as a request to continue the application for the special permit modification for 37 clamshell drive until August 15 2024 thank you Donnie Dunham so um does anybody have any comments on that seeing none how about if we take a vote I I'll move to Grant the request wed continuance to August 15 2024 on dve V seconds and votes yes I vote Yes I vote Yes well all votes yes as do I so voting today as you just saw are David V David Nixon Virginia Fenwick Paul simple and myself so now we'll start with the first actual application at 151 old Harbor Road um we already heard this one and so we're gonna just discuss where we're at today and probably vote on it when SAR is ready she'll read it application number 24-40 Keith and Wendy Mets care of that Eldridge 1038 Main Street chadam Mass 02633 owners of property located at 151 old Harbor Road also shown on the town of chadam assessors map 15f block 1 lot 60 the applicant proposes to change alter or expand a non conforming dwelling on a conforming lot via the construction of an addition the existing non-conforming accessory structure will remain unchanged the proposed addition will conform to Road and ab butter setback requirements the existing building coverage is 5,300 squ ft 15.9% and the proposed building coverage will be 5,603 ft 16.8% or 10% is the maximum allowed the lot contains 33,40 ft where 20,000 ft is required in the R20 zoning District a special permit is required under Mass General law CH 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw this was continued from May 9th 2024 Mr Eldridge good afternoon for the record that Eldridge he's Southeast representing the Mets um when we were before you it was a little premature we hadn't been to Historic and we got right up to deliberations we've been to Historic um they weren't entirely enticed with the with the proposed addition they couldn't give a real good feeling on which direction to go in we have a 90-day demolition delay and we decided to come in here and review this with you hear what you have to say and then decide where to proceed from there okay so we already finished deliberations no we didn't start deliberations oh we didn't oh okay um so I'm going to read the correspondence just a refresh people's memory um the uh concept I mean I'm sorry the historical commission um sent us a letter on July 16th um they found the home to be historically significant in June they thought that the proposed changes did material di materially diminish the home's um historic significance and they imposed a 90day demolition delay and that was on I'm not sure what date they imposed it on uh the commission was hoping that would that the applicant would reconfigure the new addition to not have a flat roof and fit in more with the rest of the home and um the de the demolition delay expires on 96 2024 so um do you have anything else to add no we're happy to answer any questions if you'd like me to give a better overview of what we've already reviewed I'm I'm happy to but does anybody just quickly would you like to see yeah that if you would respond to their complaint so um one of my last conversations with Mark zebr was regarding this property and he didn't expect any issue with historic because we're actually cutting into a non-historic wing of a historic structure while keeping the historic portion of that structure intact there was a concern about the tree and given the shape of the roof the tree's got to go no matter what as the roof is really suffering from it um insurance company hasn't been out there yet but if they were to see it they would be they would be on it um so the applicants have asked me to proceed this afternoon to hear your comments and then we'll either continue withdraw or get approved what about the flat roof part they like the idea of the deck that's out there that's going to be the daughter's bedroom up above and and it's a um it's a deck feature that we see all over chatam so the answer is no on that leave it we'd like to hear from you your thoughts on it so why don't we do questions from the board uh dve well I hadn't um uh studied this closely while I was out there but I'm looking at the photo at the Google Maps shot here and um so that that addition um um that you've said is is an that's that's a non-historic Edition having been made to the original part of the house do we know about when that addition was built I do not I remember researching the original house but uh okay I'm just I I can see a difference in style to a certain degree so uh that's the only question I had Dave Nixon I have no questions all right U Virginia Fenwick so that I did watch the hearing also and um so actually my question was given what historic said what was your proposal today so so you've already answered that but they specifically said we want you to save the tree and come back and give us a new design which was what the 90 days was for and the gentleman it wasn't you that was presenting to Historic said we we will look at that and he made it sound like the tree yeah we could clip off the corners I think that's what he said so I just want to reconcile kind of what we did start work on okay on different Footprints different roof Styles um with without Mark Paul is a little overwhelmed at the moment so it's it's a uh we decided to come forward to you to to hear your comments and then proceed from there and you're saying then there's like regardless because they did comment the craftsman style of the original house which has been altered over the years and losing some of that um that was the main objection to the flat roof was because of it's not consistent with that style um you're saying we want to keep the flat roof and we want to say we're going to remove the tree regardless of the roof the if you look at the roof on there's signs that that tree has affected that roof well that and it's right on the corner of the plan and it's right on I mean it's just off the corner of the building to begin with and that tree is just going to get a little bigger okay so as it grows it's only going to cause more issues for the house it's it's unfortunate that they put an addition out in that direction so close to that tree I guess another question I have is um it's your narrative said which which is always very helpful thank you for all the detail um said that it was going to be for the for the primary bedroom to to come down to that main floor the primary bedroom is on the main floor underneath today and that's where it's going to be this this addition is for addition for the primary bedroom that's what that space is for the the daughter's bedroom is upstairs and she'll have her own so it's four bedrooms today it's going to stay four bedrooms one of them is just coming coming down to that new space and I'm part part of that addition includes a closet a master closet I remember the historic saying that but the whole the whole thing isn't a closet the whole the whole thing is the bedroom and the closet the bedroom and the closet all right that that's all I had um Steve um I don't think I have any questions wa no no no questions right now and Paul Tad as I understand it when we look at the front elevation we're talking about the addition on the right hand side that's the proposed um were they suggesting that rather than having that flat roof there that you should have a roof that matches the existing dwelling I believe so they didn't like the idea of the flat roof and I don't know if it would emulate any of the roof lines here or the specific porch roof okay I have no other questions so at this point do you you don't have to go back to them they they've made their ruling 90-day Demolition and if we approve it finding that it's not substantially detrimental to the neighborhood then you're just off and running after September that September date it means you don't have to put a restriction on start date because the historic already has yeah okay so um there's nothing legally in our way of just approving this today correct it's unfortunate that our historic commission only has the power to delay and not right right okay do more so um Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations and Dave V seconds and votes yes yes yes well yes as do I okay uh deliberations let's see Lee thank you um um well I actually kind of like the addition I kind of like the flat roof I think it's kind of nice I don't like the fact that the tree is going to be removed I just think it's a shame um I have a big maple tree in my backyard too that I did not remove and it's you know it's a big tree but um I don't know I uh but I do like the addition I don't think it is out of character with the house um from a historic perspective I don't think the addition is substantially detrimental to the neighborhood I think that lot can handle an addition like that I just am it's too bad about the tree okay we're into trees if anybody has noticed everybody's into trees this year we are uh let's see Jenny um so I um we' we've Al we've been talking a lot about building coverage and I know that this is a very small ask in building coverage it's only 303 ft and it's a large lot 3/4 of an acre of a lot so 303 square feet is not a lot in the context of such a large lot so I do want to acknowledge that and it's a very small increase from 159 to 168 but they're already so far over they're 58% over what's and they have been I mean for years and years so so the ask is very small but you know I just I I'm just throwing it out here during deliberations that it is such a large um already over but it is a large lot um is that enough to say that it's substantially more detrimental probably not um in my view uh and historic was I think 52 split so they they were not fully robustly in favor of a change to go back to the Craftsman had it been a true craftsman style they said we would be more adamant about about it and and I think that might influence frankly but but but it wasn't it has been altered and it has lost some of that so they were a little bit um um split as you mentioned on that so so anyway those would be my comments thank you Dave Nixon well I don't agree with the historic commission that it should have a flat Ruth I agree with what Lee said it looks better it it really looks better this way and if you if you added another peep to the r of all this I mean oh my goodness you know how busy do you want to get it just would be unattractive and unfortunate so as far as I'm concerned keep it the way you designed it that's great as far as the tree goes and I know there's no such thing as an insurance company that likes a tree from personal experien as you understand and so uh I can see that I'm wanting to whack that but I hope your client pushes back and says no okay so you're likely to vote for it yeah okay Paul uh I agree with Dave Nixon I think I think the property is actually more attractive with the addition done in this manner as opposed to the uh historic concept um um everybody wants to keep the tree and I understand that but um I don't think this is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood um so I will vote in favor of it Steve um I don't mind the flat roof at all I think there's many other structures in town that have similar roofs and and porches like that and small decks um I think it's fine the tree you know sometimes you have to take the good with the bad so um tree I don't mind if it if it's if it's endangering the rest of the house we had a big storm uh we'd have a bigger problem so I don't have a problem with that and I think the design is fine and Dave last but not least yeah the um I agree with previous um it I think the design looks better the way it is they the other alternative that I can see that that perhaps the um historical member certain members of the historical commission were thinking about was if you didn't have a flat roof you could have a fairly low pitched hip roof there and and in it's showing you know doors for entry onto a deck you could shorten that put Windows and and fit a roof in there but it wouldn't look any better and the uh applicants would lose the ability to have a nice deck out there that makes no sense to me really and certainly not in terms of our standards of something being substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood or not this there's no way that this is substantially more detrimental the neighborhood um and then with respect to the tree I mean I it was the first things I noticed when I went and looked at it and um you know there are a number of other trees on the property that are some nice trees and I think you know we've talked about trees with different Property Owners at different times and I think I always try to qualifi say well I don't you know the trees are not really a zoning issue at least terms of how I'm reading the bylaw now Randy has a difference of opinion to a certain degree but I think that uh we I think it's important to walk a balance point um and with respect to trees and I wouldn't um um and I and I think that it's it's a good enough I think the argument is a good one that the tree is very close to the building and is not um and it's in the way of this addition so in a way I'm sorry to see It Go but I I wouldn't stand in the way of that at all so I I think it meets of our criteria and uh the all and so I will support it and I I agree with everybody else um and as far as the uh tree being part of our criteria I just I just note suitability of the site including but not limited to impact on neighboring Properties or on the natural environment including slopes vegetation Wetlands groundwater water bodies and storm runoff so I I think Tre fit into that um I'm not going to try to save this particular tree so that's number four I think it's met um the extent of the uh proposed increase in non-conforming nature of the structure our use that's really important as Virginia fenor pointed out but it's very small and it's not going to cause me to want to vote against it that's the third criteria and then going back to number one it's certainly an adequate uh site size and it's compat compatible with all the proposed structures we're in the neighboring properties um proposed use is certainly compatible um some of the other criteria don't apply so on balance it's an overwhelming yes for me and uh what about what about uh conditions would there be any that well could I make an offering first if we take the tree would it appease the members if we had a large tree planted a little further from the house sure we can get something from Johnson's tree farm and get a spade out there and plant it's not going to be the same size but something that that's a bit larger than a standard tree that you get from the nursery to me that sounds good everybody's noding I would agree yeah yeah everybody's happy sure yeah sure we don't want the tree to fall on the house that's not a good look the Mets have not wanted to remove that tree for years and they've known that it's been a problem and and it's they're doing this addition partially to push themselves to have to remove the tree I saw a tree on C rder road that fell directly on a roof of a house uh maybe two years ago you probably saw it okay and and they left it like that for a bit so it definitely was not a good look so um with that Paul um I'll move to approve the application as submitted uh and do you see any problem with the normal summer conditions no um the Builder was the one who was at the historic commission uh he's ready to get started with this obviously it'll be after September 16th so it'll be wintertime construction and he should be able to have everything done for spring all right I'll move to approve the application as submitted with the condition that all construction activity and vehicles should be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner between June 30th and Labor Day no exterior construction will be allowed no work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8: a.m. and 5:00 p.m. only is there any need to add any tree Provisions I don't think I see any so I'll leave it at that Dave V seconds and votes yes goe yes I vote Yes all votes yes as do I it's unanimous congratulations thank you much have a great afternoon all right now we're going to move along to 27 Shirley Drive and that is going to be Mr Lichfield Steven and Georgian denzo the owners and whenever Sarah's ready we will take on that one application number 24- 074 Steven and georgianne disenzo car of William G litfield Esquire 330 Orleans Road North chattam Mass 02650 owners of property located at 27 Shirley Drive also shown on the town of chadam assessors map 1B block 9 lot n 11 the applicant seeks to enlar enlarge extend or change a non-conforming dwelling and a non-conforming lot via the partial demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of additions the remaining portion of the dwelling and proposed additions will comply with all bulk and dimensional requirements of the bylaw but is considered a substantial alteration and such substantial alteration and considered a substantial alteration and under the second except Clause of section six of Mass General Law chapter 40a such substantial alteration requires the grant of a special permit the existing building coverage is 1,544 square ft 13.1% and the proposed building coverage is 1,675 Ft 14.2% where 15% is the maximum allowed the law is non-conforming and that it contains 11818 Square ft where 20,000 ft is required in the R20 zoning District a special permit is required under m General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw attorney litfield welcome thank you very much Madam chair members of the board Bill Lichfield here in behalf of steveen georan deszo I think may be online with us today we are here in regard to what is a fairly simple project although I suspect that on your site visits we're getting an echo just going to say I suspect that on your site visits Mr simple as the resident South chat member may have had an advantage if any of you took GPS down Glendon way uh you realize that there are some limitations in regard to Glendon way uh and that's really why we're here because we have a garage that faces Glendon way in Fair viw which can't be used uh Once Upon a Time Glendon way was something you could Traverse as shown there and as you saw when you went out there when the garage was built the garage is you know well capped it's maintained nicely but you can't get a car into it without going through all the vegetation and you'd have to go all the way down Fair View and come back in uh so the denzo while they have enjoyed having the garage for storage they're much more interested in eventual year round occupancy retirement and the future and they would like to have a larger first floor bedroom so they are proposing to remove the unusable garage and essentially trade it for a conforming addition on the right hand side there or easterly side uh the architectural Plans by Roder Wilcox says as the site plan are fairly simple it mirrors the existing house Fair which is currently a simple cape and the uh left side while a foot higher than the ridg is also set back so it's it's not going to have any impact on the streetcape in a negative way so I'll go into the criteria as adequacy of site we have a lot which is typical for the area it's adequate for the existing house built under prior zoning although we do have technically a non-conformity as to Glendon way we're too close to that thoroughfare down there uh that will go away when the garage goes away I think you can find the site to be adequate for the additions the net increase in coverage is just 131 Square ft uh but that still complies as to compatibility of size the neighborhood was created under prior zoning the current house is consistent with but is the second smallest of the nearby properties if you approve the special permit it will remain compatible whether you rate that by the actual footprint the percent of coverage the gross Flor area or the living area and again what we're seeking to do completely complies with the bylaw as to the extent of increase in nonconformity we have an existing Street sorry lot uh size and Street nonconformity there is no increase whatsoever we're eliminating the street setback issue and coverage remains below the limit uh it is therefore what we call as you know a Borland appeal as the suitability of site the site has been developed for the residential use for the last 60 years there are no Wetlands at issue as to scale sighting Mass fuse and Vistas we have a 1 and 3/4 1 and 3/4 story full cape well suited to its location if you approve the addition you can do so based on finding that the scale and mass remain appropriate the master bedroom Edition is set back uh 33 ft more or less from the street meets the sideline requirement and again it is Ste back from the main house the kitchen addition in the rear is diminus you can't see it anyway but it'll make for a kitchen without a garage indenting into it as it does now there's no significant impact on streetscape and there aren't any views at issues VI views or Vistas at issue the compatibility remains unchanged it's a residential use we have a Title Five for four bedrooms the health agent has reviewed and approved we're not adding any bedrooms so the issue as you know and the question to be decided is whether the proposed addition of uh a conforming addition is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current non-conforming structure and a non-conforming lot the dimensional nonconformity the nonfunctional garage will be eliminated uh the desend those consulted with their neighbors who are supportive of the proposal and I think you can find that the use of the existing garage would be detrimental to the neighborhood on the other hand the proposed modest and conforming expansion of the footprint yields a much more livable house with a larger first floor bedroom helpful for future use and again it can be built completely in compliance with the bylaw so in light of the criteria and the plans on this property in this location I think you can find the proposed additions are not substantially more detrimental be happy to answer any questions thank you council is there anybody here or on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application please indicate seeing none I have five correspondences to read uh on 717 2024 we received a note from the uh Health agent of the town of chadam Judith Georgio she reviewed the plan to renovate and add two additions to this property and remove the existing garage as shown on the site plan the property has four bedrooms and the proposed addition and plan will maintain the four-bedroom layout no changes to the septic system are acquired I have no concerns then we have a note from Barbara Carol horn and James Horn and they are at 37 uh Shirley Drive let's see this is inform you that Barbara Carol horn and James Horn who are located at 37 try Drive are a Butters and are in complete support of the additions and Renovations that have been requested for application uh let's see let's see uh I'll just read it and her name should come up as neighbors of Steven and georan deszo we support the addition to their dwelling at 27 Shirley Drive Donna and Joseph orelo and that came in on um July 10th 2024 next we have a note um we are in fully we are fully supportive of the application made by Steven and georgean denzo for their property located at 27 Shirley Drive and that is from David and Kathleen steel at 38 Shirley Drive next we have a note from Mary and Rob Hillard owners of the property at 69 Norcross Circle South chadam and our ABS to 27 shley drive and as supportive of the application thank you rob Hillard and that was on July 6 20124 that concludes the correspondence is there anybody here r on Microsoft teams that has a question or would like to speak against this application if so please indicate seeing none questions from the board Dave Nixon I have no questions thank you dve I have no questions no questions Steve no questions no questions no questions and I have no questions either Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations dve seconds and votes yes I vote Yes yes all votes yes as do I all right deliberations um Steve um I think this is a good project I think um you know the fact that you're you um are staying within the setbacks and uh making the house more livable and more usable um I don't I don't uh see a problem with this I think it's a good idea Jenny I agree um I think it's a thoughtful renovation I think removing the back the garage um will give them nice backyard space um keeping the four bedrooms expanding two of them right um I think it makes a lot of sense does meet our criteria and is in my view and not substantially more detrimental and Lee I agree with my colleagues are you good Dave Nixon I also agree and Dav as do I and Paul and I agree as do I uh meets all the criteria that you set forth we'll adopt that in our findings and any conditions I I think it's well I haven't I don't know the construction schedule but obviously we wouldn't start anything until after Labor Day and if there's an issue in the spring we'll come back to you if need be but we we would expect the accept the standard conditions soall okay very good Paul all right I'll move to approve the application with the condition that uh all construction activity and vehicles will be contained on site or at a neighboring property with a permission of the property owner between June 30th and Labor Day no exterior construction will be allowed no work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8:00 am and 5:00 p.m. only Dave Vach seconds and votes yes I vote Yes I vote Yes all votes yes as DWI unanimous congratulations thank you very much thank you all right moving right along we're going to go to 43 Edgewater Drive in chadam Jeffrey Molton Jr is the applicant and probably the owner and whenever Sarah is ready we'll hear that application number 24- 075 H Jeffrey Molton Jr 43 Edgewater Drive chattam Mass 02633 owner of property located at 43 Edgewater Drive also shown on the town of chadam assessor map 15 A1 block 10 Lot 8 125 the applicant proposes to change alter or expand a non-conforming dwelling and a non-conforming lot via the construction of an addition the existing dwelling is non-conforming and it is located entirely within the coastal Conservancy District the proposed addition will be nonconforming and that it'll be located entirely within the coastal Conservancy District where a 50-ft setback is required the existing building coverage is 2,9 sare ft and the proposed building coverage is 240 ft where 20 100 ft is the maximum allowed the lot is non-conforming and it contains zero ft of buildable up where 20,000 ft is required and contains 2,96 ft of land area where 40,000 ft is required in our 40 zoning District a special permit is required under master under Law chapter 4A section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw Mr Molton welcome oh thank you very much chair poach members of the board uh thanks for taking the time to hear this petition compared to most of what you deal with I think this is pretty modest so I want to take up much of your time the house was built in 1968 by Jack horn on uh Phil from the Dyke project so probably wouldn't be built today but nonetheless um it complied with all then existing zoning uh regulations U today it's non-conforming for the reasons that Sarah said project is has two main objectives the first is to add insulation and heat and air conditioning to what is basically a summer Cottage so we can make it liveable year round and secondly we're going to reconfigure and update the kitchen and downstairs bedroom and add a add a powder room um in part to facilitate one floor living we're not getting any younger um and um and aart to take better advantage of the water view that's there uh we're again we're here for the permit because of the 31 square foot uh Canever Canal lever bump out that's a change to a pre-existing non-conforming uh structure I think on um on the architectural plans you can see both on a31 and on a21 you can see uh where that addition is and I know you've all been there before I go through the criteria I do want to mention that we've recently decided not to add the gas line there's there's a gas line at the beginning of Edgewater Drive and running it down to our house and into the house turns out to be a lot more expensive than anticipated um and our uh we've been encouraged both by our children in M the state of Massachusetts to avoid fossil fuels so we're going to stick with just the electric there and because there's no um gas line there'll be no generator so no generator pad U as well so um again I I address the criteria in my written submission I can go through them briefly now in terms of the size of the site it's supported the existing structure since 1968 uh the 31 square foot increase in building CO coverage is pretty minimal we're still under the I think we're going from 99.2% to 9.3% um in terms of compatibility uh footprint actually of the three houses on Edgewater is the smallest current footprint and the biggest lot uh we're actually going to be a few F feet bigger than one of the other houses if we had 31 Square ft but certainly compatible uh with the street and with the other dwellings in the neighborhood um yeah the proposed increase of the non-conforming nature is minimal 31 Square fet uh suitability of of the site again I think the site's been suitable it will continue to be we've been before the Conservation Commission um and are scheduled to go back before them August 7th for conditions uh the additional coverage is going to be mitigated by plantings that they approve um septic system uh it's residential neighborhood um still no impact on neighborhood visual character views or Vistas um septic is adequate for the existing and proposed uses no impact on traffic flow and safety noise or litter utilities are adequate and the last two criteria are not applicable to this um as I understand it the ultimate question for the board is whether this change will make it this building substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conforming structure I hope the answer should that is a pretty easy no I'll also note that all the abutters have weighed in uh in support of the project um and with that I'm happy to answer any questions thank you is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application if so please make it known seeing none I will read the correspondence they're about I think there's six um so first one is from Judith Georgio on 76 2024 she's our health agent she reviewed the plans to add a small addition and renovate the interior of the dwelling the addition will not add sep septic flow to this presumed free bedroom dwelling the health division has no record noting the location of the septic system the site plan submitted shows a septic tank close to the proposed can't toate addition this is acceptable the location of the septic component should be noted on a site plan and submitted for review next we have a note from the conser vation commission received on July 16th 2024 the applicant submitted a notice of intent and Was Heard by the commission on May 2224 and June 12th the project was continued to August 7th 2024 to allow the applicant to apply to the zbaa for approval of the project the project will be reviewed and conditioned to meet our standards next we have a note received July two from Cynthia Basset and she owns the property at 149 and 15 57 Seagull Lane which are but the property at 43 Edgewater Drive she has reviewed the plans and approved the proceedings as planned next we have a note from uh Sarah and Charles hemmerdinger 141 seagull Road in chatam we are fine with the improvements to the plan at 43 Edgewater thanks for keeping us in the loop that was received um let's see I don't know maybe seven hours ago that's what it says on it all these the same yeah okay all on the same date and next in July 9th we have a note from Susan B Hamill she owns the property at 65 Edgewater driveing chadam and she's writing with respect to the proposed renovation at 43 Edgewater Drive she's reviewed the plans in the renovation and approved the proceeding as planned next is a note from see consuello Lumis con yeah that's what I was going to say it's the handwritten one I know it's hard to read that's what I was going to say uh she reviewed the plans and this was received July 1 2024 for the proposed renovation at 43 Edge weter and she approves it proceeding as planned that's different term that I've usually noted but in any event she's happy and is there anybody on Microsoft teams are here in the audience that wishes speak against the application or has a specific question seeing none questions from the board uh Jenny I have no questions we'll just go right down I have no questions no questions uh so as I understand that you're not requesting a concrete pad for a generator that's correct yes and you're not requesting gas service extension to power the generator from the existing service that's right other than that you are requesting the 31 square feet candle lever addition and two air conditioning units elevated yep okay that's correct I have no other questions Dave Nixon uh thank you uh it's interesting when we get letters as we did from some relatives Cynthia Basset perhaps related Cynthia Basset might be my sister yes yeah that's right that's always good and I have to tell you that was a fabulous presentation and one of my other spies I have several spies on my page tell me in truth you're a judge is that true I am retired I'm fully retired but I was a judge at one time yes okay well fabulous presentation thank you I have no questions and I just wanted to ask the Building Commissioner do you have any comments about any of the changes with the gas or any of that no I don't no okay just I don't know just felt like asking that there's no buildable Upland on the property right so they they list percentages but you can't do percent percentages of zero so they're limited to 2,800 square ft but the they're far below the 2800 square ft so that's not an issue okay great great and uh I don't have any other questions Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations Dave each seconds and vote Yes yes yes yes and I vote Yes as well all right deliberations Dave Nixon well as stated excellent presentation absolutely in no way is this possible substantially more detrimental than the neighborhood and Dave Beach I agree it meets all of our criteria and uh is not substantially more detrimental and we'll support it J I too was very impressed by your presentation and also I'm impressed that you can do all of this with only a 31 square foot ask so very that's impressive um agree with my colleagues not substantially more detrimental meets our criteria and Steve I don't have any problems with meets all of our criteria I agree and I agree with Jenny more power to you for figuring out how to do this with kind of reconfiguring the Interior essentially so good project and Paul I agree with my colleagues as do I any conditions needed no probably not I will uh I'll move to approve the application as submitted with the exception that a concrete pad for a generator would not be included and the gas service extension to power the generator from existing service on Edgewater Drive would not be included okay Sarah might want to add something or subtract something from that um the generator that was proposed complied with all the setback requirements so they would not have needed our approval to install that in the first place okay so by conditioning it if he did ever decide to install one then he would have to come back to have the condition lifted to be able to install the generator maybe strike that portion well uh what we're I guess what I'm saying is that we're I'm approving the application but without the concrete generator PAD as a part of the application which it seems to me is logical given that he's not required to do that in any case is that not right no I agree with you Paul also we don't know in the future time where they might want to put it m you know that chances are maybe it'll go there but so I think it would have to be looked at again so we should keep as you said would it have to be looked at it again if it was going to be in the exact same spot on the on the plan it would be looked at by conservation but the board the zoning board wouldn't look at either the concrete pad or the generator as long as they conform to well as long as they conform to the setback requirements in the B that's and and we don't know today whether that would be true or not so so I guess I would leave my motion as made sure I agree dve you I can go yeah I I can go along with want to not pick that battle in second I mean yeah I mean I I kind of thinking why do we really need to go there but if if members enough members of the board feel it's important I can go why don't take a vote on if we need to go there because that's what we do right yeah you think we need to go there no I don't okay do you no you don't you actually don't think we need to go there no I think we should keep it okay the way it is the way Paul okay and you disagree correct I don't think we need to condition and you do think we need to okay Jenny do we need to condition it yay or nay did the application say it was about approving a generator it did not because it was not part of it didn't need relief from the board of appeals so it just was on there it was he showed the full plan of the total plan then I I don't think we need to condition it and Steve what do you think don't worry we'll still like you um I would leave it in there because you never know what the future is going to be who knows if it's going to be in the same spot or not or if it's going to get approved by conservation so I would leave it in there all right must be I don't think we need it I don't I don't think we need it either so let's take a just yeah just to further stay I don't I don't I mean if it was not required as part of this application I'm a big fan of staying in our lane I yeah I would prefer to stay in our lane you know we don't know what the future but if a future proposal came along that required our review it would come to us absent that if we I think what Sarah saying is we put this condition on it's going to have come to us under any circumstances in the future I don't think we need to do that honestly all right so so let me let me just see if I understand where everybody is at uh I I move to approve the application as submitted without the provision for a concrete pad or generator or the gas service extension so that would mean those conditions would not be on there three of us three of us that are voting are saying don't put those on there because they didn't ask us for that okay well I think we're all voting that way aren't we I hope so so well I'm voting I'm voting to support exactly what you just said three of us are not three are saying no the three of you are the three of you are saying that there should be no conditions I'm not opposing conditions other than uh the application that's been submitted all I'm saying is that there should not be a concrete pad for a generator or gas gas service extension but we're not asking you to say that okay well I thought that was part of the application it wasn't part of the application all right Sarah just want don't take it from me is Sarah now clear on it because she's writing up the draft It Was Written in the transmittal letter that the applicant submitted because he detailed all of the work that was being done however the concrete pad is basically a patio doesn't need relief from the board of appeals the generator was totally conforming and did not need relief from the board of appeals so it would not be part of the decision to begin with because it does not need your approval they can do it where it's located can be done as of right I I thought what I was saying made that clear in other words I thought what I was saying said we're not saying anything with respect to a concrete pad for a generator or a gas service extension they would need to come back for whatever approvals were necessary at that time under the application a new application if it's necessary otherwise there would be no new application so I think the the applicant was an overachiever uh well so I I I I'm impressed that I was able to generate controversy with this uh uh with this application it was not my intention I doesn't make any difference to me what you all decide I as legally I think uh chair is right that uh since I'm not asking for approval for this you don't need oppose exec on other hand if the majority wants to impose as a condition we're not doing it anyway maybe my kid better than a judge agreeing with me as a criminal defense attorney it doesn't happen much so I appreciate that and uh I'm going to take that and run and still stick with my my decision three of us voting say just don't mention it so can we do that all right well then I'll move to approve the application as submitted yes sir any decision we make has to be a super majority it does oh any okay so you don't have it on that no no so you no I will second the uh the motion that was just made yeah and how do you vote and I would vote Yes what are you going to do yes there you go Jenny yes well well I started this whole problem didn't I uh uh I'll vote Yes and I vote Yes as well it's unanimous congratulations uh thank you and I apologize for that problem thank you for your last portion of the the input it helped and if you can figure out what we just voted on let us let us know will you oh my God no right right it was helpful that he said that yeah oh man always judge lynfield that all right you know what the get it in 10 minutes you hit that that goal all right so whenever SAR is ready we're going to hear 24 Pine Ridge Road which is um application 24- 076 attorney William litfield for Russell and Nancy Young application number 24- 076 e Russell young and Nancy S Young care of William G litfield Esquire 330 Orleans Road North chatam Mass 02650 owner of property located at 24 Pine Ridge Road also shown on the town of chadam assessor map 8C block 23 lot s41 the applicant proposes to change alter expand a non-conforming dwelling and a non-conforming lot via the partial demolition of the ex existing dwelling in the construction of an addition the existing dwelling is non-conforming and it is located 19 ft from the coastal Conservancy District the proposed addition will be non-conforming is that will be located 16.5 ft from the coastal Conservancy District where a 50ft setback is required the existing building coverage is 1,295 Ft 11% and the proposed building coverage of 1,762 Ft 14.9% where 15% is the maximum allowed the lot is non-conforming and then it contains 11,858 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 protected bylaw Mr litfield attorney Lichfield welcome back thank you very much Madam chairman Bill Lichfield members of the board Bill Lichfield here on behalf of Russell and Nancy Young uh Russell is here with us virtually and our architect Angelo gck Addis as well we had wanted to get you out of here by 4:00 it may be 4:05 but uh this is a fairly we think reasonable and simple proposal to give the family the young family a little bit more room for their family they've owned the house for the last Dozen Years and by next September they hope it will be their primary residence when they have had family gatherings in the past and and they're thinking about Thanksgiving and grandchildren it just doesn't work they need a larger dining room the alternative for a house like this as has happened with some houses in Hardings Beach Hills is to go up build a second story they didn't want to do that they instead proposed to build what we think is a modest addition uh and also some storage area in the rear of the lot as shown there uh where it says proposed addition right in the middle of the plan a little bit to the down there there's already a building right now uh there's already a structure they're going to take that off and expand it bring a small front porch on the souths side more or less along the road and then do a deck with basement storage Below in the rear and then further to the rear as well there will be a proposed deck uh but we think it's an appropriate proposal and I will go directly into the criteria as to adequacy of site including building uh coverage and setbacks the site is typical for subdivision created in 1956 the site was adequate for the exist is adequate for the existing home not withstanding the non-conformities I think you can find it to be reasonable and appropriate for the expansion of the house with the additional basement storage necessary in Li of a garage and again as I said arguably preferable to a second story as to compatibility of size the neighborhood was developed under prior zoning if you approve the special permit it will remain compatible the gross floor area is somewhat larger than some other houses in the neighborhood because unlike most of them which were built with crawl spaces we actually have a basement our basement actually has some living area in it as well but many of their original houses in that neighborhood have only only have crawl spaces so they have a smaller grow floor area as to the extent of increase in nonconformity it's 2 and 1 half ft toward the flood zone but the flood zone in question um it's to the right there if you look what's further to the right there's another house uh the flood zone is one that comes back from from the marsh that you see going down Hardings Beach Road and as you know uh the flood maps have changed the elevations are higher and a number of years ago we imposed a 50 foot limit rather than a 25t limit but we're only going to be two and a Feet 2 and2 ft closer to the flood zone and it's the Conservation Commission as I'll get to in a moment is already approved it so I think the extent of increase in non-conformity given the zoning requirements when the house was built which is really what we have to consider the extent of increase is minimal it's 2 and a half ft in any event as the suitability of site again it's been there the house has been there for half a century or 60 years um the house itself is within the current Coastal Conservancy District setback but it was reviewed favorably by the Conservation Commission on April 10th the chair will read a comment that says they made a negative finding a negative finding is a good thing it was approved under a request for determination of applicability and they found the project to be acceptable as the scale Mass sighting views and Vistas mass is not really applicable to the existing one-story Cottage even though it has living area below it's without views and Vistas the impact on the streetcape is shown in the bottom right on what's on the screen right now that's what you'll see from the road the rear no one will really see anyway but if you make if you approve the special permit there is no impact on mass the scale is min minimized by the design which andela was done with a small but we think you can find attractive change in the facade and again the majority of the addition is the rear as to compatibility of use there's no change as to adequacy of water and sewer we have a Title Five for three bedrooms been reviewed by the Board of Health there is no change there either no problems with traffic flow and safety or utilities so as you are aware the question is whether construction of an addition allowing for a dining room for family use and some additional storage areas Down Below in the rear whether that is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conforming structure on a non-conforming lot the applicants and their architect devoted considerable thought to development of plans which maintained a single story Cottage feel rather than going up but which provided some additional living space it will have a minimal impact on the neighborhood where it's proposed and also works best with the current interior configuration so there are a number of reasons why this design is appropriate pardon me most importantly of course is that it meets the criteria set forth in the bylaw so given the plans and those criteria I think that you can find that the addition with a very small further encroachment into the coastal Conservancy set back not the district itself just the setback but otherwise conforming is not substantially more detrimental and be happy to answer any questions thank you uh is there anybody here are on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of the application seeing none I have three correspondences to read on 717 20124 Judith Georgio tells us that she reviewed the plan to add a dining room addition to the property and no changes to the septic system are required and she has no concerns we have a note on July 16th from the Conservation Commission that uh they issued a NE -4 determination as noted and that's that one next we have a note from Janet fields from 40 Pine Ridge Road as a director butter I fully support Nancy and and Russell's uh renovation plans for 24 Pine Ridge Road the changes to the southern elevation of the house will provide them with the space they need while adding a Charming feel to the house and enhancing its overall appearance I hope you will act favorably on this application and that was received on July 22nd 2024 that concludes the correspondence is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that has a question or wishes to speak against the application seeing none questions from the board Dave Nixon none thank you Dave each I have no questions any no questions Steve just keep going down no questions no questions no questions nor do I Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations Dave V seconds and votes yes yes yes yes and I vote Yes as well all right deliberations U Steve you're looking at me um well I think this is probably a a good project um the one thing that I would have preferred to have seen were complete um elevation drawings all the all the drawings I know it's not you but all the drawings are partial so it's hard to get a sense of what the entire picture is going to look like um other than that I think it's it's probably a good project um and it's you know doing some updates to the hats that are probably needed by the family so it's it's it's a good project but I would have preferred to see better drawings Paul what do you say uh I agree I think it's a a fine project I think it clearly meets our criteria uh it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood I will vote in favor and Dave Nixon this is has to be one of the strangest lots and I've ever seen particularly where the house is sited sit and how it comes off the road and all that but that's got nothing to do with the question is it substantially more detrimental than neighborhood absolutely not and Dav yeah I um I'm I I agree with Steve uh I you know I went through the package of drawings and well first thing I did was separate the packet and take out the stuff I didn't need to carry with me everywhere um but I and I noted the uh page of of partial drawings which and even then I had to use some of my imagination to to picture it so but I don't uh see that as that's for future reference um and it meets all of our criteria and is not substantially more detrimental in neighborhood okay Jenny y I appreciate the renovation I think it's a nice project and um not substantially more detrimental Meats our criteria and Le I agree with my colleagues and I think that new deck is going to be great yeah and and it's always great to get to that that full elevation whenever we can so um it's good that it came came up in a in a house where it's not that important compared to some others so um I um I'm in favor and uh any conditions that you'd like to see or not see neighborhood is tight I would expect the board would use its it's it's Prime largely a seasonal neighborhood although when the Young's mve in it'll be less so but okay we would we expect that yep all right I'll move to approve the application as submitted with the condition that all construction activity and vehicles would be contained on site or at a neighboring property with permission of the property owner that between June 30th and Labor Day no exterior construction will be allowed no work should be permitted on the weekends and construction activity would be between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. only dve V seconds and votes yes Mixon I vote Yes I vote Yes Paul votes yes as do I it's unanimous congratulations thank you very much and with that uh we need a motion to adjourn I'll move to adjourn Dave V seconds votes yes yes yes everybody yes yes and I vote Yes as well and what time is it 4:09 p.m. who [Music] [Music]