You got Good afternoon everyone. This is the Town of Cadam Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. It's May 8th, 2025. Pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28, 2020 sign 2025 signing of the chapter 2 of the acts of 2025 extending certain co
measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law until June 30, 2027. This meeting of the Chattam Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted 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, those who'd like to listen to the meeting while in progress may do so by calling 1508-945-4410 conference ID907879051 pound or join the meeting on
the leak through the on the link on the Microsoft Teams uh access on the town website. This is a live broadcast and simoc cast on Chattam TV Xfinity channel 1072, but despite our be best efforts,
we may not be able to provide realtime access. We'll post a record of this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible. In accordance with town policy, this the public can speak to any issue um on the business item during the
meeting when recognized by the chair. Before I give you the steps of how we proceed, I will ask that everybody shut off any gadget that makes any noise whatsoever. Um, please do that. And so the steps are as follows. We have a roll
call of all board members. We ask if anybody participating on the call will make sure that they give us the last four digits of their name uh of their phone number and their name so we can identify them. We uh have our hearing notice read by staff. On my right, Sarah
Clark. You or your representative will present your appeal or application. Then anyone in favor will have up to five minutes to speak. And this is for the regular zoning board of appeals meeting. We and I'll get back to the
comprehensive permit in a moment. Um so there's five minutes for the for the regular meeting. If you have questions and um you have uh you'd like to comment, the chair may I will read or summarize all the letters that are received. Anyone against the appeal may
ask questions and that's also up to five minutes for our regular meeting. The application may rebut testimony. Board members will direct questions to anyone present and then we hear further information and we close the public hearing. Once the public hearing for our
regular scheduled um meeting is closed, then we just deliberate among ourselves and usually we vote. All votes are taken by roll call and at the end of the meeting we will close via verbal confirmation and note the time of adjournment. As I mentioned before, we
are going to begin this meeting with something different today. We're we're happy to open up the comprehensive permit process for um zero and 1533 Main Street and that has different rules that
will have an op that will provide an opportunity for anyone that would like to speak to have up to three minutes and today we're just opening the hearing because we're we're obligated to do so within 30 days of receipt.
Going forward, these hearings will have their designated day um all by themselves and they will be once a month and you will also be able to attend if you don't get to speak today or if you'd like to wait, which may be a great idea
because we have a home meeting after this. So, um we we would like to try to keep this first portion for maybe an hour and 45 minutes at the most because we again we have a whole a regular meeting. Our meetings go anywhere from
two to five hours. So, just be mindful of that. Um, a lot of you have probably watched our regular meetings. And, um, in any event, uh, the comprehensive permit doesn't utilize our usual special permit criteria. You've probably seen us
to, and you also know about the town's bylaw. That is all uh, not considered during these hearings. It's not a regular zoning board meeting. And I'm sure council for Penrose will will talk about that to an extent and uh to
explain that because it's very important that the public understands that we're not going to go through our usual criteria and vote today. That'll be way down the line, maybe months, you know, I think we have about 180 days in order to to do that. But again, today we're we're
delighted to open up the hearing and have some people ask actually provide three minutes for us worth of comment. We're going to each take no more than three minutes even even on our own board to to make some comments and then we
will all come back here next month and have a dedicated meeting for Penrose. So with that, we'll take a roll call vote of all board members to authorize this form of meeting beginning with David V. Uh David H. Ve and uh I approve this
format. Uh Ed Actton I approve. David S. Nixon I agree. Paul C simple I agree to this format. Lee Hvey I approve. Steven Dbor I approve. Virginia Felmick I approve. And Randy Podash I approve as well. So let's see we have um approval
of minutes but we can do that later I suppose after the after the um comprehensive permit portion. So application number 25-034 Penrose LLC 15 Milk Street 16th floor Boston Mass um whenever Sarah is
ready to read the advertisement. Application number 25-034 Penrose LLC 15 Milk Street 16th floor Boston Mass 02109. The property is owned by the town of Chadam located at 0 and 1533 Main
Street. Also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor is map 9D block 4A lot one and map 9D block 4 lot 18. The applicants are requesting the grant of a comprehensive permit under Mass General Law Chapter 40B sections 20 through 23
and 760 CMR56 for the construction of 48 dwelling units in nine structures. Also proposed is the construction of a management building. The applicants are requesting the grant of various waiverss from regulations promulgated by the
Chadam zoning bylaw, Chattam Water and Sewer Department and other local regulations. The properties contain 128,492 square feet, 2.95 acres in an R20 zoning district.
Welcome. Please identify yourself. Hi, thank you. My name is Rio Sicetti. I'm a senior developer with Penrose. Um, and I'm happy to present our uh 40B comp permit submission for
1533 Main Street. This um this proposal really began a year ago uh with the issuance of an RFP from the town. Uh they currently own the site and they were looking for a development partner to come in and build workforce
and affordable housing at the property. Um, we responded to the RFP in early 2024. We were eventually uh selected as a designated developer of the site and since then we had entered into a land
disposition agreement with the town. Um, and so uh and that was late 2024. And since then, we've been refining um the design of the project in anticipation of coming to you uh here today um which is
a continuation of the process we've been doing since um originally uh responding to the RFP. So we have a um very well uh experienced team on this project. I call it our all-star team. This is Union
Studio as as the um architect and we have Paul Atman here with us tonight. Um Horesley Whitten is the civil engineer. We have Joe Henderson who's up here with me tonight as well and Crowley Cautrol is the landscape architect. Um and Mark
is here with us uh as well. Um this project is being managed um by Penrose's New England office. Our New England office is active on the Cape. We have our village at NASA green project in Eastam. We're recent, well, we're in the
process of completing another project, our Cape Cod 5 redevelopment project in Orleans. Um, we recently completed uh a two-phase project in Wearham as well. Penrose generally uh has over
27,000 homes built to date. Um we've been around for over 50 years. and the project um being presented to you tonight which is mixed income which is which which includes workforce housing and affordable housing is is really our bread and butter. Uh, one thing that, uh,
separates a Penrose project is, um, our management company. Um, Penrose Management Company, which we call PMC, is um, our business arm that maintains and operates the properties after they're built. And they're actually
active on the project from conception. And we work with them on the development side. And then eventually when it's built and they take over, the project is being uh managed and run by Penrose employees and that's a full-time uh property manager, the full-time
maintenance technician and uh is also a resident services coordinator and um that helps ensure that there's some accountability on the Penrose side that what is anticipated to be a high quality high quality
development uh remains a high quality quality development all through its lifespan. And our specific approach on this project was um to post RFP was to listen to the community and the stakeholders um to further refine a plan
that is will be wellreceived by the town of Chadam. Um we have engaged uh since um being designated developer, we've engaged with uh multiple town departments, town staff, different um uh
associations and and um boards uh to try to further refine something that will be um a a project that the town of Chattam will be proud of. Um and and one of the things we pride ourselves in that, you
know, we we're very transparent. There's there's no bait and switch. The plans we're presenting to you tonight is what we fully intend to build. This this slide just shows a example of some of that stakeholder engagement we've um underwent since
being designated a developer by the town. And so this is something where that we think represents that our collaborative approach and it's also something that we intend on maintaining and going forward with. This isn't the
end of our uh engagement with with stakeholders. Okay. At this point I'd like to introduce Paul Atman from Union Studio, the architect to present uh the design of the buildings. Thank you, Rio. Hi, everyone. I'm Paul
Atman. I'm a principal at Union Studio Architecture and Community Design. Um, we've been in practice since 2000 with two uh offices primarily. Our home office is in Providence and we have a small fivep person firm in Philadelphia.
Um we are a missionoriented firm to use and our mission is to uh use the power of design to enrich lives and improve communities wherever we work and live. Uh and really on the forefront is bringing integrity and community with
our clients in to the projects that they envision. Um we have extensive uh experience here on the Cape Cod where we have a lot of uh projects both small and large in this scale. Uh we've done a lot of advocacy
group and research with the Cape Cod Commission to outline better strategies for Cape Cod's uh housing crisis looking at where and how to develop smartly and with uh appropriate density for the
communities that are on Cape Cod. These are couple examples of projects that we've done in the and are realized. Uh on the left is Park Home in Newport. This design building is the a basis of what we're proposing tonight. It's a two
and a half story uh volume on the front end with a short tail of two stories off the back. Uh the park image here, can I see the um pointer? is much longer than what we're proposing. Our proposal is
actually truncating the building right about this line. So, it's not as long. Uh then a little bit closer to home here is Captain's Row in Hyannis, which is workforce housing. Uh small scale, multiple buildings in a site near the
ferry terminal. Uh that is two and a half stories and one to twobedroom units. As Rio mentioned, we've been working with the town and meeting with stakeholders since August. Uh, and we've
incorporated a lot of the feedback that we've heard and gotten along the way. We've added additional parking along the roadway. There was a lot of concern that there wasn't enough in our original proposal. We've located accessible parking spots appropriate to the
accessible units. There's 14 of them in the the neighborhood along with a management building. Then we've repositioned the two and a halfstory buildings further away from adjacent residences. So we've strategically taken
the twotory smaller uh townhouse buildings and put them in by the uh uh along the property lines that are closer to uh the residences on the back and south and west sides. We've decreased the overall length of the management
building that was fronting uh Main Street. There was concern that that was too long of a facade along that main street and blocking views into the neighborhood. We've increased the road to accommodate vehicle access and primarily emergency vehicle access from
22 feet to 24 feet. We've identified all the existing trees that are mature enough to be saved and we've incorporated them into our design. Uh Mark will talk a little bit about that later. We've identified potential roof
locations for solar panels throughout the uh neighborhood. And we've also incorporated different siding materials, details, and window patterns on buildings to bring more variety to what might be the same building multiplied used a couple times in the pro uh
throughout the neighborhood. We've then looked at how we can differentiate to that to bring a little bit of variety. I should point out that we are not looking at color yet. We did get a lot of comment about the the white on white is
not appropriate that we understand that but we didn't want to start on the color by committee exercise too soon. I'd like to walk you through the uh proposed site plan. On the plan north is
Main Street that and we are proposing a very simple C vehicular circulation in and out of the site with ing ingress and egress at two curb cuts two-way traffic around and it's the that is all
organized around a common green where there Mark will talk about that also a little bit with a playground and recre passive recreation space and existing trees that are being saved. D. Uh the turnaround here is for emergency vehicle
access so that they can do a hammerhead turnaround and easily uh eress the site when they come into the site. All of the buildings have multiple front doors. Uh and I should point out that each unit has a front door to the exterior. So
that allows us to really activate the street and the network of sidewalks throughout the site. For instance, there's two front doors here facing Main Street and then the other four apartments have their own door along a common porch that face the sidewalk. So,
we've been very careful to position those front doors to give a front of for each of the buildings and maybe in some cases two fronts. This is for Main Street and then this here is for the internal roadway of the neighborhood.
Um, I should Mark will talk about the landscaping and Joe will talk about the civil engineering a little bit more. This here is a view from Main Street looking at the proposed uh
neighborhood with a two and a half story headpiece of the two apartments here uh on now I have to reverse my orientation east and then here on the west side. This here is the entrance in and out on one side of the management building
which is one story and then the other entrance uh here and you can see that the proposed buildings are in the background behind the uh landscaped uh trees. The management building is what
Penrose u proposes on developments of this size and if there's questions about that Rio can talk about it but it's very simple. that there's a common room here for the residents to use. There's a small fitness room. They share bathrooms. And then the majority of it,
about half is management office. Uh as well as maintenance for a maintenance shop and a maintenance storage. Um Penrose manages all their properties. And if there's any questions regarding that, Rio could talk about that. Uh this
here is one of the small this is the smaller building type. This is the three-unit townhouse. We've are asking for a waiver in terms of a building height. Uh the we know that the uh limit is 30 ft. We're proposing uh building
heights from 30 to 349. So, we're just a little over, but uh it's they're two-story buildings as the code uh the ordinance anticipates and also two and a half at the very highest level. These are the two-story buildings. This here
is a sixunit with two units on the ground floor and four small onebedrooms on the the second floor. This here is the larger. It's still six units, but what I mean is it's two and a half stories on one end of the
building, but two stories on, let's say, the tail end. They're the proposed materials are asphalt shingle for roof shingles, uh, vinyl windows that are super insulated for our energy efficiency and energy star
certification. We there's lap siding on the one front part of this building and then shingle on the back side. Uh, we've uh arranged and proposed different window fenestrations. So in some places where there's a double window in that
same building down the road that might be split to two a pair separated. So there's little nuance differences that were working uh into the design. And then this here is a a sort of a comprehensive list of the where the
building heights exist around the site and where the that two and a half story buildings are. They're at buildings one 2 9 8 five and six. And so that gives the range of the
building heights in red of what we're proposing. And then the variance the the waiver that we're asking you can see here. So they range from one foot to 4 foot1. And I'd like to turn it over to
Mark from Crowley Coat trial next. Thank you Paul. So looking back at the site plan, we have provided sidewalks around the entire community so that it's walkable uh as well as some locations for bike
storage um and uh lush planting for the streetscape. So there are street trees proposed along the internal street as well as Main Street.
Um in the community green area, we're proposing a few more kind of community centric uh assets. So there's uh this these images show a little bit of that character. So, so we have some
raised garden beds in this area as well as a a small playground and a community gathering area. So, this would be a pergola with some chairs or or tables for uh community meals and gathering,
maybe birthday parties. Uh there's also a um larger lawn area that we're envisioning as a play space or just places to walk your dog. Um site lighting is is important for
safety. We are showing uh this is a picture of the pedestrian pole fixture. So this will range from kind of 12 to 14 feet. It's it's small in scale. And then around the community buildings and the community areas, we have these lower ballard lights that
help to pro provide just enough light uh to be able to traverse the site. Um this plan here, which looks like uh just a lot of numbers, is a technical plan that's um calculating the amount of light that's being produced by these
fixtures. And the important thing to note is that we are uh at the lot lines uh not we're at zero. So we're not throwing any light over to abuing properties and keeping the light where
it's needed in um the areas where where people will be traversing. Um we've worked really hard to preserve as many mature trees as possible. Um so there are few on the periphery. uh to the west and in the
southoutheast corner and the majority are in this community green area. So we've been able to preserve a um kind of statement evergreen tree as well as some um big maples. Uh and then there's this
remnant hedro that um we'll be keeping and kind of pruning for sight lines. Uh this this goes a long way with helping the community feel um you know that it fits in that we're these trees are are beautiful and they uh they'd be really
hard to install this size. So I'm really we're glad to keep these. Um this shows our planting strategy. So, we have, as I mentioned before, there's street trees along all the roadways, but we're also proposing a um substantial buffer
planting on the edges of the property, uh, as well as lush um kind of streetscape planting of shrubs and perennials. And so, these pictures here are just some examples of what that that could be. Um, you know, we're going to
keep everything suited to the Cape uh and, uh, for interest throughout the year. I'll hand it over to Joe. Hello. Good afternoon. Joe Henderson with Horsesley Whitten Group. We're a environmental consultant firm out of
Sandwich. And I'm going to walk through some of the uh, site grading and utility um, components of this project. So here you'll see this is the site plan. Uh Paul touched on it earlier a little bit. There's two entrances off of Main Street. Um the what I wanted to touch on
here is just that we um as part of our due diligence for the project, we do look and coordinate with the fire department. So we have run um a program where we show that a ladder truck can circulate the site. So um that's been
completed. Um, as far as dimensional um, requirements for the site, Andrew will touch on some of the the waivers a little bit later, but we do meet the side and rear setback requirements. Um, however, the front we do ask for a waiver. Um, all the parking is um,
either 90 degree or parallel parking. So, all those spaces are 90° or 9 by 18 ft and the parallel spots are uh, 8 by 22 feet. Road widths are all um 24 foot and wide as Paul had mentioned earlier.
Uh we are locating two let's see if I can get this to work. Two dumpsters on the site, one on the east and western portion. Um I'm going to switch now to the grading here. So as far as our approach
to the grading, the site does slope from Main Street um to the south. So we've done our best to um you know match that as as much as possible with our proposed grading. Uh we use a gsi or low in uh li
type um method for our storm water management. So we incorporate tree trenches in this particular case where we treat the water quality volume which is typically about 1 in of rainfall and then the larger storm events will go
into these underground chamber systems located throughout the site. Um we are proposing to u meet the stormwater management policy. Um and we've submitted as part of the application our storm water management approach that outlines all the calculations and um
everything go that goes along with that. Uh as far as site utilities, um there is uh sewer available in the street. There's three sewer stubs along Main Street. One is actually for the existing home. Um we're proposing a
combination of gravity and a pump station for this. So there will be a portion of the site that'll flow by gravity out to the street and then another portion in the lower area that will uh require a lift station that will then pump to the to the gravity system and out to the street. Um the lift
station would have a redundancy in its pumps. Um there would also be ability for backup power um to um you know in case of an emergencies that would be taken care of. uh the slope along the back it it slopes
up slightly to the um the abutters and I think around the the the west side we are slightly lower and we match grades around um the east side predominantly. I think that's all I was going to touch on and I think I'll turn
it over now to Andrew. Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Andrew Singer, attorney assisting the project. Um, I had submitted a a legal memo to the board. Um, and I won't go through all of it because I know uh what we hope to do today is after our
presentation, uh, give time for initial comments, questions from the board and the public, uh, before we're continued because we look and so I know we're introducing things today. There'll be a lot of questions I'm sure and details that we may not hit today, but we're happy to um provide answers to those uh
or to discuss them whenever and we have your memorandum. Thank you. Great. Um so this as the chair had mentioned uh at the beginning, this is a project under chapter 40B sections 20 and 23. So it's different from a 40A project which is what you usually look at. Um so this
comprehensive permit um will be providing um affordable housing and in this case 25% of the apartments 12 of them are going to be deed restricted at um 80% of the area median income which is what's required for a comprehensive
permit. However, in addition, um, in the land disposition agreement that the applicant has entered with the town, uh, they have agreed to, uh, ultimately enter into an additional affordable housing restriction with EO with the
executive office of housing livable communities that would restrict 32 of the 48 apartments at 60% of area median income and 16 of them at 110% of area median income. So anything over 80% restriction is considered workforce
housing and anything under 80% is considered low and moderate income afford deed restricted. It's all deed restricted but not affordable housing at a lower level. The 60% AMI level will provide an even deeper um ability of affordability. Uh and it all gets into
what incomes uh a family whether you're an individual or family with or without children um can earn to qualify for these units. Chadam has made a strong commitment towards providing affordable housing. Uh goal 7.1 of the comprehensive plan uh
talks about improving opportunities for the area's low and moderate income households to find safe and decent affordable year-round housing units. And the housing production plan is focused quote on addressing the critical housing needs in Chadam today through a diverse suite of goals and strategies that
holistically promote housing affordability in the town. In addition to the town being very supportive of affordable housing, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and that's why we're here under 40B, has set a mandate that all towns are supposed to try to hit 10% of their year-round housing stock as
affordable. Chadam right now stands at 4.81% and this redevelopment will increase that number to 6.11%. So, it is an increase getting closer towards the state goal. the all of the units, however, and this
is how it helps the goal as well. In a rental community, all of the units count towards the town's subsidized housing inventory with the state. If this was home ownership, only the deed restricted 12 units would count. In this case, all 48 units are going to count no matter their varying affordability limits
because it is a rental project that's being proposed. Um there are three requirements to have a 40B before you and which have been uh met here. The applicant needs to obtain a project eligibility letter from the state which we have and there's a copy
in the file. Uh they have to have control of the property and through the land disposition agreement. They have Penrose has control and an interest in developing the property and they have to create a limited dividend organization which is a a single-purpose entity to to
operate the project which which will be done uh as is as done on these projects. The you sit in thestead of everybody locally um for a 40B. So, you are the board of appeals, you're the planning board, you're the board of health,
you're the conservation commission, you're the historic board, and you're also the Cape Cod Commission. All of those are local boards by operation of law that you're that you're reviewing the project for. And that's why when I talk about waivers later, some of the waivers are not zoning waivers because
any other waiverss that are necessary has to come from you because you are that permit granting authority. And the legal standard that you look at is also different from 40A. In this case, 40B requires approval of a project when you
determine that it is consistent with local needs. And when a town is under 10% of the limit, there's a presumption of consistency with local needs subject to public health safety and welfare. you know, which is something a planning board and you al always look at is to
make sure that as you've heard the utilities and the traffic and the fire safety, all of that needs to be met obviously to have a safe and vibrant community. Um, the board of appeals even under 40B is allowed to condition a project so
long as the conditions do not render a project uneconomic. And that is a it's it's a legal standard that is fact-based. Um, but what the big thing about a 40B is that it's a balancing test. It's a flexibility that the board of appeals standing in all your STS of
the other local boards is balancing the need for affordable housing with all of those other areas, zoning, environmental, historic planning. Um, in this case, there are no wetlands involved, so that's not something that's imply impacted. And the project will connect to the town sewer. So, we're not
there's not a septic system on the property uh that that we'll be looking at. As we go through the process, not just today, but going forward, um we submit that um this project, we will demonstrate to you that it is and will
be consistent with local needs, that it will not have a material detrimental effect on the character of the neighborhood or the town, and that it's worthy of approval. And as I said, I'm not going to go through all of the uh I items I have in the memo. I know you'll you will read that, but one I wanted to
mention that has not been um referenced yet is the applicant submitted a traffic impact assessment uh for the project. And there's a finding in that uh study that the quote the project will not result in a significant impact or
increase on motorist delays or vehicles queuing at the Route 28 Barnhill Road roundabout over anticipated future conditions without the project. That's the no build condition. and with all movements at the intersection expected to continue at a level of service A where level of
service D or better is generally defined as an increase in average motors delay of less than 1 second and in vehicle queuing of up to one vehicle. So that is also in your packet that you'll be looking at. Uh there is the traffic study done to demonstrate that we believe there will not be um a negative
impact. Um, I've worked with Penrose before and everyone on this team has and they um they create quality affordable housing. They have great management experience with it and we think this is going to be um another development that um will be
proud for them and for the community. And that gets us to waiverss. So there are provisions that no 40b can meet and and the main one is density. You know, when you have a 40B, you're increasing density over what's otherwise allowed in zoning. That's the whole purpose of 40B.
And so, you always need a waiver. Waivers under 40B are different from variances. The 4A section 10 variance criteria of hardship based on soil condition, shape, or topography are not they're not part of the analysis. Under
chapter 40B, the question is what would without the waiverss, what would render the project uneconomic and therefore not consistent with local needs. So as you're looking at these waiverss that I'm about to just introduce, the the question as you go through this process will be, you know,
are they necessary to allow the project to move forward so that the affordable housing can be developed and provided? And we respectfully believe that that that will be the case. Um I won't go through the details of the variance of the waiverss uh which are changes from
the the bylaws but I want to just hit the topics of them now happy to go through anything in detail but given time topics is good okay so the the there the topics are use and density as I said you know you can't if you can't have use and density waiverss you can't have multif family use and at this
density on the property height of the buildings there was a list up there with broken down it's by specific building we don't have to get into that now we can talk about that, but that's another waiver that's being requested. Building coverage, uh the proposal is for more coverage than you would normally allow
under 4A. So, that is a waiver request. Um parking uh numbers, um uh instead of two spaces per unit, uh requesting 1.8 and in Penrose's experience at all of the thousands of units they have, they believe that this is parking that will
provide sufficient capacity not only for uh the residents but also for visitors. Um the in order to keep in order to meet the side and rear setbacks and buffer where more of the residential properties are in the back, the property's been frontloaded. So there is request for a
waiver from the front building setback and the front parking setback and those are in order to allow the bigger buildings in the property to be you know pushed more towards the front. Um I I we added a waiver request if required from a septic system certification. Um, I don't know if that's necessary because
it's on town sewer, but I wanted to be complete at least for this initial stage. There are also uh three waiverss from Chattam general bylaws uh dealing with there are five structures on the property now and the applicant submitted
a uh project notification form to mass historical commission and they uh returned the response that that they didn't have any concerns um with with uh historic or archaeological um assets on the property. Um there was historical
um uh study that was done on these buildings that were there and um but the waiverss that you need to still because you're standing in the state of the historic commission because the buildings are three of the dwellings are over 75 years old. We're asking for a waiver from the demolition delay bylaw
which is something that would the historic commission would normally look at. We're also requesting uh waiverss to the extent necessary from the Chattam Historic Business District design guidelines and procedures requiring a cert certif certificate of appropriateness and a waiver if
necessary from the same regulations for the removal of a dwelling over 75 years old and the construction of a new dwelling and related improvements in this district. So again, we're in the HBDC, so we need those waiverss in order to um proceed with the project. The final waiver is, as I mentioned at the
beginning, technically it's from the Cape Cod Commission Act. Because they are deemed a local board by state law, all of their regulations that might otherwise apply because this is a development more than 30 units um uh aren't applying. We're before you for the 40B request. So again, we're
requesting a waiver from that as well. Um with that, I'm going to turn it briefly over to Rio just to summarize. uh we we look forward to your questions today both from you and and the public so that we can take them in and before the next meeting uh you know answer as much as we might be able to. Thank you very much. Yeah. Yeah. So when you say
questions um what we had envisioned is that there'll be three minutes for each person that we have time for to comment, not back and forth questions. Correct. Questions. Yeah, that's what I meant. I'm sorry. Questions, comments. We're getting your feedback from everybody. We'll we'll take it all in and then
we'll respond. you'll take notes on what they say and ask and you as well. Whatever and they'll feel and then they'll feel heard. That That's great. Okay. So, with that, if I might if we could just have one last slide. Absolutely. Summarize. I'll just quickly
wrap things up. Um with just some um takeaways we want you to have after this presentation. Um this was a carefully designed project from the beginning uh in collaboration with the town. was the town invited us in um uh
picked our proposal um and we entered in a land development agreement with with the town to to build these. Um it uh we've made uh I think there were some earlier slides that showed uh us different meetings we had with different
boards and different stakeholders. I just want to emphasize that um the that all those meetings have resulted in real changes that have been incorporated prior to the plans you see in front of you. Um also uh we hadn't really touched upon this before but um we have a
sustainable design um solar ready. We have a study done showing almost all the buildings can support um solar um passive house aligned. We say that we're we'll we're building to passive house standards. We're not necessarily maybe going after the passive house
certification, but it will be built to that level of um green building. And um other other than that, we have u this is a combination. There's a workforce housing 16 units and then the remainder
are the affordable housing units. Um so it's not it's a mixed income. It's not 100% affordable. Um, and lastly, um, Penrose, uh, has a strong track record of delivering, uh, these type of developments. Um, we invite you to see
some of our other projects in the area. Um, we're proud of the projects we've built here. Uh, and we think that there that there's a through line through all all the projects we've done in in New England of uh, being high quality and um, well-maintained. That's it. Thank you,
Chair. Yeah. Thank you so much. Um so I will announce that we have asked all required commissions and and um boards to provide us with comment and we don't have them quite yet and we didn't expect to. Um we'd like to have those by the
June 5th meeting and that would require them being filed by June 1st and we'll read those um at that point in time whatever whatever we receive. Okay. So the next thing we're going to do from those who are in the audience
and you can go to the microphone in the middle versus up there. Um and you gentlemen can sit down because this is not going to be a back and forth. Um so people actually can either go to the podium for up to three minutes and the clock will be on or you can go to the
middle and uh who's raising their hand? I see that gentleman right there first and then we'll go to attorney Riley after that and then take the public and then Yeah. And then we will take the public I'm just going by whoever raises the hand
first. Welcome. Thank you. Uh Mike Shell uh I am on both the affordable housing trust board and the select board currently. Um and uh I I I I want to just give you I don't presume to give you any advice or anything else with
respect to the technical aspects of your project of your responsibilities. Um I just want to say that the this process began with town meeting in in 2021. Town meeting authorized I think it was about
a,350,000 for the acquisition of the Buckley property. Um at that time it was not the entire pro um parcel that you see here. It was the the three quarters that are defined by um to the east all the way to the back from the front to
the back and and the west is the back quarter. um the um almost immediately post that uh that that acquisition uh which took place I think in early 22
um the um mostly the housing uh director and community development commenced a process of reaching out to the community getting input as to desires with respect to public housing uh affordable housing
designs s u landscaping uh really the whole business. Um in October of 2023, the affordable housing trust uh had the board converted from what it was before, which was the afford the the
uh select board plus two to the current uh formulation, which is um uh um uh two members of the select board plus five members of the public. uh with expertise. Um almost immediately after
that conversion, the affordable housing trust board entered into negotiation, excuse me, negotiations to acquire that last quarter to give us the which is the northwest quarter of the of the parcel.
I I'm not an expert, but based on hindsight, I I'm not sure this project could have got done if we had not um acquired that and created what is now the three acre parcel that Penrose is is uh uh is proposing to develop. Um the
the the process itself of getting to a developer uh was also a lengthy. Just so you know, sir, I'm just giving you your 28 second. Oh, okay. Well, I'll be real quick then. Sorry. Uh very quickly, um this was a a project that was evaluated
and recommended by both boards, not unanimously, but both the select board and the affordable housing trust board considered it. There were three proposals and uh it was deemed that Penrose was the best proposal. We've come a long way. We've got a long way to go, but this is a really important
project. Thank you so much. And next, I did see attorney Riley next. And after that, I'm going to go to somebody online because that's the third hand I saw with the letter E. And then we will see who's next. Yes. Uh, good afternoon. Bill Riley on behalf of the Levid family who
are a butters to the property and also Eastwood companies which owns some property to the rear. Um, one of the things that about this project is the front half of the property is zone commercial. The back half of the
property is own residential and the the um the Levit property in particular uh is a very nice cute small house. It backs up to the design of a
35- foot tall building. And so what both the Levitz and Eastwood companies would like to see is a recognition of the fact that the back half of the property is residential and that they would bring the height of the buildings down. uh whether they
did uh multiple smaller buildings or just took these buildings and and made them more or less compliant with our uh 30-foot height uh so that they wouldn't overwhelm the residential properties to
that are located in the residential zone. It would be very greatly appreciated. I know you got a long day. I'll be back. Thank you. Um, let me just ask you, sir, since you represent Rick Levit, we do have a letter from him. Could we wave that for today or do you
need me to read it? Um, and we do have a It's online and there are several photos. What do you want to do? I'll read it. Okay. E online, please. U state your name. You can put your hand down and you have three minutes.
Welcome. Thank you, Elaine Gibbs. Um, yes. I've been following this for a long time. I'll try and make it brief. I understand we'll have another opportunity. You have three minutes, so that's that. Yeah, the public has uh a lot of problems with this the design, and I'm just going to
go over mine. Uh, first of all, the size of the buildings. We can't online with these uh prints blow it up enough to see the dimensions, but many of those buildings, there's nine of them. Some are 50 feet wide, some are 70 feet wide,
and a some of them are 30 feet high. Um, to put that in perspective, if you look at the community center brick section, uh, that uh it would be about twothirds the size of the community center, the brick portion. They're large. Uh, so
secondly, I have a problem with the landscaping. I have visited NSET green which is about four or five years old now and the plantings there are still what I would refer to as totally immature and saplings. The other thing
is in their packet they're using deciduous trees uh and um shrubs uh that is not going to screen the development from the street in any fashion. Uh so I
would I would like that discussed where you know you we have substantial uh trees along the main road for privacy for the people who live there as well as for the the look of it and I think the buildings are huge. Uh the other thing
is the mentioning tonight or today was there's two dumpsters on the property. Is I I would love love to know is that all the uh tenants would have that they have to walk their garbage to one end of the property or the other. Uh my one of
my biggest concerns is the parking. uh in their RFP, Penrose said that they were intentionally keeping the number of uh the ratio of uh cars to units low to encourage walking, bikes, and public
transportation. Ju disrespectfully, you're on your last 50 seconds. Okay. There are no food stores, noarmacies, insufficient parking, too many electric vehicle spaces that I'm sure many of these people cannot afford, and there's no assigned parking, and there's no
guest parking. And I think that's going to be a very big problem for the people who live there. So, there's more, but I will defer it until next time. And there are also more meetings. Thank you so much. Who's next? I see that gentleman right there,
Attorney Farber, I presume. Good afternoon. My name is Peter Farber and I represent Matthew and Peter Swenson. They're the owners of the property directly on the east, the abuing property. And my concern also or their my client's concern is with the
height of the um the six buildings, the building C type, all of which are well over 30 feet in height. And the reason they're over 30 feet is because they contain two-bedroom apartments on the sec on that third floor. And if those were to be
eliminated, the roofs could come down. And um that would make it much more in keeping with our bylaw, which has existed. I think I don't know when the 30-foot limitation was imposed, but it was many years ago. The other thing I
just like to point out today is that a board of appeals never wants to deny outright deny a 40B application because on appeal to the housing appeals
committee the burden is shifts over to one question and that is do does has the town met its requirement up to the 10% of affordable or I should say low and moderate income housing. If in fact what
the board should be doing, I believe is looking to approve the project with conditions relative to size, height, sighting, parking, all the various conditions that a zoning board of any
type would look at. And as the chairperson said, you will be see receiving comments on on those matters in particular if there were to be an appeal. And certainly the question doesn't have to wait until then is when
a project especially a rental project is approved. The question is what conditions can be opposed imposed without making the project uneconomic and that looks into the financial
um conditions that will follow the approval. In other words, over the next 10, 20 years or whatever, what sort of return will the developer make and and what conditions would impose on that? So
it would become uneconomic. So it's a very open question and on that on that question the burden the case law is very clear the burden falls on the developer to prove the conditions render the project une
uneconomic. So I would encourage the board as the chairperson said to conduct a full study and be focusing in on that question. Thank you so much. And we do have town counsel if that soothes you at
all. And yes, ma'am. Good afternoon. I'm Ella Levit, a director of butter to this proposed subdivision. I've lived in my house for more than 25 years. This subdivision is the largest development in Chadam in 50 years. The
stated purpose of Chattam's protective zoning bylaw is to maintain compatibility with neighboring properties and to avoid creation or minimize adverse impact on neighboring properties. The site is not adequate or
suitable for what is proposed. The size of structures is not compatible with our residential neighborhood. The impact of scale, sighting, and mass of these large structures on our neighborhood's character will rob many of us of our
privacy, both while in our homes and in our yards. Large, tall, three-story, multifamily apartment buildings looming within a few feet over our homes and our yards will ruin the quiet, peaceful enjoyment of
our homes and our yards. Noise, light, and litter from dumpsters, parking lots, and roads placed a few feet from our property line are not compatible with neighboring property uses. The town's RFP for
affordable housing development specified that this large subdivision respect adjacent properties, have internal traffic flow, and a mix of building types to meet a variety of household sizes and needs. These requirements were
ignored by the developer and by town officials when selecting the developer's proposal. The developer's proposal does not respect adjacent properties. It does not have internal traffic flow or a mix
or a mix of building types, but is a formula business approach to affordable housing in Chadam. I ask you to place conditions on this application that adhere to the town's protective zoning bylaw. Thank
you. Thank you. Who would like to go next? Yes, sir. You can stay right there if you'd like. Yeah, save yourself a trip. I need to get my steps in. Uh I'm Henry Marcelli. I live at 32 Jesse's Landing, which is not in a butter, but I'm across
the street. Um we uh vacationed in Chattam for 30 years. Uh we bought a a townhouse across from Knots Landing, if you're familiar with that on Main Street, that contains two affordable units. We were contiguous to an affordable unit. Okay. The folks there
were wonderful. They owned the property. They became they still are there. We have subsequently moved and built a house in Jesse's Landing. Okay. Uh but that's an example of affordable housing that's worked in Chadam very well. You drive by it, nobody knows. You don't. It doesn't look different. It doesn't look
big. It doesn't look overwhelming. It doesn't look like an apartment or a barracks or dormatory. It looks like a normal house. Okay. That's one of my concerns. I've attended both of the meetings, the planning board meetings, the uh joint meeting with affordable housing, and expressed my concern with
the size of the buildings. They're going to be overwhelming. Okay, we're talking 35 plus or minus feet. That could be 38. It could be 37. Uh it doesn't fit. It's just too big. This is the main entrance for the town of Chadam coming in. Is
this what we want to have as a representative of our our first shot at a big affordable housing project? I I just implore you to listen to some of the folks that have talked here and to try to do the best you can and and and the fact that we have
um uh the uh roadway uh Chattam neighborhood roadway proposal for the town meeting. Okay. There's obviously a concern about the size and the scope of work in this region of which this property abuts. It's in the region. It's
right there. So, I would ask you to take that consideration as you look at it. I know it's a difficult task. I I understand Penrose was selected by the town and they're trying to maximize their opportunity on the project. I I get that. I understand that. But please just think about the rest of us living
around here as was spoken before that that we're in a community and when and when we we introduce this type of a project and this much stuff there's going to be a lot of uh uh of concern. There is a lot of concern on my part and on my neighbors parts. So please take that in consideration and we'll be back.
Thank you. Thank you. Who would like to go next? Yes sir. My name is Steve Buckley, uh, executive for the Buckley family estate. And of course, we sold
this land to the, uh, town for that reason. And it wasn't because I should say that um, because there was a resk request for proposal. I had been thinking of this property as having a affordable housing uh middle
housing character for decades. I was um I grew up in Chadam, but I spent 25 years in Washington DC suburbs. We owned my wife and I started a family. We have a three we bought a three-bedroom, one and a half bath house
that was a townhouse that looks a lot like the town houses right across from Knots Landing. So yes, I've been thinking something like that would fit there. And so I if I had do it, I would have put it in town houses and it's because it's a little more and also with
a mix of ownership. I live right now uh for the past 15 16 years. Uh we we bought a um affordable housing um unit right behind Pates, two-bedroom, two condo, two bath condo condo, and I
was hoping that something like that would be available there. So, there'd be a variety, a mix of home ownership and rentals because I'm a little concerned with the 70% preference that it'll start out at 70% and then some people will
move away. Oops, don't have to do that anymore and then 5 years from now it might be 17% locals living there, so to speak. People who already were, you know, living and working here. So, that's my concern there. I would like to say that
um one thing and I realize there's going to be more meetings and so we can throw out our suggestions and so forth. I would suggest that in uh there might be you might uh have a format that would allow people to ask clarifying questions so they could
understand the the what's required what's nice to have what's need to have and then they can make their uh suggestions with the idea as opposed to just throwing ideas out and then finding oh can't do that. So I would just say questions and and then comments separate
instead of mixing it all together because I think that would actually be more productive and yes they have 37 seconds left. And the other part is I will throw out one thing is that it does seem that a lot of developments they love lights because oh we have to have safety but the thing is it always looks like
the place is awake you know like it's like it's like it's I don't want to I would like to not drive past there and at uh 11 o'clock at night and see the whole place lit up and the lights I saw there I was hoping it could be the ones like we have on Main Street in West Chadam that point down
and I don't know what it's called or tulips or whatever they're called but the idea of pointing it down and it doesn't shine up. So, thank you very much. Thank you. Who would like to go next? Anybody? If not, I'm going to start reading. Yes, sir. Ryan Phillips.
Welcome. Oh, thanks. I guess uh here we go. Um I guess I think I'm the only one in this room that actually needs affordable housing. So, um I'd like to thank Penrose. They've done a, you know, a great job, you know, putting this uh
thing together, but in all honesty, I think by no means, shape, or form is this project right for the town of Chadam. It's way too big. It has It's going to put way too much strain on our infrastructure. Those are things that we really need to consider, especially all
the other, you know, towns that are working off of our aqueduct. they're all putting up these huge developments and like we we really need to, you know, consider what the environmental impact is going to be on these on our drinking water, on our sewer.
Um, in one of the meetings I saw that Penrose needed to um on deed restrict 30% AMI um after 50 years. Um, but I didn't see any when the lawyer was talking, he didn't say that there was
going to be any 30% AMI uh in this building, just the 110, 60, and 80. And the 30% AMI is reserved for people with disabilities and seniors on a fixed income. I think primarily um there's just so much wrong with this project.
uh it it might be too late to, you know, fix it, but I just really urge this board to do the best they can to make sure this is a project that the Chadam Chadam wants. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Would anybody else like to take three minutes up to three minutes to comment
at this juncture? I don't see any hands up in the Yes, ma'am. Please. And I'll just remind everybody that all these materials are on the town website and a lot of answers uh can be had there. Yes, please. Yes. Thank all
of you for your efforts for the affordable housing which I support. However, I'm with everyone else that has talked about the heights. I live on Jesse's Landing which I'm Did you say your name, ma'am? Oh, yes. Cynthia Fusy. Okay. Thank you.
The question I have as a resident here in in Chadam, which I love, I've been also coming here for 30 years to vacation and I was fortunate in 2017 to buy my home here. However, you know, I watch the school buses and on on the on
Main Street, I see on other properties which are over stores and kids have to cross the street, there's no crossing guards. I don't know if the buses are going to be able to go around there and the amount of apartments that are going to be there. I have to think there's
going to be families. So, I'm concerned about that because you're going to have to either do crosswalks, have crossing guards. I mean, it would be a disaster. I've seen so many near accidents where little kids are running across the street because they don't pull in to those other areas. And and you know,
granted, in the summer when we have more traffic, it's different. the schools to close. But that's something for all of you to think about and and I think that's very important because I would have to say if I if I was younger and had children, I would want crossing guards there because it's a I've seen
near accidents all through the winter with that situation. That is something for all of you to think about. And I I just really believe that with everyone's statement, I love the townhouse idea. I don't know if any of you know like in West Chadam there's Levi Paths where
they bought was a nice culde-sac they bought affordable housing. Everyone that I talk to in town like I support our local retailers and everyone that works here that commutes here and and even people that work at the Chattam Zen that have to commute here. They all want to
be they want to buy homes here. They they don't make a lot of money. They live off tips and everything else but they want to buy homes. I think we need that mix. I also sent a letter, an email to to the board and I hope you would consider that, but I'm really concerned about someone getting hurt on Main
Street, the kids with the school buses. I would definitely think of that. Do you want me to still read your letter or No, you could read my letter if you want. You know what what if I want to wave it? Would that be You could wave it, but mostly I put in exactly what I wanted to say. Yes. But it's because I saw a child
almost get hit the other day. The only thing that's not in my letter is the um is the uh the the school buses. Well, thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else like to comment here live on Chattam
TV? No. Anybody on the line that I am not seeing? All right. So, I'm going to go on now. The law provides that I I can summarize these letters. So um if they seem awful along I will take the liberty
to do that. Um so we have letter from first of all from this Judith Giorgio our health agent. She tells us on 56 2025 that she reviewed the plan for 48 multif family complex with a total of 86 bedrooms. The property is adjacent to
sewer and connect and connection to the sewer is proposed. Since this is a 40B project, I believe local regulations limiting sewer flow based upon property size is not required. The flow required would be 9,460
GPD for the residents plus a small additional flow for the community building. Approval of the flow and design of the sewer is within the WNS department, water and sewer. The property will generate large amounts of waste. Ensuring dumpster areas are
properly enclosed and sized appropriately will help maintain cleanliness and prevent overflow and pest issues. Additionally, integrating well ststructured waste reduction and recycling programs can support sustainability efforts and minimize
environmental impact. I would suggest appropriate exterior lighting and parking and common areas for safety. Next, we have a note from the um con conservation commission and they tell us on April 29th, 2025 that they are not
required to uh make a filing on this topic. So then we have a note from Amy Walker, 8 Barnhill Road in Chadam on May 8th, 2025. I am writing and is in a butter nearby property owner to share thoughts about the development at the
late Joe Buckley's land. My biggest concerns are the development does not address the needs of those in lower income brackets who want to own property in the town they love and work in. Um, and that the Penrose development flouts the zoning restrictions that keep
Chattam the unique place that it is. The size and scope and density seem remarkably out of place. Our neighbors built a slightly too tall house and it sticks out in the neighborhood. But I'm also concerned after reading the lawsuit brought against Penrose for mold and
moisture problems in a recent development. The dissent among town officials has have been devoted to the town also causes concern that it's all rental development is not the best decision for the town. So she's
referring to the descent um of town officials uh the the not the majority that have said that. Finally, I'm curious if the whoever that is, can they please shut that down? Finally, I'm curious if the Freedom of Information Act applies to
communications in this development agreement. If anyone has made that request, next we have a note from J Wendy and Dave Perry, 24 Jesse's Landing, May 7th, 2025. They're writing to express their concern and objection to the proposed affordable housing
apartment. They are concerned about the size and scope. Um, too large for a threeacre site. Um, the buildings in the center are too tall at 35 feet and far too close to the neighboring homes only 17 ft away. My family's been coming to Chadam for our week-long summer vacation
since we were children and we decided to invest in the community and support Chadam by purchasing our home here. We understand the need for affordable housing, but this developer is not vested in the unique character of Cadam, and that is troubling. Next, we have a note from
Deborah Fini, and that was on May 7th, 2025. She's a party of interest in regard to the application and she lives at 28 Jesse's Landing, a full-time resident who objects to proposed buildings in this application uh to
receive waiverss and exceed town zoning restrictions of 30 ft. The size of the buildings don't conform in any sense to the neighborhood. If you have a minute, drive down our street and visualize what those buildings will look like. Additionally, it seems outrageous that
we can be underwater restrictions in town, yet feel like it's appropriate to add 48 units to an already stressed system. There are viable solutions to the affordable housing situation on this property, but jamming all these rental
units into such a small space is unconsciousable. Wednesday, May 7th, 2025, we have a note from Anthony Incoleion. um incogni sorry May 7th 2025 and he
tells us that he lives at 40 Barnhill. The proposed development of 48 apartments and 10 buildings in our neighborhood is too large and exceeds Chattam zoning requirements. During the summer months we have a large amount of traffic in the area and this will only add to the problem. The area consists of
single family residents and light commercial, retail, restaurants, and affordable housing pro project of this side is something we as residents want in our neighborhood. Um, oh no, we don't want in our neighborhood. The noise and congestion will create um less than less
than a desirable place to live and ultimately cause home values to drop. Si Cynthia Fucci from 71 Boundill Road. um who just spoke, but she also told us on May 6, she's a
longtime resident and um she com commends this board for addressing the important issue and she'd like to express a a concern shared by many in the town that the buildings uh that the proposed zoning change to allow for taller apartment buildings above two
stories introducing higher structured could significantly alter the the charter of our community. I respectfully recommend that any development on the design parcel be designated to align with the town's unique
identity. Cottage styles homes, town houses for purchase, and a limited number of lowprofile apartments could offer a balanced solution. On May 5th, 2025, we have a note from Errol Fjoy 37 Jesse's Landing writing to urge
reconsideration of the current proposal. The plan development um exceeds our existing zoning height restrictions and is and an excessive parking area designed for 89 vehicles will strain local infrastructure and ne negatively
impact traffic noise and safety. Furthermore, the visual dominance and scale of such large structures will diminish the quiet residential charm and historic appeal that makes Chattam unique and desirable. He I strongly endorsed the thoughtful compromise
proposed by our neighbors advocating for smaller scale single family cottage style homes. This alternative approach would meet affordable housing objectives. We I request that the zoning board of appeals insist upon substantial modifications of this
proposal. Steve McLaren, 92 Barnhill Road on May 5th says he's writing in regard to the development. Quite frankly, I'm stunned at the size and scope of this development um in this little part of town. I am certainly a fan of affordable housing, but this goes
way far and does not fit in our particular neighborhood at all. This dense housing project will create a permanent and dramatic change in car traffic in the neighborhood. Not to mention for those of us in close proximity to the development, it'll have a significant negative impact on the
perception of the neighborhood in our in in terms of our homes value. Then we have a note from Patrick O'Brien, May 3rd, 2025 for Young's Road. I am the property owner of Four Young's
Road and a neighbor of the proposed development. I want to express strong opposition of the proposed development of the former Buckley property. This proposal proposal grossly exceeds the current neighborhood density and dimensional requirements. The number of buildings and units are clearly
excessive. The granting of permission for such would be injurious to our community and have a detrimental impact on my property and the greater neighborhood. Steven Doyle, May 1st, 2025. Stephen and Bridget say that
they're located at 25 Jesse's Landing and they are not against affordable housing in that's needed in Chadam or on the Cape. The objection is the size of the buildings proposed and and it's the fact that it's not in character with the
wonderful town of Chadam. We have mom and pops in town for burgers, not McDonald's or Burger King. Cottage style affordable housing is the way to go to keep Chadam the wonderful city it is. not tall buildings and with that it's out of character with the town of
Chattam. John and Michelle Hawker 41 Jesse's Landing on April 26, 2025 say they're writing to express serious concerns regarding the 10 building 48 unit development. They begin by saying like many residents they fully support
the creation of affordable housing. They understand the importance and however the need that they noticed um that is not met is with respect to scale, character and long-term vision for Chattam. The current proposal seeks a variance and concessions. We are very
concerned with increasing allowable density in five homes to build 10 buildings and 48 apartments exceeding the town's maximum height limit of 30 feet with several buildings reaching 35. The development of this magnitude would
be out of scale. Chadam's appeal lies in its careful preservation of the traditional coastal village atmosphere. Affordable housing must be part of our future but pursued in a way that fits the existing fabric of a small town. For these reasons, I hope the boarding board
of appeals uh deny variances and concessions. Um and that would be that Rick Levit. Um, I have his letter here which is also long and I'm going to summarize it. It also has photos and the full version is
online. Rick Levit tells us on May 2nd, 2025 that he's in a butter to Penrose on Main Street and that it does not comply with criteria specified in the town's RFP, the developer's own claims and with Cadam's protective zoning bylaw.
Chadam's RFP specifies that the site design respects adjacent properties. In its response to the RFP, Penrose stated, "Designed to remain consistent with the community character and iconic Cape Cod style. The project
will be blend seam seamlessly into the neighborhood." This claim may be accurate for the meeting house development, but it's not accurate for um Main Street. This is a historic district and it's surrounded by traditional residential
neighborhoods and it does not blend seamlessly into the neighborhood. Um the meeting house is distinctly different. My home and all other smaller ones um one and a half story single family homes surrounding the southern and western
half of Main Street site are just feet away from three large six-unit three-story multif family apartment buildings and he gives us exhibits that you can also see online because of such close proximity most of us will lose
private privacy we all experience substantial and detrimental changes to the neighborhood The scale is equally as important um as style. This standard was adopted by Cadam select board limiting the scale of affordable housing
development adjacent exist adjacent to existing traditional residential neighborhoods on old harbor road. Um he's he's talking about a case study that also can be more elaborated online if you read it. Um, see, and he's making
comparison to an old harbor road uh project that may be underway. A uniform standard for affordable housing development should apply throughout Cadam. It's far too large and fails to meet Cadam's protective bylaw. Cadam Chadam's RFP specifies that the main
street development site design have an efficient, safe, and internal traffic flow. The proposed traffic flow is neither internal or efficient. Portions of the street and on street parking together with dumpsters border our residential neighborhoods. Parking has
been increased from Penrose's initial proposal by nearly 50% 62 to 89 spaces. There is a 50- foot wide U-shaped asphalt strip dominating the subdivision unlike any other residential
neighborhood in Chadam. Chadam's RFP specifies that the main street development building designs have a mixed type of buildings uh to meet a variety of household sizes and needs. There is no meaningful variation in size and height in this in this project. Um
I'm going to end that here and again this is online with um exhibits and photos if you're interested. So, that concludes the um received um correspondences and now we're going to go to the board and we're only going to
take up to three minutes as well today if we and you can put the timer on if you want or you can time us and I'm going to start with David Vch and he knows the drill. Um, you know, I I'm I'm happy to um
defer or delay any questions that I might have until subsequent meetings. I feel like I need to immerse myself a little bit more in some of the history of what came before us. So, if anything jumps out at you though that this would be an opportunity to tell Penrose. Well,
the only thing I mean so there were a number of comments and we've heard comments respecting the height of the buildings and so the only question I don't know if this would be a question or not but just comments just comment um I don't know I did uh take a a look
after having seen the letter I took a look at some of the drawings and noted that at least on um two of the types of buildings uh three of the buildings that are there Uh the roof pitch appears to be I think like like a 14 and 12 pitch. Uh
that's a little more than is generally customary in Chattam. I mean you know we'll sometimes see more than a 12 and 12 but that's not the the standard generally. So there might be some possibilities to do some lowering of ridges uh and without compromising on
the layouts or uh in the interior of the spaces. And I'd like to have them explore that. Um and then on the largest uh the larger buildings um again there may be some room to in looking at ceiling heights and and uh roof pitches.
It looks like the pitch is a little bit lower uh on there. It's like a 11 pitch on the gables and eight pitch on the main part of the roof. But uh there may be some ways to uh shorten the building somewhat. Um that said, I'm not sure um
you know with what they're asking for. I'm I'm not sure if it's a big a big ask ask actually the buildings themselves I think the tallest ones from the first floor go up to maybe 32 feet um you know but of course we measure from average
grade so that adds in some cases adds a few feet to the height okay well thank you so much Ed Actton please go ahead Sure I I I have a number of questions but what I'd like to really talk about
is maybe the the community building. It's It's got the largest footprint on the property. Um Chadam is in a crisis for for affordable units. Um we're not really in a crisis for community
buildings. I would rather see, you know, that that that uh area used for more units or potentially move uh some of the the units to that area. That would be the one one thing that uh stuck out to
me. Thank you, Mr. Nixon. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um I guess to sum up my concern, it's and we go through this every week. It's the impact of this on the neighborhood and I just want to that's a simple statement, but that's
what we struggle with every week. So, you know, just to make a quick list of things that I' I'd be concerned about. uh density, height, uh the parking, uh you know, that that's going to be a huge conversation in itself. What kind of
vehicles are we dealing with anyway? Also, uh there I have a bunch of questions on the financial aspect of this. Uh Mr. singer um briefly went over it, but apparently there's going to be another agreement
uh between Penrose and I don't know if it's the Toming Trust or the Selectmen or whatnot. Um because as it is now, it seems to be open-ended. The last thing we want is to have a scenario where we approve something and then several years
from now they come back and say, "Well, you know what? We couldn't rent those 48 units. We just couldn't do it. We couldn't find enough customers. So, we'd like you to wave this and all of a sudden, well, 200%. Is that what you're looking for? I I don't know. I don't
want to see that. I don't want to see that. So, I need to see the specifics. And I'm sure Mr. Singer can help me on that. And then, uh, another issue is u if you read on and talks about monies and where it goes and all that and all of a sudden things jump out at you, 0%
interest. You mean the town's going to get 0% interest on a loan or money that's owed to it? And then Oh, yeah. And the payback is 40 plus years and there's no payment during
those 40 years. So maybe I've misread it, but boy have I got a real question. Imagine having a zero loan and you have to pay a dime for 48 years. You're probably going to be dead. You won't owe a thing. So, um, and the last thing is, uh, boy, I'
I'd sure like to see some sort of units that are for sale. I I would really like to see some sort of a a mix in there. Uh, because we we have a double-edge problem and maybe the folks at Penrose just don't want to do it. Okay, tell me
why and and all that. So, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, sir. Virginia Fenwick. Uh yes, I have several that were on Mr. Nixon's list. Um so I have a lot of notes here, but I'm going to try and condense it to a few categories. So
height is definitely probably the number one thing we heard the most about from the folks here today, the letters written in um and and in general the other hearings. There were at least I think 21 I counted other hearings across
the planning board historic HBDC etc. So um so I think height is is is a big one and I think that that is um uh I mean I I don't well let me connect. So height and and then historic
is another one. I don't know if the higher pitch that Mr. V re uh notice noted was because there was maybe some attempt to try to capture that Greek revival, but they don't look Greek revival. Um what I would like to see I think they're very attractive
but it is it is a you know on the historic language is why HBDC is involved. So I think it's the style as well as the mass. So, it's the height and then I think the historic element could be a little more uh Cape Cod and
Cadam style. So, I think like what elements one of the questions I would have which isn't necessarily right now, but what specific elements are here in these renderings that are cape? Is it the Cape style? Is it Greek Revival? Is
it And maybe it's a combination, but but I don't really see historic in in the homes. They're very attractive, but I think so. Height is more about the scale. Historic is more about the style. Um I I also really appreciate and now I
understand what all those orange ribbons were randomly throughout the property. They were marking, if I understood it correctly, some of the trees that they wanted to make sure that they kept. What's interesting is the plan laid out is very symmetrical. So, I was wondering
how can such randomness of these special trees fit in there, but there was one exhibit that I really like that showed. I think it was eight trees that they're keeping. So, mature trees hopefully um I I didn't really zero in on the yellow or
the orange tag trees on the site visit, but I think it's worth revisiting that. I think that is so important to this so that it uh doesn't look like it was just clear-cut. And I know that trees will be planted, but um and actually I think it was maybe Mr. Rio, you in one of your
hearings mentioned the best time to plant a tree was probably 40 years ago, but also it could be tomorrow. So I understand that we're going to have a lot of small trees uh planted in shrubbery um at some point, but maybe a little more than just eight of the
current trees if that's possible because I do understand we have have a little bit of a symmetrical layout. So landscaping which I think is marked screening in the back would would be very very important um to add to that evergreen screening is what I think I heard. I think you might have hit the
three minutes. I'm sorry. Oh okay. The most but a really important one is this rental versus ownership. Okay. That that pro that ship I think has sailed. So well I we'll talk about that offline. I do want to talk about that. I think we can talk about it but the ship sailed.
It's very important. Uh, hi. Well, most of my um um concerns have already been sort of addressed, but you know, the biggest one to me is the density because I think if it was a lower density, it would have an
effect on the on the building heights and uh you might not need as many units or it could actually affect the type of building uh being built. instead of these larger buildings, maybe, you know, I've heard cottage community tossed around a bit. Um, there's one just down
the road at White Pond where there's a lot of little tiny houses over there that seem to to fit in pretty well. So, there could be a mix of these larger buildings maybe out front and some smaller buildings in the back. Um, because the the larger buildings in the back are, I think, going to have a very
detrimental effect on the people who live on Jesse's Landing and Barnhill Road. I I I don't think it's it's fair to those people. Um I sort of questioned the um the parking traffic study that was done in November and then there was
some sort of formula applied that predicted what the traffic would be like in July, August, and September. And I I would like to see another study done uh during the summer months. Um um no one actually came at this and said
it, but there's going to be a 50 foot wide road um a U-shaped road throughout this this uh complex because if you if you have the the perpendicular parking that's 18t wide, the road is 24 feet wide and then
you have parallel parking that's 8t wide. I think that comes out to be 50 or pretty close. So, there's going to be a very large road, circular road that goes around this property. Um, also back to the traffic study, it said something about the possibility of a drop off area
either for uh CCRT buses, commuter buses, or for school buses. I don't see that any place on here. And I question the need for a a community center. We have one in town. Um, I don't know if if anybody's going to be able to use this community center, just the folks that
are living here. Um, I don't think we need it and I think that uh amount of property could be used for something else. Lee Hubby. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I want to just start by saying I in concept I think this is really awesome.
I think it's a great location for it, but um like others on the board, I struggle with um a number of things. The height um of the buildings um they they're all very attractive, but I personally would
like to see um more a variety um maybe some one-story as cottages was thrown out. Um I think the parking is going to be tricky as well. Um I you know if if they max out um all
of these apartments on all these um beds there's a potential to have 172 people in this development. Um I it probably won't happen but I'm just saying I think and I and I also agree with the assigned parking because I think that gets tricky
if there aren't assigned parking spaces. Um, I happen to live near uh Oyster Heights uh condominiums off of Depot Road and I think it's Tipcart and um they have five buildings that are actually really
similar in style and size there and it works I think works very well. It's matured. The trees are large. Um but there's only five buildings there and I don't know I think maybe I I don't I've
never been inside any of them, but it's it's attractive. Um, and it just kind of struck me as being similar to what we're trying to do here. Um, let's see. I don't know if Penrose would consider, um, reducing the number
of units slightly. Um, reducing the height. Um, those would be my concerns for now. Very good, Paul. Simple. Well, I share uh a number of the concerns that my other board members have mentioned, but let me just uh raise two issues that I wanted to check on. Uh as I understand
it, this is our first hearing under the 40B process and uh it starts a time frame for uh of 15 days within which uh what's called the safe harbors uh conditions under which the ZBA can deny
a comprehensive permit uh can act uh and be covered by safe harbors. I don't know that any of the safe harbors uh would in fact apply to Chadam, but I'd like to make sure that that option is not available if we don't simply slide past
it without uh recognizing that we need to act if we do need to act. We have town council here. So, we'll we'll get to that. Right. I figured that was the case. Yes. Uh the second issue that I wanted to raise that I did not see in the proposal is that the uh the letter from uh the executive office of housing
and livable communities March 20th uh does indicate that uh the approval indicates the proposed plan uh includes rental units which are restricted as follows seven units at 30% AMI. I didn't
see any units limited at 30% of AMI in the proposal. So I didn't know whether that affects the approval by the executive office or whether there's been some change in that. So I thought uh we should keep that in mind. Well, thank you. And I'll just give my two cents and
then we'll go to Jay Talaman Town Council to answer that question that Mr. Simple asked. So I I also agree with the height issue and I I thought it was um impressive that Mr. Vich didn't just um say that he's concerned about it, but he gave a method to address that with
regard to roof pitch. So, I'm hoping that we can get an answer to whether or not that's a viable um way to deal with the fact that people are clamoring about the height and maybe there's a simple way with roof pitch that that could be addressed. Um I'm also concerned um I'd
like to see all the spaces marked because if you if you ever go into Boston, you'll see that people, you know, they like to to name what space is theirs, whether it really is or not. and they'll put, you know, a lounge chair and there's a lot of I could tell you I'm a criminal defense attorney and I
have seen fights over that over spaces and so I I think it's very important that the spaces be marked um very precisely whose is whose. Um, I'm also concerned about traffic and that I think there should be a right turn only option
for anyone coming out of there because if you try to take a left in Chattam anywhere during the summer, you know, it's impossible and I'll never get out of my street, which is very close to there. So, I I I would like to see that right turn only. Um, and that's it for
me for now. Um, and I'm going to go to our our council. He's going to tell us how we did today so far. and um answer Paul's question. Um can everyone hear me? Okay, welcome. Um thank you. So um I everyone's doing
great. Uh I think this is what we want to see during the first session kind of framing of issues uh that where we can get the developer thinking about things and hear from the public. you know, we we still have some procedural things to talk about and uh before you wrap up for
the day, but um we'll we'll get to that in a minute. As to the question that was raised, I'm not aware of any of the safe harbors applicability here. There's a number of safe harbors. Um one of them is 10% affordable housing of course,
which we don't need. Another one is recent progress towards the achievement of affordable housing by half a percent a percent or 2% per year. I don't think we achieve um any of those as well.
Another safe harbor is large um project size. It doesn't meet that uh um so it's keyed to the size of your community. So if this was a 300 unit project, it would certainly exceed what the town would have to deal with in any um at any one
time. So it doesn't meet that safe harbor. There is another safe harbor regarding land area minimums in terms of how much of your land in town is dedicated to affordable housing and the percentages there. It's a very technical calculation. Um, and I'd rely on the
planning staff, but I I I don't believe we could likely meet that um here in in Chadam. It's a difficult um computation to make and towns have not been particularly successful in making that. So, I I don't think that there's any of the available safe harbors here. It's
always good to check on that um because you do, as was noted, have only 15 days, but I just don't um see that as being an available possibility for you all here. Okay. So, we were going to do a motion, you know, ask for a motion to continue
to June 5th at 2 o'clock where we will now after that we'll have dedicated meetings. Council, is that the next step? It is. One thing I I suggested um Randy in in some pre uh meetings that that you and I had with with staff is
that perhaps in between now and then staff along with a designate from the board, perhaps yourself be empowered to work with the applicant to set up peer review so that we're not using the board's valuable time going over
resumeumés for particular engineering firms or traffic review. and we can take care of that in between. So maybe before, it's just my suggestion, but before we adjourn or continue for the for the day that the board take a motion
to authorize staff to work with you or another member of the board to secure that all that peer review so we could get going and communicating with the applicant on on those technical issues including traffic, architectural and the like which uh all have been raised
today. Okay. Okay. Thank you. So, um, can we get a motion that the board that our board um authorizes Mr. Nixon and myself to to work with staff? Um, with regard to what council just said, I will
move to authorize uh both Randy Podash and David Nixon to act as our liaison to do act on behalf of the board for those purposes. Uh, Dave seconds and votes yes. Go ahead, Ed. Uh, Ed Actton votes
yes. I vote yes. Paul Paul votes yes. And Jenny votes yes. We're all going to vote on this just because Lee votes yes. And Steve votes yes. And I vote yes as well. That's unanimous. And now Paul, could we get a motion to continue to June 5th, 2:00 and we will have
dedicated hearings for this application going forward. Uh I move to continue the hearing uh to June 7th. Uh June 5th, excuse me, excuse me. June 5th, 2025. uh and to uh continue on with monthly
meetings uh thereafter. Thank you. Uh David seconds and votes yes. Ed Actton votes yes. I vote yes. All votes yes. I vote yes. D votes yes. Jenny votes yes and I vote yes as well. So we are adjourned with regard to this applica
application and we will be back after a short break. Thank you everyone. And we are back. Um, this is the zoning board of appeals regular meeting portion, Thursday, May 8th, 2025. And we're going to start with approval of
the minutes for the meeting held on April 10th, 2025. Paul, I will move to approve the minutes as published for April 10, 2025. And Dave V seconds and votes yes. I vote yes. Randy, I actually have a Sorry. Oh,
yes. Have Yeah, it looks like on page nine, Lee Hy was listed as being present, but she wasn't here that day and Ed Actton isn't shown there on page. Okay, so we'll make that that correction. Thank you, Madam Clerk. I'll move to approve then with those changes.
And David seconds that and votes yes. Mr. Nixon is going to probably vote. I vote yes. All votes yes. Jenny votes yes as do I. That's unanimous. All right. So 106 Bclift
A2-016. When Sarah's ready. Application number 25-016 106 Barl Cliff Realy Trust Care of William F. Riley Esquire, PO Box 707 Chattam, Mass 02633. Owner of property located at 106 Barl Cliff Avenue. Also shown on the
town of Chattam's assessor's map 15G, block 9, lot 28A. The applicant proposes to change, alter, or expand a conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot be the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a new dwelling. The proposed dwelling will comply with all bulk and dimensional requirements of the
bylaw, but is considered a substantial alteration 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 860 ft 2% and the proposed building coverage is
3535 ft 8.4% where 10% is the maximum allowed. The law is non-conforming and it is in that it has zero feet of frontage where 150 ft is required. The lot contains 42,178 square feet in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required
under Mass General Law Chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B protected bylaw. Attorney Riley, welcome. Um, we know that this has been here before and it's been withdrawn. Could you tell us what's new in this in this application? Sure. Um Sarah, could you put up the
renderings we submitted with our application, please? What a handsome building. So, what what we've done since we were last here, there was there was concerns with the size of the building,
even though we have 42,000 square feet. But the applicant, Jill Budro, who's here today, also worked hard with her designer and they've reduced uh the gross floor area by 1,200 square
feet. Uh we've reduced the building coverage from 8.7% to 8.4%. Uh we've increased the sideline setback on the west side uh 25 ft to 29 ft.
Uh we have had conversations with our neighbor to the east was represented by u Mr. Litfield and the the uh so we've reached an
agreement where uh we've agreed that we'll plant a total of 16 uh yeah that's the that's the sketch plan that Bill sent over. So we're proposing six
arborite along the property line. They've asked for a total of 16. We've agreed to that and we're happy to have it be a condition of the approval if you think that's appropriate. The um and I know that Bill has submitted a
statement that with this condition his client has no objection uh to the proposal. Um I'll be happy to run through the criteria briefly. We don't need you to but thank you. Um cuz we you submitted written copies
and uh we're good. Okay. So um at this point, is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wish to speak in favor of this application? If so, please make it known. Uh Attorney Lichfield is on Teams. Welcome. Thank
you, Madam Chairman. I've never appeared before you in this matter, but I had a couple of other things to do today, unfortunately, and I recognize you've had a long day. But as Mr. Riley said the applicant has been very helpful and cooperative and has agreed to plant and maintain those trees. So if the board
will include a condition that the 16 arborites be uh planted and maintained along the boundary line approximately as shown in that plan. Uh my clients have no objection and we thank you. Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak in
favor? Seeing none, I'll read the correspondences. We have a note from Judith George. No. Yeah. Judith Giorgio from 56 2025. She reviewed the plan for the property. It's large enough to support a four-bedroom dwelling in accordance with the board of health nitrogen loading regulation. The attic
storage space will not be allowed to be finished because it has sufficient privacy to be considered a bedroom. A fifth bedroom would require the installation of an IIA nitrogen reducing septic system. The permit for a conventional system for a fourbedroom bedroom dwelling has been submitted to
the health department for our review. Next, we have a note from Sarah Waters for Glade Lane May 7th, 2025. She wants to say a word of support for the Bedro's family application. Um that Jill Bedro, recently residing at 106 Bcliffe, moved
in next door to me on Gladen Lane last summer. She's made several attractive changes as as well as some useful improvements to her Gladen Lane house and I can attest to her good taste, not to mention her good sense. Jill shared
with me the plans for the proposed new dwelling at 106 BLift. I looked at the color renderings and the outside of the house as well as the inside plans. The house is lovely. It appears to be a classic Chadam residenc in keeping with the character of our neighborhood. Sensibly sized, appropriate for the lot.
I am a summit resident. My late husband and I have been here for 25 years and seen a lot of res renovations and new houses go up. I love the look of the neighborhood. Um and uh it would be a welcome addition. Thomas Campbell, 64
Bcliff, April 27th, says that he's writing to express his support for the application to demolish the existing home and construct a new residence at 106 BLT. As a resident located on 64 BLT, I've carefully reviewed the
application and the design um and the architectural style of the surrounding houses are in sync. I believe the new construction will be significant improvement to the neighborhood and he urges that we approve it.
Then we have a note from attorney Lichfield. Um we don't need to read that. And is there anybody here? Michael Madam Madam Chair. Yes, sir. Uh, one of the things I'm concerned with uh is the question of plant and
maintain. So I don't know what I mean what I don't want is if a future owner at some point doesn't maintain one of the trees or decides he only wants 15 trees instead of 16
trees that it would not be a zoning violation. I don't know. Then they probably have to come back. So there's that. Okay. All right. Is there anybody else that wishes to where are we? No. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that
wish to speak against this application or has a specific question? Seeing none questions from the board. Virginia Fenwick. Hi. Hi Mr. Riley. Um Sarah, could we go
back to the first picture that was shown? Um because when I saw that picture, I thought that that was a new rendering of It is. Okay. But that
doesn't match with what this is. There's two. There's two What? That's the same picture. No, it Oh, okay. It just looks similar. Oh, those
are the pictures. I submitted the pictures with the application. Sarah put them online. Where did I put them online? Okay. Same same. There are two pictures just at different angles. Slightly different. Okay. Thank you. So, um the reason I asked about the picture
is because that looked that did look uh shorter, smaller. Now, you did say that you've made um changes of I think over a thousand square feet, 1189 square feet. Can you be more specific with what changed because I didn't have the before
and after u rendering so I couldn't really see what changed? Um I know building coverage only changed a little bit. And the reason I'm asking is because we spent an hour at our hearing in December and we were very specific about criteria 2 and I I just
don't know what's changed from a visual perspective. So I must be missing something. Well, the uh when you say what changed you indicated
the the sideline setback to the east has not changed. Okay. The sideline setback on the west side is now uh 29 ft out of 25 ft. So, so the building is at
least 4T shorter than the previous building. I didn't Okay, I didn't uh you know measure the whole building, but now it's one corner uh that was formerly 25 is now 27. Another corner
that was 25 is now 29. So, I think the the um the whole building is is small. That's how we, you know, and of course it's all three levels, you know, basement and the first two levels. That's where you get, it doesn't take much of a change to get
down to 1,200 square ft, more or less. Okay. One more question. Is I noticed that the attic is or the over the garage has changed from what was before a game room and now it's called an attic. Is an attic still counted in gross floor area?
I believe if it's got ceiling height, it would be counted. I mean, as far as I know, we included the number in our Okay, that's what I wanted. Application. Okay, thank you. Questions, Steve? Um, no, Bill's already attempted to answer the question I was going to ask.
All right. The differences. Um, I just wanted to um point out that um on the plans prior, um the house was in a different location, right? So they have shifted the whole footprint of the house. Well,
except that the the easterly sideline setback has remained 25 ft. Yes, exactly. Westly side, but they've shifted it forward. So that that's that's fine. But I've also noticed that there was a decrease by two feet of the
master of the primary bedroom. Right. that might account for some of the um differences in square footage in the gross gross floor area. Paul questions.
Let me just come back to that uh space over the garage. Then uh we've gone from calling that uh a game room to attic storage. Is there any other change in that room? Sorry, what? Um, is there any other
change to that room? Yes. Is that is it the same the same the same spot? It's not going to be finished. It's just not going to be finished. That's correct. It'll have heat and so forth. No, it's not it's not going to be finished. So,
will it have heat? No. Okay. I mean, some it might be finished someday. They'd have to go get a building permit to finish it. Uh-huh. I see. Okay. And uh as I look at your
chart on gross floor area, um I think you indicated you'd come down by 1,200 square feet. Uh but you're still at uh 6,554 square feet, right? That's correct. And in compar so before that
you were at 7700 square feet. Yes. And um at 7,700 square f feet, it would be the largest house of the whole uh area that you're showing on Bcliff Avenue. As it is right now, it is the uh
second largest house, right? And the you know, but I mean that's not a standard. I mean, in other words, if the house fits on the lot, which this house clearly does because we're reducing our coverage
from 8.7, which is already substantially below the maximum to 8.4. So, I don't personally I don't think it matters where we rank in the neighborhood. He was just asking I'm just trying to clarify it. That's all. Okay. You you provided the chart that
showed this. I just wanted to make sure I understood it. Okay. Okay. Um, I think that's the only question I had. Mr. Nixon, you have questions? He doesn't. Mr. Uh, no questions. And Mr. Ve,
I'm just curious, Bill. doesn't affect my how I intend to vote or anything, but um there's a fairly I just noticed there's a fairly significant size tree um that's there next to it's kind of next to the existing house and um it
looks like that's not been chosen to u to uh be saved and I was just curious there was a reasoning for that. Are the trees going to be retained? What's that? Yeah. Yeah. I mean, there were yeah, there were a number of trees that indicated on the landscape plan
that were going to be retained, which I think is great. Uh, and I think was an improvement. I just curious what there's there's a really large mature tree out there now that doesn't look to me like it would interfere with the construction of the house. I was just curious as to
uh but I guess I didn't really expect that you would have an answer to that. So, well, we haven't discussed the trees. So maybe maybe it could be saved. Maybe it could be saved. Perhaps it could be saved. Yeah, that's all. Yeah, thanks. That's good. Um and I I don't have any
questions either. So Paul, I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. Uh David seconds and vote yes. I vote yes. All votes yes. Jenny votes yes. As do I. Okay. Deliberations. Um, Ed,
um, as as one of the few guys who likes scamrells, uh, I I actually think it's a it's a beautiful plan. It's it's a large lot. It's one of the larger lots in that area and, uh, the house sits far back off of the the
streetscape. I I think it's a beautiful house and I think it'll fit in properly into the neighborhood and I would support it. And Mr. Yeah, I would agree. Uh I I think uh the first time around I indicated that I could probably support it. Uh I think they've made some improvements. It's
only a slight change, but um I don't think it's substantially more detrimental to neighborhood at all, and I will support it. All right. And Steve, um no, I'm glad to see that um you know, you were able to make a few concessions about the the coverage and work things
out with the neighbors. So um um I would support it. and Lee. Yeah, I agree with my colleagues with the um slight changes. I I don't think it's going to be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Jenny, I don't know about that.
I I went back and watched the hearing from December. We spent an hour, literally an hour discussing the scale and mass of this house. Criteria 2 was specifically mentioned. I appreciate that a couple
changes have been made. I'm I'm frankly I'm struggling. Is it enough given how much we talked about it not fitting in the neighborhood at that size. I was a little disappointed when I saw that very little changed. But it is now not the largest house according to your sheet
which it was last time. It's the second largest and it is tucked in there. Um it's a nice plan. So I uh those are my deliberations. Okay, Mr. Nixon.
Well, compared to what we had before, um I think the changes that have been made answered my concerns 100% no, but a lot. So, is this substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood? I don't
think it is because as been mentioned by others, the way it's tucked in the back, it is not visible from the street. It's not visible from a number of the homes around for one reason or another. And
the protection that Mr. Rally's client is willing to provide for a neighbor, uh, I think is good faith and I'll be voting for it. And I will as well. And I I think that the conditions that um
Attorney Lichfield outlined should be part of the part and parcel of our finding if if you would agree to that. And uh so we'll take a vote and uh let me uh if I can't uh Madam Chair, just let me just chime in. Uh I also uh think
that the changes that have been made are are not huge, but they are in somewhat uh along the line of what we tried to suggest. So, uh, I will be voting in favor also. Sorry, Paul. Sorry. I'm realizing you there. Yeah, you're I'm
always thinking Ela. All right, Miss Fenwick. Um, did you make it your mind up? Um, well, I said I was struggling, but Okay, you can struggle for a few more minutes. Yeah. No, no, I I I think um the additional
concession of the trees, that screening was really important to the neighbor, and I had uh overlook that. So I I think I could support it. All right, Paul. Okay, I will uh uh move to approve the application uh as submitted um with the
uh standard conditions of all construction activity and vehicles 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 would be between
8:00 a.m. and 5:00 pm only. Additionally, I think that this is a large lot and we have plenty of room and I think we should be able to work through the summertime, right? Well, let's see what people think. Should should they be able to work through the summertime? Let's not
aheads. Who thinks they should be able to work in the summer? Does anyone you two do? Anybody else? You do. So, that's three. I'll go along with that. Um, so Paul. All right. So we'll
uh are you suggesting that we want to eliminate any of the between June 30th and Labor Day? So exterior construction will be allowed that no work that will be permitted will no still have no work permitted on weekends, but construction activity between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. only.
That's also correct, right? Uh so exterior construction would be allowed between June 30th and Labor Day. And then additionally uh that the applicant will plant and maintain a total of 16 Green Giant Arbite eyes along the
property line in accordance with their agreement with uh the neighbor uh represented by Mr. Lechfield. Thank you. David seconds and votes yes. I vote yes. All votes yes. Jenny Jenny votes yes as Dwight. It's unanimous.
Congratulations. Thank you very much. All right. Next we have 25-019 Charles and Jennifer Inglefield care of Strong Tree Engineering and this is about 25 Bobb's
Lane. Do we have somebody here for this application and that person is online? And um first we're going to have Sarah read the uh advertisement and then we will uh get to the applicant. Application number
25-019 Charles and Jennifer Englefield care of Strong Tree Engineering PO Box 62 Sagamore Beach 02562 owners of property located at 25 Bobby's Lane also shown in the town of Chadam's assessor's map 3C block 81 lot
EAS2 the applicant seeks to enlarge extend or change a conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the construction of an addition the proposed addition will comply with all bulk and dimensional requirements of the bylaw but is considered a substantial alteration and under the second except 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 1,280 ft 11.3% and the proposed building coverage is 1,423 ft 12.6% where 15% is the maximum
allowed. the law is non-conforming and that it contains 11,330 ft where 20,000 ft is required in an R20 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5 v of protective bylaw.
Okay, our applicant uh representative is online DL I believe. Um can you hear me? Um loud and clear. Can you hear me? Not loud but clear. I hardly ever hear and we only see the
top of your face starting with your nose. So, um, yeah, this this is pretty straightforward as you can. Can you make your volume a little bit louder? Yeah, that'll be helpful. I think that's about it for me. Better.
Thank you. So, welcome. Um, I was kind of surprised when we went to ZBA just, you know, I've been doing this over 40 years and I understand we're under the, you know, the total lot with, you know, 20 20,000 square feet in a in the R20
zone there, but um, you know, we're we're conforming all other ways. We're inside the setbacks and we're still under the coverage. It pretty much goes along with what's in that neighborhood. I personally was out there a couple times. Um, but that's why we're we're
talking to you. Um, our plan. There you go. You have it on the screen. It it fits in there um pretty well. And if everybody anybody's been out there, that's a lawn there. There's nothing really covering it to the street or to the side. So, any questions you all
have? Oh, I'm sorry. Do you believe the size of the site is um and the is adequate for this project? Yes, ma'am. And it's compatible u with neighbor neighboring properties? Yes, ma'am. And and you don't have any
um increase in any non-conformities? Um the site is suitable? Yes. Yes, ma'am. Um what about the impact of scale sighting and mass on neighborhood visual character including views, vistas, and streetscapes? you
feel you meet that criteria? Yes, ma'am. And and mostly because on that side of the property, there are trees over there and then it if you would the if you look on our survey the plot the contours go up. It's it's a fairly good gradient
uphill from that. So, it really kind of protects it from being hidden from the people in the back. And then, of course, it's just the street on the front there. Okay. And so, you're no closer to the neighbors, you're no closer to the road. And this is about putting a bathroom in.
Is that accurate? Yes. Yes, ma'am. Okay. So, is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application? If so, please make that known. Seeing none, we have one note from our health agent and that was
received on um May 6, 2025, and she has no concerns about this application. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wish to speak against this application or has a specific question? If so, please raise your hand. Seeing none questions from the
board. Are there any? No. Okay. Paul have no questions. I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. Dave seconds and votes yes. I vote yes. All votes yes. Jenny votes yes. As do I. So, uh,
deliberations. Um, Judy, great project. Um, I think the addition on the side makes complete sense and love the pool. I know they're not here for the pool, but um, I I would support it. Very good. And yeah, same thing. I think this is pretty harmless and not
detrimental to anybody. Lee, I agree with my colleagues. It meets her criteria and it's a great project. And Mr. Nixon, I agree. This is not in any way substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Actton, uh, yes, meets
our special permit criteria and I would be voting yes, Mr. V. And I agree with all previous. We'll go back to Paul for his opinion and then the motion. I I agree with my colleagues. Uh, I will also uh in the affirmative. I'll move to
approve the application as submitted uh with I think the standard conditions. Uh all construction activity uh and vehicles uh shall be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner between June 30 and Labor Day. No exterior
construction will be allowed. No work will be should be shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. only. Uh David seconds and votes yes. I vote yes. All votes yes. Jenny votes yes. As to why it's unanimous. Congratulations.
Thank you for coming. All right. Next we have application 25-018 200 meeting house realy trust um and this is represented by attorney William Riley and this is for a variant
so Sarah please read the uh advertisement application number 25-018 Chattam 200 meeting house realy trust car William Fryley Esquire PO box 707 chattam mass 02633 owner of property located at 200
Leading House Road, also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 4F, block 43, lot T25. The applicant seeks dimensional variance from the required setback for stairs that were constructed 1.3 ft from the southerntherly butter where a 5-ft setback is required. The
property contains 24,655 ft within the industrial zoning district. A dimensional variance is required under Mass General Law Chapter 48 section 10 and section 8D2C of the protected bylaw. Mr. Riley. Uh, good
afternoon. Bill Riley on behalf of Molly McGregor, the uh, the owner of the property at 200 Meeting House Road. The this is a variance request and for those of you are familiar with those, we
usually are bending ourselves double trying to get the lot to be some sort of unique situation. uh but I learned uh as a result of research which is always an amazing thing what we can learn is that
the uh there has been a carveout by our supreme judicial court and followed by the uh the appeals court in several decisions uh where safety is an issue. The uh
so although these stairs are not required by the building code, the property owner felt that having a second means of egress from the building was important, you know, from the second floor if there should be a
fire that would be block them from going down to the first floor. the uh the building had been built. So, it was built right to the setback lines on both sides. There's a house in front of it.
There's an old well, not a house. There's an office building in front of it that prevents the staircase from being located uh on the meeting house road side of the property. On the on the back side of the property, we have required parking
spaces that can't be blocked by the staircase. they're required by the planning board and site plan approval. So they located the stairs on the side within the setback. Um and what the what
our courts have found uh is that without necessarily regard to the lot itself um if there are safety considerations that qualifies as a hardship.
Uh the most recent case was decided in the appeals court and it had to do with a shipyard boatyard up in Salem, Mass. And the the uh and so it was a large area had a large open space in it.
And they were there was an old quanset hut where they used to do their marine repair and that was located more or less in the middle of the lot. and they wanted to remove that building, have a more modern building where they could do more work, work on larger
boats. Uh, and they proposed to put the building within the sideline setback of the lot even though the open space was over 150 ft wide uh, and provided parking and other space.
The justification for the grant of the variance was that um the boatyard used a thing called a travel lift. I don't know how familiar you are with boatyards. Travel lift is
generally a large uh mechanical device they use to pick up boats and move them around. So, it's a rectangle frame with a couple of straps and they can pick up large boats and move them. And the the uh the
applicant in that case said that the u if there was more room for the travel lift to operate, it would be safer for patrons of the boatyard. And so uh the judge in that instance, the land court judge found
that that qualified as a hardship and granted the variance. The anuter appealed who was the next door neighbor. And so went up to the appeals court and the appeals court said, "Well, our Supreme Judicial Court
uh has determined in other instances that safety uh without necessarily any regard to the shape of the lot, but the safety having to do with the use of the property can be a hardship." and they referenced a case from
1972, Joseph's versus the zoning board of appeals of Brooklyn, where there was a a uh a loading dock that had a required height of 14 ft and it would be a very unsafe
uh thing because the uh it would be a very steep slant down to the the grade and it would be unsafe for people to work on. And so that sort of established the idea that safety
uh is a hardship. And neither the Joseph's case nor this case of furlong uh versus the zoning board of appeals of Salem uh referenced, you know, the shape of the lot. They just pointed out the way
the lot was used uh qualified for a variance because the way the lot was proposed, you know, the way the buildings were proposed to be put on the property would be safer for the patrons of the yard. the
um you know and that's kind of in line with uh there's another case called Marishalian uh versus Nubber report uh and that's that was an instance where that they allowed a a hotel to be built
and it was short 595 parking spaces. Uh ordinarily you say well there wasn't enough room and not having enough room is not a hardship that arises out of the so shape of topography of the lot. They said oh but it would make the
project uneconomical and so they granted a variance. So the what we have here is if you've seen the building, you know, it's a personal storage building and there's
one staircase from the second floor down to the first floor, then out onto the property. If there were to be a fire that would prevent people from going down that one staircase, uh they would be trapped up there. And
so the owner felt it was really important to provide a second means of egress. Uh there's correspondence uh from Bob Stello who's the neighbor immediately adjacent and he has no objection to this and
where you know the there's no uh mass so to speak in the staircase. It's just a fra open frame staircase. Uh, you know, I think that you could say that, yeah, just an open frame
staircase that where safety is an issue. Uh, you could find that with the location of the parking in the rear and the building that's located in the front, the only place to put these stairs would be on one side or the
other. And the building was built to the setback line. which you know in retrospect you know perhaps should have been done but where safety uh by itself is a hardship I think you
could grant the variance because it's clearly not uh a substantial deriggation of the purpose and intent of the bylaw I mean as I say it's just an open frame staircase and the the uh and not only is it not a detriment to the public good
but We think that from a safety point of view, it's an advantage and so we'd ask you to consider that as a hardship in the grant of variance. Thank you. Thank you. Um, is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in
favor of this application? Seeing none, I will read the correspondence. There are two. Um, first we have a note from our health agent and she tells us on uh May 6,
2025 that um this application Oh, let's see. Um, will be heard at the May 8th Oh, no. I'm sorry. I'm reading the wrong part. I have no concerns regarding the setback variance. Robert Stello tells us in his
own handwriting. So, we'll see if I can read it. May 6, 2025 that he wants to express his favorable agreement for allowing the stairway located at 200 meeting house uh to remain in its present location. Being
a builder, I feel just for safety reasons, it's important to have an egre egress options. I realize we have zoning regulations and the stairways increasing on these requirements. Um I as the most affected by being the adjacent of
Butterfield, the structure serves a purpose and does not harm our property. The structure is well built and adds to the overall look of the new building. The staircase is basically there for an emergency use. I support this appeal as a builder. Sincerely, Robert Stello. So,
anybody here on Microsoft Teams that's opposed to this or has a specific question? No. All right. Um, questions from the board, Mr. Vch? No, I have no questions. Oh, actually, I wanted to go to our building
commissioner because I know he has some opinions and comment on this. Please, uh, J Briggs, I'll try not to put my opinion in there, but um, I looked at the building code when this came to light when we got the final as built, and I don't see that it's required by the building code as Mr. Riley uh,
stated. Um, and the building code is based around safety. So you can say that it's a safety issue, but building code is there for the purpose of safety primarily. Um, if the safety was a concern, the building could have been shrunk four feet. So you could have
fitted in there and then still met the setback or I still think that it could possibly go at the back of the building, the west side of the building towards meeting house and meet a setback. Uh, it should have been identified on the site plan that we we received when we permitted the project.
It was not shown on the site plan and um that's all I wanted to say. So when was the building built? Do you have that information? I didn't bring up. No, but it was it was it was just recently completed. It was just completed and they're looking for the certificate of occupancy. Okay. And I
went out and did a site visit and I happened to see the the stairway. Okay. Very good. Yeah. We Jay wouldn't issue the CO until we filed this application. Okay. Um Ed, questions? Uh yeah. Um, this is one lot. And are are the is
200 meeting house and the storage building the same owner? I'm sorry. What are both buildings owned by the same person? Yes. So, um, why couldn't the staircase just go towards the 200 meeting house road?
Uh, it seems like it it could have easily been put onto that property instead of on the side. It could easily my I guess there's no answer. The next question I guess is if it's just for emergency egress, is it going to be
alarmed and and you know have a typical you know to be used in emergency only and be an alarmed door or is it going to be used for other things potentially? My understanding is going to be alarmed. It is okay. Thank you, Mr. Nixon. I have no
questions. Paul questions. Well, just by way of a comment, it would be helpful if we got this memo in advance of the hearing because and frankly I spent a lot of time trying to figure out how I could come up with a solution that would not
create a disaster here because clearly there's no qualification for a uh a variance under any of the standard conditions. At least I don't think so. uh given the uh topography uh given the configuration of the lot um it doesn't
fit any of the normal standards and I had somewhat the same question about why it's couldn't simply go towards 200 meeting house road I realized that it might not be attractive or be exactly where you want it but well there there are parking spaces in the front they
wanted to preserve as well including a handicap spot there are parking places. You mean on the pine tree uh side of On the meeting house roadside? On the meeting house road. If you look on the site plan, there's a handicap spot right I think where you're suggesting it
would it would go. Well, there's plenty of room to create parking on on the meeting house side, right? Yeah. Okay. Um so anyhow, uh so I haven't looked at these cases. Uh, I assume what you're saying is correct and I I have no reason to doubt it.
Um, and I guess that's a an exception that you would provide for a dimensional variance. Uh, so I guess it answers my questions. Okay, Lee, questions. Would it be
possible to create a new door on the on the back side of the building and put the stairs on the back side? Well, we again we run into the parking spaces that are required by the uh the planning board. This is the plan that went to the
building department for the building permit that shows the parking spaces at the Commerce Park side for the unit as well as the parking spaces for the building on the meeting house roadside. Okay.
Um, is that answered? Okay, Steve, questions. Um, I think my question was probably answered by Jay. I was going to ask if this stairway was built as part of the original um or under the original building permit with the building or if this was some
sort of an afterthought that had to be permitted on its own. And it kind of sounds like uh the last second. Yeah. Yeah. This this was this was this was you know after the building was built they realized there was no second means of egress and so that's
when they came up with the idea of sticking the stairs there and Jenny questions. Yeah that was actually my question because this is what was submitted to the planning board. It never needed to go to zoning because it met the five foot setback right and the
stairs are not there. So it was never it was an afterthought. Um so a question is would the planning board I mean when you can you just clarify when you say they're requiring these parking lot parking are they like literally requiring there to be I didn't Yeah. I
didn't go through the the uh the criteria but the the planning board the zoning bylaw has a has a requirement for parking spaces right on the based on square feet of the building. And I assume that okay those are the spaces that were required. So if
if if stairs had not been an afterthought and had been and been put on the side where that like number seven is the planning board may have approved it still just they so they maybe could still go in the front I guess is my question for
you. Okay. Thank you. So um I just want to clarify and I'm not accusing you or anything but I didn't notice that you gave us any argument whatsoever as to number one in the variance requirements owing to circumstances relating to soil
conditions shape or topography of the land or structures especially affecting such land structures but not affecting generally the zoning district. I I just want to clarify, we didn't hear anything, did we? Did I miss it? Correct. Because the the the uh the cases that I cited, particularly the uh
the furlong case, which is a 2016 case, uh the court found that there was a hardship. Yep. Based on based on safety without any regard to those criteria. So Oh, without any
regard to any of them. So I I understand. I just wanted to make sure I understood your argument. No, that's Yeah. And when you tell us that it's a fire issue, you know, that makes us all now we have to lay awake at night wondering if we're going to read in the paper that somebody got caught and burned to death because we said no to
this. You know, that's doesn't sit right. I don't like that. Um I'm just wondering why they didn't just put the stairs on in the first place and and make the building a little smaller and everybody would have been happy. You know, it's disappointing. Can you agree with that? That it's disappointing.
Well, you know, you're supposed to think these things through before you start, right? Yeah. You know, if we say no to this, measure twice, cut once kind of thing. You know, I understand. But realistically, if we say no, then you're going to have to take those stairs down and then figure out a
plan B. Is does that sound right? I guess so. Yeah. Okay. And and also you realized afterwards, oh, we don't have a way to get out, but you you also weren't under the impression you had to have a
separate exit because the laws don't require in this particular building, right? Yeah. They knew they knew from their architect that they did not did not require a second means of egress. Yeah. But then they went and put the stairs on anyway. Well, right. I mean,
they just did. They were concerned. Yeah. Okay. Okay. That that makes sense. Um Jay, please. Jay Briggs, building commissioner. There are two means of egress on the building. They're on the front of the building. Um there's a set of double doors and then this a single door. So the building has two means of
egress. Um this is just an additional egress that they put in. So So we can sleep. Well, I'm just, you know, like you say, if something happened, but what if the fire blocks that stairway, too, and you needed another stairway on the other side, one out the west? You know, I mean, this too, then
that's good to know. It meets the building code as is, as far as I can tell. Right. Right. Okay. Yes. Um, Mr. Actton has another comment. So, so is there two sets of stairs to the second floor or just one set of stairs? One set of stairs. One set of stairs, two means
of egress, right? Two door, two egress doors on the first floor. Yeah. There's only one set of stairs from the second floor. There's two There's two ways to get out. If you're on the first floor, there's two ways to get out. Okay. If you're on the second floor, there's only one way to get out.
Okay. But that sounds normal. Yeah, it does. Um, miss the travel distance from the furthest part to go down the one stairway and out the front door is 100 ft. The design engineer said the maximum allowable is 250 ft. So, it falls well within the
egress travel distance required by the building code. So, they didn't need to do that. Okay. Just wanted to clarify. I didn't say I was going to vote no. Uh but anybody else have any No. So, we'll close the hearing. Paul, well, just before we do that, I had one other question to Bill. Bill, are you saying
that the uh when we talk about the criteria for the variance that the first criter under the cases that you've come up with uh the first criteria is not an issue? It wasn't an issue for the courts that
decided those cases. The first case was decided by the SJC. Second case was divided was decided by the the appeals court citing the Joseph's case which was the 1972 case. But was it not an issue because there
were circumstances relating to soil conditions, shape or topography not generally affecting other such land? No. So it wasn't just the question of whether there was a a hardship. It was also they the description of the property in the Salem case which is the
2016 case where they put the building within the setback so it would have more open space to operate the travel lift. It was clear from the description of the property that this was a large
boatyard that had a space 150 ft clear where they could work on boats and move boats around with the travel lift. But they they put the building within the setback and the the reason they cited
that was they thought it was safer for the patrons with this travel if moving around and that the court supported that. I mean it it was clear from the description that there was nothing about the property as we t typically talk
about soil shape or topography. this was strictly a safety issue and they and so the the difference here is and this is something I know you've heard from Mr. Ford because I've heard him say it, you know, when you're talking about a dimensional variance,
you know, the courts uh have an easier time uh finding uh relship. It's hardship for that one. And and we're talking about number one, the you know the soil conditions things. Paul Paul was asking
you how are you getting away with not answering to number one and you're saying that that case didn't address number one so we don't have to because there's a safety issue. Right. Right. So what the court said the court said safety the safety issue makes it a
hardship. I Yeah. But we still didn't address number one. But that's okay. Uh we we get it. Okay. We get it. All right. And I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. Uh David seconds and votes yes. I vote yes. Paul votes yes. Jenny votes yes as do I.
So let's see. Paul, what do you think? Well, uh I I guess I will given the overall concept of uh we've got we've got a staircase which is very usable and obviously will provide some safety uh
attraction. Uh, do I like the whole situation and the way it arrived? No. Uh, but, uh, based on what I'm hearing and based on the case laws provided by by Mr. Riley, um, I will vote favorably.
David Vch. Uh, I I will I I agree with Paul. Um, and I will um accept Mr. Riley's reasoning. Um I think that there is a possibility
that this staircase could be moved but it would be an expense to do that and I don't think that and and moved in such a way that it could meet the setbacks but um I I don't I think that where it's
located it's done it's it is a safer it is safer than if we're if it were not there. Um, the neighbor hasn't have a problem with it. I can find that it meets the criteria and will support it.
Ed, if you were voting, Yeah. I I guess despite the bad taste in my mouth, um, I I probably would vote for it. I feel like it it could be moved. And I feel that the location it's in now creates
another safety issue because when I was out there, you can hardly get around it. And there's a five- foot setback there for a reason. And now this large steel staircase is, you know, it doesn't totally block you getting around the
building, but it certainly would slow people down if they were trying to get away in a hurry, but given the fact that it's already there, it it does improve the safety. My practical solution would be to grant the variance.
Jenny. Well, I think that we've established that you could move it west or east, but I am moved by the fact that the owner didn't have to add it and he did for safety reasons. I mean, he was it wasn't like, oh, he built it and then he
couldn't get his occupancy because he didn't have it and he stuck it on the side. So, I you know, and Mr. Riley's case law uh to you know 1972 and then a more recent one 2016 and I want to sleep at night and not worry about it. So I
would support it. You will? Okay. Steve, would you? No. Okay. Um I think because it's it's unpermitted. Um it's a very well-built stair. Um and whoever built it should have known better that they needed a
building permit to do something like that. And I think it does create a hazard to get around. If the fire truck pulled in the back of that building, they wouldn't be able to get around that side of the building. So, I think it creates a safety hazard
um rather than prevent one. So, and the stairway can be installed somewhere else on the building. Yep. We um Well, if I were voting, I I would probably approve it as well. I I don't think it meets our criteria for a variance. um honestly, but I'm in favor
of um a safety measure and as Jenny said, um the owner built it, you know, in good faith and and with the best intentions. So, okay, Mr. Nixon, well, as Mark Carney said to Mr.
Trump, never. This is another good example of an error. And instead of correcting the error and doing the right thing, let's go to the saps on the zoning board of appeal and maybe if we get the tears
flowing down their cheeks, they'll let you get away with it. No. As we just heard from Steve and Ed mentioned this, that thing is a safety hazard where it is. It easily can be unbolted. You put a new pad either in the front or the back.
and I parked on the meeting house side and a lot of room between myself and the building there's tons of room to put it there on as far as the back what you were talking about you know with all those barriers that have been put up there you could fit this in between you
wouldn't have to move any parking spaces so I just can't see that this deserves any kind of a variance and u we should say No. Now, if you worry about
safety, move it because it'll be a lot safer in the front or the back. Thank you. Yep. And uh I'm not going to vote in favor of it. So, do you want us to vote or I mean I can tell you why, but everybody's that has said no. Mr.
Nixon and and Steve, I agree with them. Um and I now I'm not going to sleep because there's not any room to get around it. So, I'm going to pick that one. Well, the uh uh I think what we'll do is uh we'll
withdraw without prejudice, please, and circle the wagons and figure out what we're going to do. Great. Great. Good choice. Thank you. I'll move to grant the motion to withdraw without prejudice. Uh David seconds and votes yes. I vote yes. All votes yes. Jenny
votes yes. As do I. Thank you for coming. All right, moving along. Next, we have 157 Sam Ryder Road, Fay and Fay Anderson and
Brock Barbasync, 25-020 Sarah, when you're ready. Application number 25-020 FA Anderson and Brock Bobby Sync, owners of property located at 157 Sam Ryder Road. Also shown on the town of Cadam's assessor's map 6F, block 21, lot
M16. The applicant seeks to enlarge, extend, or change a conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the construction of an addition. The proposed addition will comply with all bulk and dimensional requirements of the bylaw, but is considered a substantial alteration. And under the second except 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 1,52 ft, 7.8% and the proposed building coverage is 1,15 ft, 8.2% where 15% is the maximum
allowed. The lot is non-conforming and that it contains 13,557 square ft where 30,000 ft is required in the R30 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law, chapter 48, section 6 and section 5B of the protected bylaw.
Welcome, FA Anderson, I presume. Yes. Yeah. So, so welcome. Um, we got I think we received some written findings from you if I'm not mistaken on this one. Did we? Uh, I don't know what a written finding is. You passed something in with some words
on it about this application. Yeah. Didn't you? Is that this? Yeah, you did. You did that. Very good. Very good. Thank you. And so we all receive that and um so that has the the criteria. Do you want to go over the ones like one, two, and four per perhaps um and just
tell us that why your application meets those criteria? Um sure. Uh we are doing a a small mudroom and it is a mere 0.4% 4% um that we are adding
to this a whole 53 square feet to make this tiny little mudroom. Um it's officially 4 by13 and it's sandwiched in between the house and the front setback line. um but staying
within the parameters of not needing a variance and we are not going to impact our neighbors um in any way and you basically won't even notice this happened because we have way too large of leel and cypress trees in front of
our house that block seeing the front of our house anyway. Um but it also can't really be seen from any of the neighbors and it's again very small. It's not going to make our house look much bigger at all because again, you will barely
notice it. And we'll easily uh fill it up and wish we made it bigger. Yeah. All right. Um and what was the other one you wanted me to speak about? Four. Was it four? We're not going to impact the environment. Um no, there's a little bit
of plantings there right now that I'm just going to relocate in the back of our yard. Um so I'm not taking out any trees. I'm just moving them around. I think you did a great job. Thank you. Plus, again, we have the written findings, so um we'll we'll let you off the hook. Okay. And uh is there anybody
here on Microsoft Teams that wish to speak in favor of this application? If so, please make it known. Seeing none, um I will read the correspondences. We have a note from the health agent as usual and then
um someone named Farwell. Let's see. The health agent has no concerns and she told us that on May 6th. And then Mary Fwell, she owns the property at 157 Ryder Road. CM Rider Road. No, that's Austin. Sorry.
Oh, 38 West Pond in Chattam. I apologize. They're abs. And um they say that you've improved the property tremendously and they have no objection to the proposed addition. They're in full support of your application. Is there anybody here
in Microsoft Teams that wish to speak against this application or has a specific question? No. Are there any questions from the board? No. I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. Dave each
seconds and vote yes. Yes. All votes yes. Jenny votes yes. As do I. Okay. Um deliberations. Dave each. We'll just go this way. Uh this is uh certainly not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. It's actually an
improvement. Uh and uh we'll looks like it belongs there. So I'll support it. Very good, Ed. I I I agree. I think it'll be a nice little mudroom and I agree. You'll probably think it's too small and not too long of time. Meets
all our criteria. Yep. Paul, how can we deny something whose email is fishing fay? I don't think we can. Well, we need it for all our boots. There you go. We're mostly commercial fishing family. I see. No problem. This is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. All right. And uh Jenny, I
mean, I'm sorry. Yeah, Jenny. Oh, sorry. Sorry, Lee. Yeah. Uh meets our criteria and I I love a covered entry. So, I think that it's um it's a great plan. Isn't that a fancy name? Portico, right? Covered entry. That That is No, isn't it portico? I learned that from you.
Portico. That is another word for it. Yeah. Yeah. I like that. Yeah. Okay, Steve. It won't be feeling fancy when you go in. It'll have a lot of boots. I I think this is a fine pro. You should have asked maybe for the bigger one. It's always easier to go smaller. We I
have to tell you, there was a lot of fighting um in our home trying to decide what to do, but doing it on the other side of the house made more sense because we could make it bigger, but I don't want to limit the possibilities of a future like garage- bigger mudroom scenario on the other side. So, okay.
But this makes sense for now. Good. And Lee, um, no issues. Meets our criteria. All right. Paul, I'll move to approve the application as submitted. I don't see a need for any conditions. Gave you seconds and votes yes. I vote yes. All votes yes. Jenny votes yes. As do I.
It's unanimous. Congratulations. Thank you. Have a nice no conditions mean we can work through the summer. Yes. Okay. Great. You can start as soon as this application is approved officially, right? Through the channels. Great. Thank you. Not tomorrow but I don't.
Okay. So now we have 40 marketplace Jeffrey S. Dykens revocable trust of 2017 care of William M. Norcross Esquire Sarah application number
25-021 the Jeffrey S. Dikens revocable trust of 2017 care of James M. Norcross, Esquire, PO Box 707, Chattam, Mass 02633. Owner of property located at 40 Marketplace, also shown in the town of Chadam's assessor's map AE block 1P, lot
C78. The applicant proposes to construct a single family dwelling in a GB3 zone, which requires the grant of a special permit. The proposed lot coverage is 2,490 ft, 23.5% where 60% is the maximum allowed.
The lot is conforming with 10,600 square feet of buildable upland where 10,000 square feet is required in the GB3 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law Chapter 48A section 9 and sections 3C 4C26 and
8D2B of the protective bylaw. Welcome attorney Norcross. Thank you. Uh Jamie Norcross representing Jeff and Julie Dykins who are in the audience today. Um, so this is a vacant lot uh that has its frontage off of the culde-sac on Marketplace. It's a
panhandle lot. It uh actually abuts uh Jeff and Julie's house at 1745 Main Street. And they've owned this lot for about uh 20 years, but they've taken some time and figuring out what they exactly they wanted to do with it. Um but they've decided now they'd like to go forward to construct a single family
uh home on the property. Uh, as you heard from Sarah, because it's located in the GB3 zoning district, that requires a special permit under your bylaw. The, uh, proposed structure, uh, will meet all dimensional setbacks. Um, we're within the, uh, it's actually
because it's a GB zoning district, it's a lot coverage requirement, which we meet that. Our actual building coverage in terms of the house itself, as opposed to lot coverage, which is driveways and parking areas. Our building coverage for the house is less than 10%. So, it's a a modest structure. it would be a
two-bedroom home. Um, and so is as it is located in general business, there was some consideration to is there a commercial use for the property, but the lot itself really doesn't lend itself to a commercial use given its location, given
its configuration. Um, there's not a lot of space for parking other than in conjunction with a single family home. So, Jeff and Julie really felt that a house is the best fit for this property even though it's in a a GB zoning district. it does have a number of residential structures uh in the immediate vicinity. So, it's really a
mixed area between residential and commercial uh properties. So, moving along to the uh criteria, it's a little bit different again because it's uh under section 8 of your zoning bylaw. Uh number one is adequacy of the site in terms of size of the proposed use. Uh
again, I'd suggest the site is adequate. The house meets all dimensional setbacks. Uh the total building coverage for the house is 9.9%. uh which would be actually well below if this was in an R20 zone uh for example which would be up to 15%. So it's even smaller than what you would see on a lot
of uh residential zoning districts. Uh there is also sufficient area on the site for adequate parking as you see on the site plan prepared by David Clark uh for use as a single family dwelling. Number two, suitability of the site for the proposed use. Again, we believe the site, excuse me, the use of this site as
a single family home is adequate and we also think it's probably the best use uh for this property as opposed to some sort of commercial use. Its lack of visibility from the street, narrow access uh from a panhandle off the marketplace, culde-sac, and limitations
on site for adequate parking for commercial use really lend itself to the best use as that as a as of a single family home. Number three, impact on traffic flow and safety. Uh because this will be a house, there's no negative impact on traffic flow and safety. Uh four, impact on neighborhood visual
character. Again, we believe there'll be no negative impact on neighborhood visual character. Uh the proposed house is modest in size, is located in an area where is not highly visible from the street or from many neighboring properties. I did provide a uh gross floor area analysis. I did not include
any of the commercial structures because that's really an apples to oranges comparison. But in terms of the residential structure, um the numbers are certainly uh compatible and appropriate. Um one subdivision that abuts is Rumson Way. Uh and if you look at the homes there, it's very much in
line with the size of the structures on that uh particular subdivision. Number five, adequacy of methods of sewage disposal, source of water and drainage. Uh the house will be connected to town water and town sewer and has adequate or will have adequate drainage. It will have all necessary
utilities and because of its use as a single family home, I don't think there are any specific public services required for the property. Uh noise and litter again single family home. So no issues or concerns relative to noise and litter. Compatibility uh of the proposed use with surrounding land uses again
while it's in a general business zone. The neighborhood really is a mixture of both residential and uh commercial uses. So, we think it's certainly appropriate and compatible impact on neighborhood, excuse me, on the natural environment, no uh negative impact on the natural environment, and it's not a formula
business. So, that's not applicable. Um, so again, we think it's a a a reasonable proposal. It's a modest structure for the property. It fits on the property. We think it'll be a good use for this property and certainly not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Happy to answer any questions. All right. Thank you so much. Is there
anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application? Yes, sir. This is in favor. Just reminding you. All right. No, wait till you get to the mic.
Sorry, I don't breaks on this thing. All right. So, I wish one of your criteria was what the applicants have done to benefit the community. The Dykans have done nothing but benefit this community. So, I would like to speak um uh in favor of this. Thank you.
Thank you. Anybody else wishes to speak in favor either here or on Microsoft Teams? Seeing none, I will read the two letters that we have. One is from the health agent and one is from HBDC. A health agent tells us on May 6th that um
the property will will be um attached to the municipal sewer and the two bedrooms uh meet the requirement. Um and she has no concerns. Then we have a note from uh let's see HBDC, the Historic Business
District Commission, and on April 16th they met. They rendered the following decision. They voted four to zero approving the construction and conditions that the applicant shall return with a landscape and hardcape plan. The cornerboard shall be 5 and a half inches and the trim shall be four
and a half inches and any changes uh have to then get approved um with a certificate of appropriateness that they require. That concludes the correspondences. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak against this application or has a
question? No. Any questions from the board? Well, we'll go through it. Um, David Beach, questions. I have no questions. Mr. Actton, uh, no questions. Mr. Nixon, no questions. Mr. Simple. Yes, I do have some questions.
Um, am I uh I guess one question I have is uh what is the use at uh 20 and 30 marketplace? Is that uh those both commercial at this point? Uh 30 is the building right in front I believe that's
mixture that's mixed use. That's uh I believe commercial on the first floor and has an apartment or two on the second floor. The and that uh 20 marketplace is actually a single family home. Okay. Um and uh what's going to happen to the
access uh on the easement? Is that going to remain? I I believe so. At this point, yes, the the access um the some of the um vegetation you see there would have to get moved back a bit or cut obviously in terms of fitting vehicles down there, but I think the intent would
be to use the easement that's in place. Would you given the height of the structure, would there be any uh ability to see the the house going looking from marketplace over 30 to the height? Is
that going to is that profile going to be above the roof line? I don't I don't have an answer to that, Paul. My my gut reaction is no, but I don't I mean because the grade uh is lower on the Dykens property than it is on 30 Marketplace, but I don't know. I think it is lower. I think that's correct.
Um, I think those are the only questions I had. Oh, no. Let me let me ask one other question. Is there anything that prevents uh access to the property from uh the Dykan's other property coming up from the backside? Other words, can you just put a driveway
in there and have access to the house? I suppose they could. Yeah. I mean, as long as they continue to own both, nothing prevents it. Okay. Thank you. Lee, no questions. Dave, no further questions. All right. And Jenny, no questions. All right. And I don't have
any questions either. Paul, I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. Dave each seconds and vote yes. Vote yes. Paul vote yes. Jenny votes yes. As do I. Okay. Deliberations. Uh Lee, I think this is a great project. Um,
it's a modest home. Um, there are other, uh, it's a very private location, too. There's other residential houses nearby. I didn't realize it was the Dykans property, but that's great. Um, so I think it meets our criteria.
Steve, I think it's a good project. Um, it's a good use of the of the property there and make a little Dyens compound. Jenny, uh, I have nothing else to add. I agree with my colleagues and uh David
Beachch. Well, um yeah, unlike some of our recent experience, um this is a this is an example of uh where um granting a special permit for residential use in the business zone makes a lot of sense
for a number of reasons that that Jamie has has pointed out. So, um, it certainly is not substantially detrimental in any way. It meets all of our criteria and I will be happy to support it. And Ed, would you? Uh, I
would. Um, it's interesting where the the only place the house can be placed is really in a residential area even though the the access is more of a commercial area. But by the time you get to the placement of the house, it it it's it makes sense to have residential
there in my opinion. So I believe it meets our criteria and just a warning to anyone out on the property. It is full of ticks. I can vouch for that. Oh, that's not good. Mr. Nixon, yeah. It
certainly it certainly is not detrimental neighborhood. Uh I give the dyans credit for tackling the project. It's you need real vision, I think, which I don't have to look at that and say, "Oh, yeah." So, I think it's I
can't wait to see the finished product. Yeah. And it looks like a good place to put your extra family members. Um, and uh I think that's a great idea. And you couldn't, it would be silly to put a business or a mixed use in that spot because who would ever go there? Who
would know? So, yeah. So, they're doing what they can with what they have. So, Paul Um yeah, I I in terms of my view on the thing, I would suggest that uh uh it's different from some other proposals
we've had for residential in a in a business zone. In part because uh I don't know how they the lot was originally approved from a commercial viewpoint because it would be almost impossible to get to to use from a commercial viewpoint and it hasn't been
used for commercial viewpoint in a number of years. Um so I think in this situation it's it's not a commercial lot that can be developed well uh to provide the kind of income we want and uh I
think as a result uh it makes sense to uh to approve a residential in a in a business zone in this situation. So I see it as different and motion I will move uh let me see we have we moved to uh yeah we have moved to do
that. So, I'm going to move to approve the application as submitted. Um, and I guess the question is conditions. When when do we plan to do the construction at this location? It's a couple years. It's kind of an
unknown couple years. Yeah. I I don't see we haven't had any comment from the person at 30, right? I mean, the that's the person that's closest to any construction. That's the 30 and that's the commercial apartment. And then I think the dyans are probably the most affected with the property they currently own. So I think yeah I I don't
think the conditions are necessary in this particular instance. Yeah. And I don't either. I'll pro I'll move to approve the application as submitted. Uh Dave seconds and votes yes. I vote yes. Well votes yes. Genie votes yes as do I. It's unanimous. Congratulations. Thank you very much.
Last but not least, 44 Water View Circle, a deck and screen porch 25-025 whenever sir is ready. Application number 25-025 Damartis Realy Trust Care of Mark
Tatio Esquire 175 Derby Street sweet 30 Hingham Mass 02043 owner of property located at 44 Waterview Circle also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 3D block 64E lot J9 the applicant proposes to change
alter or expand a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the demolition of the existing deck and construction of a new deck and screen porch the existing dwelling is non-conforming and that it is located 26.1 ft from the top of bank. The proposed deck and screen porch will be non-conforming and that they will be
located 26.1 ft from the top of bank where a 50-ft setback is required. The existing building coverage is 2556 ft 17.1% and the proposed building coverage is 25710 ft
18.25% where 15% is the maximum allowed. the law is non-conforming and that it contains 14,959 square feet of buildable upland where 20,000 square feet is required in the R20 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General
Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protected bylaw. Welcome council. Thank you. Good evening. Uh Mark Tatio. I represent the Dionardis Realy Trust. They're the property owners of 44 Waterview Circle. Um, I think Miss Clark laid out the two non-conformities that
will be altered and changed here, which require a special permit under section five of your zoning bylaw. Um, those are one, the lot coverage. The existing lot coverage is one moment.
2556 square feet. Yes, exactly. It's going to be a 1.15 percentage change and that is only due to the fact that the deck that is going to be reconstructed is going to be roofed and there's going to be a seasonal screened in porch there. Uh that's just by definition that
adds to the building coverage and the other nonconformity will be when the deck is reconstructed. It will be placed back in the exact same building footprint. And currently there is a 26.1 ft setback to the conservancy
district uh where a 50-ft setback is required. So it would just be the exact same conditions once the deck is reconstructed. Um I know it's the end of a long agenda so I can run through the 12 criteria or um I can just refer to my letter but I'm happy to do so if you'd like. You can you can skip it. I've
gotten authorization for that by somebody higher than myself. So, um, thank you. We will now say, is there everybody here on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor? If so, please make it known. No. I will read the,
um, letters. We have three. Um, we have a note from our health agent. As usual, she reviewed it. The septic tank appears to be just outside the footprint of the screen porch, and the proposed slab under the porch must not encroach on the
septic tank. Access to the tank must be available. The location of the tank should be marked prior to construction. So just make sure they do that. Understood. Thank you. Yep. And then we have a note from conservation. They were they continued it to May 7th for revisions as
requested. Um and the project will be revised and it will meet the the standards. And that was on April 23rd, 2025 that we got that note. Then there's um something that I don't know if I need to read. Uh it was just from the collector's office
which Mark is aware of it and he's made the owners aware. Very good. Okay. Thank you. That concludes our correspondences. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams wish to speak against or has a question? No. All right. Are there any questions from the board?
No. I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. Dave seconds and vote yes. Vote yes. All votes yes. Jenny votes yes. As do I. Okay. Deliberations. Jenny. Um I think it's a very nice project. It's um uh as Mark mentioned, a
little bit over um the building coverage. It already was, but it's so modest that I believe it meets our criteria and I would support it. Yeah, Steve. I think it's fine. It's it's not creating a further um you know impact on the on the
environment. So, it's it's it's a no-brainer. I agree with my colleagues. I think it's a great project. And Paul, we're particularly good at no-brainers. I would say yes. This is clearly a no-brainer. Thank you, David Nixon. It's
not substantially more adaptive metal than they would, Ed. Yeah. Uh meets our criteria and I would vote for it. Yeah. And I and I think having a screen porch in that location would be a a definite plus. So now I'm going to walk the line
and call it dimminimous. No, but you know a lot of times just so you know and this might be your first time here when you're going over the over we you know causes us concern but given that I just called it dimminimus
it's it's not as concerning. Um so this is going to get approved and uh we're happy to meet you. So Paul, likewise. Thank you. I'll move to approve the application as submitted. U I would think the only condition may be that all construction activity and vehicles shall
be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I would just uh request that you you all wave the uh summertime no construction that I I have not I did not make that a condition.
Understood. Thank you. Thank you. We waved it. Okay. Uh Dave V seconds and votes yes. David Nixon. I vote yes. All votes yes. Guy votes yes. As do I. It's unanimous. Congratulations. We'll see you next time. Thank you. Nice to meet you all. Have a good night. Nice to meet
you. And uh well, we did. All right. What time is it? Time to move at 25 after. So you move to adjourn. What time is it? Wait, you want to stay longer? No. 5:23.
I'll move to adjourn at 5:26. Uh Dave seconds and votes yes. Ed Actton votes yes. Yes. All votes yes. Votes yes. 5:23. So I would make that correction at the official time. So it is officially
5:23 and we are adjourned. All right. Very good. Good night.