Heat. Heat. Yeah, forward. Welcome everyone to today's Town of Cadam Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. The date is January 8th, 2026.
We'll start by having a uh letter read by Paul This meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly hereafter for scheduled and on demand viewing on any smartphone or tablet device. And if if
anyone else is recording the meeting, including the use of AI note takingaking apps, please notify the chair. Okay. Pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28, 2025 signing of chapter 2 of the acts of 2025 extending CO certain
COVID 19 measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law GL 30A section 20 until June 30, 2027. This meeting of the zoning board of appeals is being conducted in person and via
remote participation. Every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided for in the order. A reminder that me persons who would like to listen to this meeting may while in progress may do so by calling
the phone number 1508545 4410 conference ID949897871 hashtag or join the meeting online via Microsoft teams through the link in the posted agenda. While this is a live
broadcast and simal cast on Chattam TV Xfinity channel 1072, despite our best efforts, we may not be able to provide real-time access. We will post a record of this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible. In accordance with town policy, the
public can speak to any issue on the hearing or business item on the agenda during the meeting when recognized by the chair. Procedural steps will be that we will do a roll call uh vote of all the board members to authorize this form of
meeting. And secondly, we will ask if any uh citizens or non-members participating in the call via the phone only identify themselves by their last last name and the last four digits of their phone number for identification purposes.
Hearing notice will be read by the staff. You or your representative presents the appeal or application. Anyone in favor of the appeal or application may speak with a fivem minute time limit. The chair may read or summarize all letters received by the
board. Anyone against the appeal or application may speak or ask a question. Again, a fivem minute time limit. The applicant may rebut testimony. The board members may direct questions to anyone present. The board hears any further information and the board closes the
public hearing. Board then deliberates. The board votes on appeals or application and all votes are taken by roll call. At the end of the meeting, uh the close of the meeting uh will be by verbal confirmation and a note time of the adjournment.
>> Thank you, Paul. >> So, the first thing is we need a roll call to approve this form of meeting. And so, we'll start with David. >> Yes. Uh David H. and I approve of this meeting format. >> Uh, Ed Actton, I approve. >> Paul C simple. I approve.
>> Virginia Fenick, I approve. Lee Hubby, I approve. >> And Dave Nixon, I approve. Uh, first thing on the agenda is we have a couple of board minutes. Uh, let's start with November 24th. Paul.
>> Yes. So, I'll move to approve the minutes of November 24, 2025 as uh drafted. >> Uh Dave seconds and votes yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> Ed, might as well have everybody
involved. >> Ed votes yes. >> Okay. >> Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> I vote yes. Okay. Then we go on to December 4th. Paul. >> Yes. We have the minutes for December 4, 2025 meeting of the board. Um, I'll move to approve those as published.
>> Yeah, I would like to offer a minor correction, but >> Okay. >> Uh, on this is a it's more or less a typo probably on page 13 um near the top of the page under deliberations. uh says me member
commented that the improvements out uh uty I want to substitute u t we e i g h for those two words >> I'll move to approve the application that I'll approve to approve the minutes then as amended
>> uh David seconds and votes yes >> votes yes >> ed votes yes >> yes >> Jenny votes yes >> I vote yes and >> I vote yes okay thank Okay, Sarah, let's go on to our first application
today. Be 25-129, please. >> Application number 25-129, Greg and Susan Shorton, care of James M. Norcross, PO Box 707, Chattam, Mass 02633, owners of property located at 70 Sears Point Lane, also shown on the town of
Chadam's assessor's map, 11 A1, Block 7, lot 5. The applicant seeks a dimensional variance from the 2,850 foot maximum building coverage allowed. The total proposed building coverage is 3,67 square ft. The property contains
31,340 ft in the R40 zoning district. A dimensional variance is required under Mass General Law Chapter 4A section 10 and section 8D2C of the protective bylaw. Under application number 25-130,
the applicant proposes to change, alter, or expand a non-conforming dwelling in a non-conforming lot via the construction of an addition. The existing dwelling is non-conforming and it is located 14.1 ft from the Coastal Conservancy District. The proposed addition will be non-conforming and that it will be
located 14.2 feet from the Coastal Conservancy District where a 50-ft setback is required. The existing building coverage is 2,781 square ft and the proposed building coverage is 3,67 square ft where 20 where 2850 ft is the maximum allowed.
The lot is non-conforming and that it contains 0 feet of frontage where 150 ft is required and contains 31,340 ft where 40,000 ft is required. In the R40 zoning district, a special permit is required under Mass General law chapter 4A section 6 and section 5B of the
protective bylaw. Welcome, Leslie. Welcome, Jamie. We thought we were done with you two, but so didn't you. >> We did, too. >> Yeah, I know you did. So, Jamie, why don't you lead it off and tell us uh why we're into this, we'll call it a little
bit of a fix. >> Sure. So, we were here back in October, as I'm sure you remember, uh, under the, uh, somewhat newly enacted historic preservation incentive bylaw section, uh, that was created back in 2022 that allows for some flexibility with regard
to dimensional requirements under the bylaw if you are preserving a historic structure as part of your project. And in in conjunction with that, the property owner grants a restriction in perpetuity uh, granted to the town of Chad. I'm essentially stating we're not going to change the structure any
further without coming back to the board in terms of any exterior changes. And so that was approved by the board including the restriction. And then subsequent to that meeting, um the preservation restriction that we had submitted as part of our application were submitted
to the town council who determined that because there's a reference in the bylaw section that was created in 2022 that references the state statute governing uh historic preservation restrictions that requires both the restriction itself and the project to be reviewed
and approved by the Mass Historical Commission. And so, um, Sarah reached out to Leslie and I to inform us of this. We and met and discuss. And then Sarah and Katie were, uh, very helpful in organizing a phone call with the a gentleman from Mass Historical
Commission so we could understand the process of what would take place. And we had this zoom call I'd say about a month ago now, and he explained that we sub, it's not just a procedural element. We submit there is a procedural element in terms of we submit the restriction that we drafted for their review by the
commission as well as the plans and they have the authority to uh either approve or deny both the restriction and the plans and if they were to deny the plans and what we're proposing that overrules uh the local approval by the zoning board and the historical commission
meaning the project can't go forward. So, we spoke to him about timing and he said it takes months to get uh the full approval from the historical commission. Uh we asked at that meeting if we could send him copies of the plans to at least get an indication that this is something
that would be approved. He said sure and Leslie and Sarah sent those up right away and as I said that's uh about a month ago now. We haven't heard anything back. So, at this point it's really two issues. There's a timing issue of when would this approval be received months from now and there's an if component because we don't know if the approval
will ever be received. In fact, they could say no. They could say change this, change that, at which point we'd have to go back through the process with the local boards again. So faced with this dilemma and working with staff uh determined that a path forward is through uh this variance application for the project that you've
already approved same plans and everything and to incorporate as conditions into the variance decision if it's granted restrictions that essentially mirror the preservation restriction that you already approved. And so those conditions which have been
reviewed by town council would in effect restrict the property just like the preservation restriction would in perpetuity. Uh the difference is that it's now being done just at the local level and doesn't involve any sort of state review and approval. And I
understand the the language that's included in the uh preservation incentive bylaw. I think the intent as I read it was that was supposed to be a local approval. Um, and I think it sort of defeats the purpose to have the state involved and say, "Well, that's fine
what the what your boards approve, but we think differently." And it was really intended for the local boards on who understand the town, who understand the properties, who understand the structures around here and know there are important structures, there are important properties to make a determination that what's proposed is
appropriate for the neighborhood, it's appropriate for the property, and it's appropriate for the town. And so if this variance were approved, that's what would happen. It would be a local approval. And so we would arrive at the same point as we would through the historic preservation bylaw. We're just
getting there through a different mechanism. >> Okay. Uh is the fix uh something that would have to be taken up at our next town meeting? >> Yes. I think the bylaw would have to be rewritten to remove any reference to the
state statute and make it clear that it's just a local approval and doesn't involve the state oversight. >> Okay, Sarah, is that in the works? Do you know? >> Uh, not at the moment. >> Okay. All right. Okay. Well, I think thank you for that explanation. Sarah,
did you want to add anything to what uh Mr. Nor said? >> No. All of the representations made by attorney Northc Cross are true and accurate. We've we've I have not heard back from Mass Historic either on the project and um it was a little more than
a month ago when we spoke with them met with them. >> Okay. Okay. So, I don't think anything else has to be presented. Okay. >> I think we should go on ordinary thing. So, um, is there anyone here today on Microsoft
Teams that would like to speak in favor? Now, here we're talking about two different things. We got a special permit and a variance, but I think we're rolling it into one ball. Usually, we separate it apart. At any rate, is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor
either here or on Microsoft Teams? No. Okay. that I'll read the correspondence such as it is and again it's applying to both of these first is from Sarah Giorgio board of health. Hi Sarah, I have no concerns regarding the additions and renovations
of the existing five-bedroom dwelling. The existing septic will be reused and that was on January 6th. Then we have a note from Christina Basset. 's staff with the CHC. On January 6th, the CHC found 70 point
historically significant, but the changes did not material diminish its significance, so they did not impose a demolition delay. And then lastly, we have a note from the Conservation Commission on December 22nd, and they write, "The applicant
submitted a notice of intent July 29, 2025. The project was heard by the conservation commission on July 9, 2025, August 27, September 24, all of 2025. The project was issued an order of conditions on November 5th, 2025 when it
was conditioned to meet the performance standards under the wetlands protection act so forth and the town of local wetland bylaw chapter 272. And that is the extent of the correspondence. Is there anyone here today or in Microsoft
Teams that wishes to speak either against this application or has a very specific question? If so, please indicate you'd like to speak. >> No. Okay. Okay. Uh Paul, I think we need to move on.
>> All right. Uh well, I uh Do you want >> with questions? Yeah. >> Okay. I I have no questions. >> Okay. Ed. >> No questions, David. >> Um well, I just I I wondered, Dave, because
I'm um I haven't had a chance to read um um Jamie's present, but I'd be interested in hearing his his um addressing the points of um for variance. >> Okay. >> Okay. Well, we can come back to that.
>> Yeah, if I just cut that's fine. That's fine. Yeah. Thanks. >> Questions. >> Um, one question, Jamie. So, you're familiar with the fact that this property had a variance request in the past for some property. Is does that
impact this variance at all in a favorable way? >> I don't think it makes a difference either way is my understanding. >> Okay. Yeah. Well, my understanding was that that had to do with the ownership and the way the property was transferred. Correct.
>> Um I believe Mr. Lfield can probably reiterate, but I believe it had to do with the unusual shape. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> Okay. >> Actually, that that's what I recall as well. The there was an issue with the >> it is >> topography. Yeah. >> This was a much larger property that was then divided into a very unusual way.
>> Yeah. >> As happens with families, >> right? >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any questions? >> Um, just just one. I haven't had a chance to read through all this either, but the fact that the house is was deemed historic, >> correct? >> Is that in it's a structure, a historic
structure, does that have anything to can that help with the >> I think to to the criteria um everything about this is a hardship. Um I feel that the you know when I voted in town meeting for the preservation incentive, it was to help people because it is very
hard to restore a historic home. it's much easier to build new and it was an incentive. Um, and working with this house and working in a way that they can get space is a huge challenge. Um, and then the the shape of the site itself
makes it even harder how how and where you would expand. >> Okay. Because I think it's not only the um topography or the lot, >> it's the structure. >> Very much. And it's we're very much looking to preserve, you know, as the bylaw says, to preserve historical
architectural character. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh Jamie, back to Dave's question. >> Sure. Um so, as you know, it's a little bit of a different criteria for variance. It's a three-prong test that we have to meet, and I'm going to go in uh reverse order, but the third prong is
uh a determination that the variance will not substantially harm the public good or deriggate from the purpose of the bylaw. I would argue in this instance it's actually uh improving or an improvement to the public interest by allowing for this project on this property, this structure and this
location to be modified in the way that is proposed with these plans is a real benefit um to the town as a whole. I also do not think it derates from the purpose of the bylaw. The variance request is for is because we're 150 square feet over uh building coverage
and if you actually calculate based on our overall lot area, not just buildable upland, but include the area within the conservancy district were actually in compliance. And so building coverage as I understand it is really is a factor to avoid uh overly large houses on lots and
overwhelming those lots. And in this instance, I don't think we are in any way deraggating from that purpose of that section of the building coverage requirement for the bylaw. Uh the second prong, a literal enforcement of the bylaw would create a substantial hardship financial or otherwise. Uh if a
variant is not granted, the shortens will suffer hardship. There's the fact that we don't not know when or even if um the state would approve the project allowing us to go forward. In the meantime, if we just waited, uh, the shortens are have a contractor ready to
start work. They would, uh, that contractor may have to go on to other projects, which would provide them with, excuse me, which would, uh, be a financial hardship for them. They also may lose use of the home depending on the schedule for a couple seasons at this point. Uh, alternatively, the
shortens could redesign so that they meet the building coverage requirement. um that would likely result in loss of more of the historic home which I don't think is what anyone wants to do and is certainly not a positive outcome and there's also the financial component to
that of uh plans uh building plans site plans meetings none of which is inexpensive and then in terms of the third prong unique conditions affecting the shape topography or soil conditions of the land or building I think we touched on a couple of those relative to the lot shape that was created u
pursuant to the variance when this was divided amongst the family members. And I know Leslie has a couple points she wanted to make about the unique uh uniqueness of the structure itself. >> Similar to what was just brought up earlier is that um it is a very unique structure. It is historically
significant and um you know we've we've gone through a lot to keep it and and keep it in this way. >> Good. Thank you. Dave, was that okay? >> That's great. Thanks, David. Thanks very much. >> All right. Okay,
Paul, >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> Okay. And voting today will be Dave, Paul, Jenny, Lee, and myself. >> I will second and vote yes.
>> Paul votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. I vote yes. >> And I vote yes. Okay. Uh deliberations. Um let's start with you, Dave. Uh well
uh I um um and and have u remember sometimes and and this is certainly one of them when Jamie has um very much and Leslie have successfully in my uh view argued uh that this meets all of the
criteria for a variance. Um, I would also add that when I was at that town meeting, I certainly wasn't thinking that we were going to be involving the the a state level review of of the project uh and was really thrilled
uh to see what the shortens were proposing and and and was was thrilled to support it as it came to us. It was it's a very nice project. So all all things considered, I I can certainly find that it meets the criteria and I
will be happy to vote for variance in this. >> Ed um if I were voting, I would I would support it as well. Um originally I was supportive of of this project when it came before us. Um
nothing has changed in in in my eyes in that regard. Um, I I believe you've made a good argument regarding the variance and anything that uh hopefully we can uh go back to town meeting and u and
resolve this issue and anything that can avoid further red tape with the with the state. I'm I'm in favor for be careful because uh somebody might say you just volunteered to do that at town meeting and and that might not be what you had in mind, Paul.
Yes, I think we uh we're definitely attempting to accomplish what was the purpose of the amendment to the uh ordinance and um creatively uh preserving an area that really makes
sense. Um so I uh definitely favor both the variance and the special permit and we'll vote favorably. Jenny. >> Yeah, I agree with my colleagues. Um, and Jamie with and Leslie with your your summary of the of the criteria for the
for the variance. Um, yeah, owing to circumstances, the topography, and as Lee pointed out, the structure, important 1940 historic home, um, and historically significant. Uh, it isn't just the year, but but the historic committee, you know, the background on
that property is is um has historical significance. Um and then also the um hardship 100% can understand where that is um a a very obvious and real problem and does impact this project. And then
thirdly um not only does it not deriggate from the intent of the bylaw. It's helping us see an opportunity to improve the bylaw. And Leslie, I agree with you. It's so critical that we the intent of this was clearly to help homeowners that um are willing to invest
the time and money to save these historic properties in Chattam. And and on that note, I want to specifically thank the Shortens for their perseverance in what I know has been a challenging or understand has been a very challenging project. So I it meets our criteria and I would support it.
>> Lee, >> yep, totally agree with my colleagues. Um I'm glad that we can hopefully make this happen. Um, I I know we all really were excited by the historic preservation incentive. Um, but this is
hopefully going to work just as well. >> It certainly makes sense and it's too bad the process has been so difficult. It really is. Okay. Um, Paul, I don't know
about any conditions. Uh well uh I think we we probably do have uh a couple of conditions. I I'm thinking that we would use our standard conditions given the location uh and the proximity to other uh neighbors. At least consider these
that all construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at neighboring property with the permission of the property owner between June 30th and Labor Day. No exterior construction will be allowed. No work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity
uh between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. And then uh in addition, we have an extensive uh list of conditions that um have been provided in writing to satisfy the historical uh and building uh
concepts that we have discussed. And um I would suggest that we uh uh add those conditions to the uh conditions that I previously stated orally so that we have a total of eight conditions which will apply to the
property. >> Is there any discussion on that conditions? >> I I actually don't know if it it's a large lot and I it's pretty private back there. I I don't know that the summer conditions really are re would need be
needed here. >> Well, if if you let's say rented the house next to you, maybe you wouldn't want people banging away. Well, I no, that's Well, I just I'm also thinking about the timing um and whether or not
that you know the six months, I guess, is that enough time to get to get where they need to be before we have to before they have to close exterior construction? I mean, just again related to the whole reason that they're here today, there there's a real timing issue
that's now created because of all this extra rigor that has brought them here. I'm just trying to ask. That's why >> uh Leslie and Jamie want to weigh in on that. >> Could I just add that's an excellent point. Um we had we anticipated this has put a two-month delay on them starting
construction from you know when we thought with the last hearing >> it would be beginning. >> So it's a very good point and they have been delayed through this process. >> Any flexibility on that it's really appreciated. We didn't want to rock the boat with a variant so we weren't going
to suggest it but um there is I understand. I understand. >> We would certainly appreciate that. >> Uh Dave, >> I just because and I I didn't research this. Did we attach our normal conditions when we approved uh in in October? >> Uh you did. >> We did. So this a repeat of that.
>> So it' be repeating that. >> Repeating it. >> Plus these specific ones referred to. >> I Yeah. I I think um I I could go along with Jenny's arguments on this. Um, you know, when I think about it, there's there's really
well, I mean, you know, there's construction traffic on the road, but there are really kind of only two neighbors that are really close by uh and to be much affected. Um, and um I I'm be inclined to um relax our our
thinking on on this a little bit. I mean, we would we would do the timing during summer work, but not the the ban on outdoor. I I I think it would be appropriate in this case. >> Okay. Ed, how do you feel about that? I agree as well. >> Paul,
>> well, I my my concern is partly the noise issue, but also the access. I mean, the the road in there uh is basically a driveway uh that uh is very narrow and twisted, and it seems to me if it's if if we're going to have access
to that in the summertime when there's other people using it, it becomes very difficult. So, that's the other factor I would consider. >> Yeah. And um the other really big projects we've had up there, a couple of big homes were restricted as I recall.
Um the late the three ladies have built they rebuilt the house and um uh you know those were restricted to us. So I think Paul is correct on that. So >> you want me to? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um I hear I hear that but I I
think the circumstances are um unique here that I I still think we should consider giving them the grace for the timing. >> Thank >> Well, I'm wondering if Since it is not a
demolition, full demolition, full rebuild. It's mainly additions, I'm hoping maybe you can get the majority of it done and we keep our normal conditions. >> Okay. Well, that brings us to um you
know, we need two separate votes and two there two separate things. We got special permanent and a variance. Uh as far as the conditions go, uh that would have to be um if that's what we do or
don't want, keep in mind that is a super majority vote. So if the conditions are to be applied or enforced, that needs to be four of the five votes
for a yes. Do we have four or five out of four for yes on the conditions? Dave, >> I um I can vote either way, Dave, because okay, the the underlying the underlying importance here is the grant
of the variance and and the attachment of those further conditions. So if I needed to sacrifice a position or whatever, too, I can vote for that in that way. Um, but I also could go the other way.
>> Okay. Uh, Ed, if you were voting, >> um, I would allow the construction to go go through the season. Ju just looking at the the size of the lot and proximity of the neighbors, I I I think they could contain everything on site. >> Okay. Paul, I presume from your comments
you would vote yes on the conditions. >> Correct. >> Jenny, >> I agree with Dave Beach and Ed. So, was that a yes? No. >> A no. Okay. >> I can vote yes with the conditions.
>> All right. Well, I'd vote no on the conditions. So, that does not pass. Okay. So conditions are the simple ones that you mentioned Paul and the written eight. Okay. We don't have the usual
construction as a condition during the summer. Is that what everybody understood? >> So you would do all construction activities on site. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> Uh between June 30th and Labor Day. No exterior construction. Yes or no?
>> I got the impression that those saying no on this were voting yes. You can do that. >> So that one goes away. Do you want to keep no work shall be permitted on weekends? >> Yes. >> And you want to keep construction activity between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
only. >> Okay. >> Okay. So the only one being removed is no exterior construction. >> Is that okay? >> Yes. >> That okay. >> Okay. Fine. The And on the first one, uh Sarah, you said that all construction activity would be on site. That would also include at neighboring properties with
>> neighboring property owners. That's correct. >> Okay. So, we're all set on that. >> Yep. >> All right. So, now we need two different specific votes. First is a was which came first, the dog or the cat? >> 25129. The variance application.
>> Okay. Variance. Paul, >> I'll move to approve the application with the conditions set forth. uh uh just a couple of minutes ago. >> Uh Dave seconds and votes yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> And I vote yes. That's your unanimous
vote. Okay. Second. >> I will move to approve the special permit with the conditions set forth a few minutes ago. >> Dave seconds and votes yes. >> And Paul votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. I vote yes. >> I vote yes. That's also unanimous. Thank the two of you very much
>> very much >> for all your work and staff too. Very good. All right. Okay. >> Oh, yes. Uh, see, Jamie, I think we're going to have you u come back for the next one, please. 25-065.
>> Application number 25-065, the Lime Hill 22 Trust, care of James M. Norcross, Esquire, PO Box 707, Chattam, Mass 02633. owner of property located at 202 Lime Hill Road, also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 12E, block 4,
lot B6. The applicant seeks to create an unpaved footpath and construct an elevated walkway under section 4 A3A of the protective bylaw. The lot contains 31,100 ft in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under master law chapter 4A section 9 and section
8D2B of the protective bylaw. This was continued from August 28th and November 6, 2025. Uh good afternoon. Jamie Norcross representing the Heiser family. Um we are asking uh respectfully requesting continuence until your February 12th
meeting. Um we've been through conservation the however the revised plans uh that were submitted for the hearing today show uh at grade steps on the footpath which uh we learned from staff is requires grading in the conservancy
district which is not allowed. So, we are submitting revised plans to show an elevated stairway in the footpath and that requires uh readvertising. >> Okay. >> Discussion. I'll move to grant the requested
continuence to February 12, 2026. >> Is there any any questions about the wise other ways? Happy. Everybody happy with this? >> Okay, >> I'll second that. >> Paul vote yes. >> Vote yes.
>> Yes. Yes. >> No. Randy is back. So Okay, great. >> Unanimous. All right. >> What date is that, Sarah? >> February 12th. >> All right. Okay. Um, on my list it's 25118. What do
you got? >> Okay. >> Application No, we are 25107. Um, application number 25-107 Lori and Vincent Sansstone, care of William G. Lichfield, Esquire, 330 Orleans Road, North Chattam, Mass 02650.
Owners of property located at 7 Bucks Lane. also shown on the town of Chattam's assessor's map 8A block five block S1. The applicant proposes to change, alter, or expand a non-conforming dwelling in a non-conforming lot via the construction of an addition and the reconstruction in addition to the second floor. The
existing dwelling is non-conforming and that is located 22.5 ft from Bucks Lane and within the coastal conservancy district. The proposed additions will be non-conforming and that it will be located 18.8 8 feet from Box Lane where a 25 foot setback is required and within the coastal conservancy district where a
50ft setback is required. The existing building coverage is 1,234 ft 19.3% and the proposed building coverage is 1,32 ft 20.4% where 15% is the maximum allowed. The lot is non-conforming and that it contains
6,392 ft of buildable upland where 20,000 ft is required in the R20 zoning district. A special permit is required under master law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw. This was continued from December 18, 2025 for readvertising.
>> Welcome Mr. Lichfield. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Bill Lichfield here in behalf of Lori and Vinnie Sansson who are here with us virtually and also their builder Rick Walls is here as well. Um, I must say
that it is rather disconcerting to have Mr. V and Mr. Actton on this side and Miss Fenwick and Miss HVY and Mr. Dore on that side. So, if I completely lose my place, I trust you will forgive me for that. Um, and welcome back, Mr.
Chairman. >> Just focus on Mrs. Clark. >> Absolutely. And with pleasure. We know that you went out there uh in December to take a look at this and one of the members correctly pointed out that there
was a requirement for readvertising which we did. It is uh as proposed and perhaps Sarah could put up one of the elevations. This is a small request for a 68 square foot expansion of footprint and construction of a modest second
floor addition largely over the existing structure on the right hand side. Top left picture on the right hand side that will be brought forward a little bit just a couple of feet uh to have a little bit more room on the second
floor. It is a fairly simple uh proposal and uh be certainly obviously we can go into the plans if you'd like but it given the length of your agenda it might be also useful for me to go into the criteria as to adequacy of site including building coverage and
setbacks. The site is certainly adequate for this house in a neighborhood developed prior to zoning and one in which every lot in the entire neighborhood is non-conforming. Many have multiple nonconformities and excess coverage. I think you can find that the
site remains adequate for this 68 square foot expansion of the footprint and construction of a modest second floor addition 161 square ft largely but not exclusively over the existing structure. There is a small resulting change in the
setback but I'll get to that shortly. As to compatibility of size, uh on the third page of the handout, you have the numbers for the surrounding properties. We have an average size lot, but uh one of the smallest, if not the smallest
house in the immediate area, whether you measure it by footprint, by percent of coverage, by gross floor area, and we have the second smallest living area. If you approve the special permit, as I hope that you will do, it will remain compatible and still relatively small.
It'll be comparable, low in coverage, gross floor area, and living area, and in keeping with the surrounding properties. As to the extent of increase in nonconformity, there are nonconformities as to lot size, the conservancy district setback, and
coverage. As Miss Clark read, uh, as I indicated, there is a 68 square foot increase in coverage. And while we're moving three feet closer to the to the uh street, the site plan that Sarah has up there is indicative that while we are
closer to the street, we're 33 feet away from the pavement, the legal layout of the street is much wider than uh one might think. So the setback in this zone for streets uh from streets from structures from streets is 25 ft. We'll
be 33 feet away from the pavement. Will be closer than that to the legal layout, but we're not that close at all to the the physical road as it exists. As to suitability of site, the site has been suitable for residential purposes uh since the house was built in 1960.
Although the lot is partially within the flood zone, there are no wetlands at issue. uh conservation commission reviewed and approved this on December 3rd uh with a negative determination and as you know a negative determination is good news it
means basically they don't care uh so they've already approved this as a scale citing mass views and vistas we have a house which is currently rather modest in scale and mass a200 square footprint gross flare area that is less than half of some others in the neighborhood the
scale will remain appropriate ate if you approve the special permit and modest it'll be uh in either on its own or in comparison to the surrounding area uh the small change what we're seeking has no negative impact on the streetscape and I think arguably at least a positive
one uh it is without any effect on neighborhood views and vistas and in regard to scale and sighting uh while obviously you make the decision uh there is significant neighborhood support the chair will read uh letters of comment from a
number of neighbors who with whom the sands owned have talked and who are supportive of the proposal. So as you know the question for you to determine is whether this proposed small change is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current non-conforming structure on a
non-conforming lot. The change 68 square feet to the footprint and less than 200 square feet roughly in living area is almost by definition without significant impact. And again, the strong neighborhood support suggests a finding uh that the change is without
substantial detriment to the neighborhood. The house will remain relatively modest and appropriate for the site and the neighborhood. So in both absolute and relative terms, especially in comparison to neighboring properties, I think you can find this to be a reasonable request which will
result in a small expansion, but one which is not at all detrimental the neighborhood. Be happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you very much. Is there anyone here today or on Microsoft Teams who would like to speak in favor of this application? If so, please indicate you
would like to speak. Don't see anyone. Okay, I'll read the correspondence. First is from J Gorgio, Board of Health on December 16th. I have no concerns regarding the renovation. In addition, conservation commission on January 5th,
applicants submitted a request for determination. The project was heard by the commission on December 3rd, 2024. Is that correct? >> 25. >> Okay, that makes more sense. It was issued a negative -2
determination. The project can be permitted without filing a notice of intent and be conditioned to meet the performance standards under the wetlands protection act. Now we have a short note. This is from Peggy and Jim Carrick. The date uh they're from 38
Billings Road. Not sure the date, but that's okay. We're neighbors. We reside we are applying for a special they are applying for a special permit to put a small addition on their home. We have reviewed their plans and proposed changes. We both think that their
proposed changes would fit nicely in the neighborhood and add to the beauty of the neighborhood. We support the request and ask the board to grant it. And we have a note. This is from uh 29 Bucks Lane. Joseph
>> uh Joseph and Sharon Kion >> uh Kernan Joseph and Sharon Kieran and like I said they're from 29 Bucks Lane they write we're in support of the petition of our neighbors for special permit they have shown us their plans and as narrow by Butters we're in favor
of their proposal we respectly urge the board to vote in support of their request. Then we have a note from Robert and Joanne Mahoney at 57 House Lane December 7th. We're writing in support. Uh we have seen their plans. We think it's a great idea and find the modest
proposal be appropriate. We fully support their request which we feel will have no negative effect or impact on our neighborhood. We urge the board of appeals to approve the special permit. And we have a note from Chris Orsulac.
I believe this correct pronunciation 12 Cabat Lane and we are of Butters. We understand their need to make simple changes to their home and we are writing in support of their application. This is an appropriate project which will not at
all be detrimental to our neighborhood. It'll be an additive to our neighborhood. We hope the zoning zoning board approves the request. Then we have a no from Dave Wilson Wilson dwells 37 Bucks Lane. We are
abutters right in support. We urge that you respectfully approve this. Thank you. And that is the consent of the written. Now, is there anyone wishes to speak
against this application or has a specific request or question? Anyone here on Microsoft Teams? >> Okay, then we'll go to questions from the board. We'll start with Ed.
>> Uh, I don't have any questions. >> Paul, >> no questions. >> Randy, >> no questions. >> A quick question. Mr. Lichfield the um buildable upland is rather small. Is
that what's impacting the being over building coverage and is that related to flood change? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. If I could, Mr. Chairman. Yes. The the easterly half of this lot and for that
matter the other lots to further to the south um is within the flood zone. uh and our bylaw says that you can't count uh land within the flood zone as part of buildable upland even though in this
particular case it's been built on for almost 70 years. Uh but that's why the coverage number is what it is. If you use the actual lot size uh our coverage is 11 is currently 10.5% and it's
increasing to 11.1%. Uh, so based on the full lot size, it's not a large home. >> Thank you, >> Steve. >> I have no other questions. >> Lee, >> no questions. >> Dave, >> I have no questions. >> Uh, nor do I. Paul,
>> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> Dave each seconds and votes yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> Randy votes yes. Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes. Paul. >> Well, I think it's a it is a minor
change in terms of lot coverage and looks as if it's certainly uh going to fit into the neighborhood. Uh certainly not more detrimental. >> Randy. >> Oh, so I I think you know our bylaw
instructs us to see if the what the property looks like now if it's going to be more detrimental than that. and and that's silly. So, I think it meets all the criteria. >> I agree with Paul and Randy, >> Steve.
>> Yes. I think the um the the changes that are being made sort of balances the house out a bit. I think the upper dormers are a little bit outportion to the rest of the house. So, I think it's an overall improvement to the appearance of the house and not detrimental whatsoever. >> Lee >> meets our criteria. If I were voting, I
would support it. >> Dave. Yeah, I agree with previous and uh comments. It's a a skillful um um addition to the building >> and I agree with my colleagues as well. Certainly not um detrimental to the
neighborhood. >> Okay, Randy, do you want to lead on this meeting >> with the >> next step? >> Um I Paul was going to do that today. That's laryngitis. Okay. >> Yeah. >> I'll I'll move to approve the
application as submitted. I I'm anticipating the nor normal conditions would be appropriate. Is that correct, Mr. Lu? >> Yeah. I It's a small project. If we can complete it by June 30th, we will. And otherwise, we'll start in September. >> All right. I'll move to approve the uh application with the condition that all
construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neighboring property with permission of the property owner between June 30th and Labor Day. No exterior construction will be allowed. No work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. only.
>> Uh David seconds and votes yes. >> And Paul vote yes. >> Randy votes yes. Jenny votes yes. >> And I vote yes. Unanimous. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay. What's next? Oh 25118. Okay.
>> Application number 25-118. Raymond Family Trust, care of William G. Lichfield, Esquire, 330 Orleans Road, North Chattam, Mass 02650. Owner of property located at 203 Indian Hill Road North. Also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 8G, Block 9,
Law R19. The applicant seeks to enlarge, extend, or change a conforming dwelling in a non-conforming lot via the partial demolition of the existing dwelling and 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 4A requires the grant of a special permit. The existing building coverage is 2,239 ft 5.4% and the proposed building coverage is 2391
ft 5.8% where 10% is the maximum allowed. the law is non-conforming and that it contains 43,985 square feet where 60,000 square feet is required in the R60 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law Chapter 48 section 6 and
section 5B of the protective bylaw. >> Mr. Chair, I'm going to recuse from this application. >> Okay. Uh Lee, you would be voting on this, please. >> Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Bill Lichfield once again here in behalf of Jim and Jane Raymond.
Jim is in the front row. U you went out to the site at the far end of Indian Hill Road North. Uh you recognize that it is not exactly a thoroughare. Uh it is a fairly isolated uh location and it
has on it a house built almost 100 years ago almost exactly 100 years ago which has been on the Ray in the Raymond family for almost all if not all of that time there was a an addition put on on the right hand side when you're facing
it uh which the Raymonds are going to keep the uh rest of the house shown there on the left uh is in pretty rough shape. Uh I understand from talking to Jane Raymond that when they had an
electrician out to come to the site to look at some of the wiring, he basically said, "Shut it off and don't use it anymore because you have a problem." Uh that is a small example of the difficulties that the Raymonds face, but
given their long history in in shadow, uh they want to keep the property and they want to replace the leftand side of the house with a fairly simple cape with a small entryway dormer on it. There is
a very modest expansion in terms of square footage because they're going to push the house out a couple of feet in the back and a couple of feet in the front as well. But the as shown there. Uh and then the the existing property or
the existing portion to the right hand side will remain. Uh but given the size of the lot, we've got almost 44,000 square feet. where if you approve the special permit going from 5.1% to 5.4%
of coverage. So it'll remain an appropriate and small house given what uh could be bu built there under the bylaw. So as to the criteria we have a neighborhood of large if still nonconforming lots. Uh the subject
structure of the house is completely conforming. The garage uh which is not being changed is uh 29 1/2 ft from the circle or from Indian Hill Road. Uh but the house itself is conforming and if you approve the special permit it will
remain conforming. The site is adequate for the reconstruction uh of and small expansion of the majority of the house. It will be completely compliant as to street and sideline setbacks, height, and coverage. As I said, will be about half of what that's allowed. As to
compatibility of size, we have a large lot, a small house. On the third page of the handout, the neighboring properties are are the numbers are are set forth, but as expanded and with the second floor, we will still be entirely
compatible. The size increases. Uh the gross floor area and living area is still lower than some and of course the gross floor area is increased because we'll now have a full foundation but the house remains appropriate for and compatible with the neighborhood. As to the extent of increase and nonconformity
there is none absolutely none. This is a completely compliant uh proposal. As to suitability of site the house is suitable uh for uh rather the site is suitable for the existing house. There are no environmental issues. All of the
work is well over 100 ft away from the bordering vegetated wetland at the edge of schoolhouse pond as shown on the site plan there. Uh there is no impact on natural environment. It's a scale sighting mass views and vistas. The existing structure a Cape branch built a
100 years ago has no special architectural features or particular benefit. The historical commission reviewed it, did not find it to be historic, uh, and imposed no demolition delay. There is, of course, no change in sighting. The new house will be a simple
cape with a small covered entry as shown there. There is significant neighborhood support in an area developed by the Raymond family over the last century. It's again marginally larger, but compliant as to bulk and dimensional requirements. There are no views or
vistas involved. As to compatibility of use, it will remain residential. Perhaps the Raymonds will be fortunate will be fortunate to have them moved down on a year- round basis. Uh as to adequacy of wa sewage and water, we have a title five system and town water for
three bedrooms. There is no change. The health agent has reviewed the the plans and has no concerns there. So, as you are aware, uh you are charged with making the determination whether the proposed new house completely compliant
as to all sideline setbacks uh coverage and height will be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Uh Jim and Jane have a longstanding and close uh tie to this neighborhood, a sensitivity to the surroundings. The property has been in the family for
many, many, many years. Uh but the house is in need of replacement. the new house will meet their needs but remains in keeping with the scale of the neighborhood. So in light of the criteria and the plans and in this location I think that you can find the proposed new house meeting all
requirements of the bylaw is not at all detrimental to the neighborhood. We'd be happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you Mr. Lynchfield. Is there anyone here today or Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application?
Don't see anyone. So, I'll read the correspondence. First is a note from Judith Giorgio, Board of Health here in town, February 6th. I have no concerns regarding the partial demo and remodel of this existing three-bedroom dwelling. It'll remain three bedrooms and the septic
system will remain. from Christina Basset. On December 2nd, the Chattam Historical Commission found this home to be not historically significant and did not impose a demo delay. Then we have a note from Sandra O.
Sullivan. She's 193 Indian Hill Road North. She writes, "As an immediate of butter, I am writing in support of the proposed improvements at 203. The traditional Cape Cod style house with shingled siding is fitting for the neighborhood
and the addition of a second floor space is understandably desirable for practical purposes. I know the Raymonds share our appreciation of the area's natural beauty and their plans and no way detract from this, but we are seen but are seen as an improvement for the
neighborhood. Then we have a note from Ellen McKe, 186 Indian Hill Road. She writes, "I'm writing in support of the proposed renovations. My family established our rear rear yearround home at 186 Indian
Hill in 1963, which lies across the road. I'm the third generation of my family to live here. The properties at 203 and 186 along with several neighboring homes are originally part of a family compound created by our mutual
cousins Tom and Janet Raymond. For generations, the former and current owners have worked carefully to preserve the rural character of this area, including preserving the dirt road and protecting the native pine baron environment that defined this
neighborhood. Their proposed renovation plans reflect the same thoughtful approach. Cape Cod style design is respectful of the original intent of the family neighborhood and is consistent with the scale, character, traditions that have long guided development here. I believe these improvements will
enhance the property while remaining fully in harmony with the surrounding homes and natural wooded landscape. Thank you for your consideration. And then last, we have a note from Chris Junda, Jun NDA, 217 Indian Hill Road. As an abut, the
purpose of the letter is to inform you of my approval for the proposed improvements. I believe the changes will improve the property while maintaining the existing nature of the neighborhood. The Raymond family has been our neighbors for over 60 years and we are pleased they will be improving the property and remaining part of the
fabric of Indian Hill Road North. Is there anyone here today or on Microsoft Teams that wishes to either speak against or has a specific question about this application? Seeing none questions from the board. Randy,
>> I no questions. Jen, >> no questions. >> Steve has no questions. >> No questions. >> No questions. >> None. >> Okay. Um, >> so I move to close the public hearing
and move into del deliberations. Sorry, Mo. >> Thank you today. >> Need a second on that. >> Dave each seconds and votes yes. >> Randy votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. I vote yes. >> Yes. Okay. Uh, well, we'll start with uh Jenny. deliberations
>> deliberations um I think it's a lovely improvement that's being proposed to this 1926 home um and it's on a lovely lot and and uh the comment you made at the beginning Mr. Lichfield about the funny comment about the electrician
saying like turn it off. I mean it's it's a needed improvement and and and it meets our criteria. I would support it. >> Steve, >> I think it's a great project. It fits right in. It's great design and uh probably much needed by the family. I have no issues.
>> I agree with my colleagues. I think that's a great project and it meets our criteria. >> Modest proposal looks really good uh and meets all of our criteria, not substantially more detrimental to neighborhood. >> I concur.
>> And I like the dirt road. I'm surprised that they, you know, being a year-round neighborhood that they want to have a dirt road, you know, surprised, but I'm happy. I like I'm a big fan of dirt roads. >> It's very rural
and as to that. Okay. >> So, conditions. >> Well, let's Oh, is where are we? We are >> we've done deliberations. >> Yes. >> And so, now we're on to we're going to close the hearing. We need a motion to close the hearing.
>> Oh, a motion to close the hearing. Yes. >> Uh David's votes yes. >> Randy votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> Okay. Yes. I already voted. >> No. Okay. Now we need a motion.
>> Oh. Oh. A mo. Okay. I move to approve the application as presented >> with no conditions. >> Um. No. I don't think it needs conditions in that neighborhood unless anybody else does. >> Right. Well, okay. Let's ask that question, Dave.
>> Well, I I I don't think it needs it necessarily. I I tend to favor the um time um restrictions for summer construction, the the no weekends and 5:00 p.m. thing just as an added protection. But it seems like this
neighborhood is fairly wellknit and um I don't think if any issues arise they probably would be able to work it out among themselves. So >> either way >> and um yeah I I agree it it does seem like a
close neighborhood and um uh I feel they could probably work it out among themselves. Well, I might remind everybody that not so long ago, we had the rebuild of a barn/outback and I wouldn't say it was a closeknit
neighborhood. I just so >> I was speaking of the of the micro neighborhood, Dave, >> 44,000 square foot um lot. I don't see see that needs any of those conditions. Um, I think I would keep the 8 to5 and
no weekends, but the the summertime restriction I don't think is necessary. >> Lee, >> yeah, I think we can um omit 2 a 2 then no exterior construction,
but 2 B and C I think we should keep. >> Okay. So, I'm hearing um usual conditions except not outside construction. Is that what everybody's agreeing on? Is that okay? >> Okay. >> So, moved.
>> David seconds and Ann votes yes. >> Randy votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. I vote yes. >> And I vote yes. That's unanimous. Mr. Litzfield. Thank you very much. I don't know why I like to split it up. >> I always want the motion after the fact,
>> you know. I know it'd be more efficient if I were remind Okay, we're on to 25-120. >> Application number 25-120. Debbie and Randy Harwood, 504 Stony Hill
Road, North Chadam, Mass 02650. Owners property located at 504 Stony Hill Road, also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 15, block 18, lot 10. The the applicant proposes to change, alter, or expand a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the construction
of a deck. The existing dwelling is non-conforming and that it is located 20.52 ft from the easterly butter. The proposed deck will be non-conforming and that it will be located 20.87 ft from the Easterly Butter where a 25 ft setback is required. The lot is non-conforming and that it contains
39,530 square in section 5B of the protective bylaw. Good afternoon. Uh my name is Randy Harwood uh with my wife Debbie. I'm the owner of the house at 504 Stony Hill Road. Uh we're here, as noted, applying for a
special permit to complete the building of a deck in the back of the house to give us direct access from an existing room to the outdoor area. >> Okay. You have a list of our criteria. Would you like to address them? Those are the criteria in terms of uh building
outdoors, construction outdoors during the summer. No, I don't I don't have a list of those criteria. I apologize. >> Okay. Well, wait a sec. Chantel can help out. >> This is right over here. >> Uh section VB.
>> Yes. >> Oh, here it is. Here it is. Right here. >> Okay. If you just run through them quickly, >> obviously there are some there that don't apply at all. >> So, think of what you're doing and does that >> apply to what you're doing? >> You don't want to use
>> Chantel can help you out. >> Go down there. >> Okay. So, these right here And the question is, would the proposed change that we're here applying for impact any of these in an adverse fashion?
>> No, it would not in my opinion. >> I can help. >> Okay, Mr. Actton will help you out. >> Thank you, Ed. Ask ask a few questions. So, as far as adequacy of the site and the building coverage, uh it the the proposal isn't um shepherizing or or or
making anything uh inconsistent with the the neighborhood. >> Oh, no. No, it is not. >> Uh compatibility with the neighborhoods, single family home. >> Yes. >> Yep. Uh exist extent of increased nonconformity. It's you're just a small
change to the deck. >> Small small encroachment. Yeah. >> Yep. uh suitability of sight, impact, area, and natural environment. Um there's really you're just making a small change to your deck. >> Um >> scale, site, mass, and views, vistas. Um
uh really the house is you would say, remaining the same and just >> uh uh building a modest increase to a deck. Uh compatibil compatibility of use uh residential no change going to continue to be res residential adequacy
of utilities you have on-site sewer you have water you have electricity that'll stay the same >> uh traffic flow single family home no no no real change um adequacy of utilities no change um
>> um and then uh I believe that's the only one that really well to this project. >> You did an excellent job, Mr. Hector. Thank you very much. >> Yes, thank you. >> Okay. Um I presume you had nothing else to add to that. >> Uh no, I did not. >> Okay.
Is there anyone here today or on Microsoft Teams who would like to speak in favor of this application? I don't see anyone. I'll read the correspondence which consists of a note from George Gorgio board of health here
in town. Hi Sarah, I have no concerns and that's the extent of the correspondence. We like that. Uh is there anyone here today who would like to speak against this or has a specific question they'd like to ask? Microsoft Teams. I don't see anybody
either. Okay, I think we should go on to questions. We can start with Steve. >> Any questions? >> I don't have any questions. >> Lee, >> no questions. >> Dave, no questions.
>> And well, you already answered all your questions, so no, you can't speak again. Paul, >> no questions. >> Did Did you have to come to us when you initially built this house? >> Yes. >> Oh, and you got away with the Koopa somehow.
I'm sorry. >> Never mind. No. No other. >> Thank you. You have to point at Mr. >> Oh, okay. Sorry. >> Why? Why? Why is it Mr. Rden? Did you build it? >> Yeah. >> No, >> he was the adviser, obviously.
>> No, no, >> no. >> Okay. Nothing else. >> That's it. Okay. >> Okay. >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. Uh Dave seconds and votes yes. >> All vote yes. >> Randy votes yes. Jenny votes yes.
>> I vote yes. Okay, we'll start with Lee. >> Oh, I I have no problem with this deck. I think it's going to be a great addition. Um >> All right, Dave. Yeah, the uh addition of a deck on the back of the house uh
certainly not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood meets uh all of our applicable criteria and uh happy to support it. >> Ed, yeah, I agree. Just a small modest change. Um I live down the street and
there's a lot of other work going on on the property. So >> you sure you didn't have anything to do with the Cooper? >> No. >> Okay. Well, >> yes, I agree. It certainly meets our criteria. I agree with my colleagues. >> I just wanted to confirm I they didn't
they revised re remodeled the house. They didn't it isn't a new house and so I I appreciate you kept the same footprint. Correct. >> Um so you didn't have to come to the board before. Uh that's my understanding and I appreciate that you're saving the 1946 home and the improvements that
you've made to it are amazing. It's absolutely beautiful. It's stunning and you have a large lot and um this small request for the the deck is um meets all of our criteria and more. >> Thank you.
And I agree with all the previous. >> Okay. >> All right. I'll move to uh I'll move to approve the application as submitted. I think the only condition we might need would be that all construction activity and vehicles be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the
permission of the property owner. I would agree with that. I will second and vote yes. >> All votes yes. >> Randy votes yes. Jenny votes yes. >> And I vote yes. >> Congratulations. >> Thank you very much. >> Unanimous decision. >> Apologies for my confusion.
>> Yeah. Randy, I don't think I had a chance to torpedo that. Uh, >> no. I guess it didn't come before. >> No, I don't. >> No, I I would have remembered that. >> I would have too. I think >> it's kind of cute, though. It is really cute. >> How big of one are you going to have on
your house? >> Okay. On to 25119, please. Sarah, >> application number 25-119. Steven Haley Nad Nadas, Car of William G. Lichfield, Esquire, 330 Orleans Road, North Chat, Mass 02650. owner of property located at 98 Oyster
Pond Furlong. Also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 13E, block 29, lot 11A. The applicant seeks to construct an elevated walkway and stairs under section 4 A3A of the protective bylaw. The lot contains 16,50 ft in the
R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law, chapter 48, section 9, and section 8D2B of the protective bylaw. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Lichfield. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the board, Bill Lichfield here in behalf of Alex and Haley Natus. Alex is here
virtually as is our engineer Bob uh Bob Perry of Coastal Engineering. This is, as you know, not a question of substantial detriment. This is what's referred to as a straight special permit in which something is allowed under our
bylaw after review by this board. Uh as you are aware uh the bylaw requires that any structure such as a walkway, catwalk, even a paved path or unpaved path within the coastal consery district
requires review by the conservation commission and also by the zoning board of appeals. And we are here today seeking permission to when you went out there and I know you did. Uh there are some old wooden stairs. We're not proposing to change those that lead down
to near the bottom of the hill, but in or the bottom of the coastal bank, I should say. What we are proposing is to extend that to allow for access uh to Oyster Pond uh via u an elevated uh
walkway or seasonal walkway and elevated stairs. So, the plan is as shown there. And Sarah was kind enough to show to move the plan to show the uh side view. Uh there's an existing rope railing. Uh
not sure the rope's right there. I don't remember having seen it when I went out there today, but or the earlier, but in any event, we are proposing to have uh an elevated walkway and then uh aluminum stairs leading down. So we'll go into
the criteria which do differ slightly from those to which you were which you ordinarily hear adequacy of the site in terms of size for the proposed use. The lot has some 50 ft of frontage on oyster pond. The site is adequate uh for the uh
seasonal walkway and stairs as proposed which more than meet uh the required minimum uh setback from each abuing lot line. As you know, the bylaw makes a special provision saying it can be up to three feet. Uh we're I think 12 1/2 ft
on one side and 25 or 30 on the other side. So we're not close to either lot line as suitability of sight for the proposed use. The precise site, which is to say below the top of the coastal bank, is suitable for little but a water
access use. Walkways and stairs again are specifically acknowledged as allowable in conservancy districts. As to impact on traffic flow and safety, obviously there's none. Neighborhood visual character including v views and vistas. Again, there is none. The
walkway is below sight lines. It's about 150 ft away from the dwelling to the west and 175 ft away from the dwelling to the east. And in a water oriented neighborhood where walkways and stairs are common, no sewage issues, no utility
issues, no noise and litter. We're not proposing a viewing platform or anything like that that might theoretically generate noise. As to compatibility of the proposed use with surrounding land use uses, it's an accessory residential use. There are numerous docks on Oyster
Pond. This is not a dock. This is a much less intensive use. It's an accessory residential use again in a water oriented neighborhood as as such a seasonal walkway and stairs are entirely compatible. Uh many homes in this neighborhood including the easterly
abutters have similar structures as to the impact of the natural environment including uh slopes and wetlands. A walkway, as this board has found many times in the past, a a elevated stairway, elevated walkway and stairs
will have less negative impact on the environment than would simply trapesing through the marsh for access to the oyster pond. The plans have been discussed with the conservation commission, the shelf advisory committee, and the south coast group. Bob Perry did those presentations, and
I'm sure he can answer any questions that you might have. Uh so as you know this this special permit requires a slightly different finding. It requires a finding of the use will not be detrimental of the established or future character the neighborhood. A
neighborhood along Oyster Pond which has lots of similar structures and that the use involved will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the bylaw. As you know, our bylaw speaks to the importance of water access and it also makes special provisions for structures
like this. So on the facts and circumstances in this location, I think that you can in fact make that finding and Bob and I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. >> Thank you very much. Is there anyone here today or on Microsoft Teams who would like to speak in favor of this
application? If so, please indicate. Don't see anyone. I'll read the correspondence. December 22nd. This is from the Conservation Commission. The project was heard by the Conservation Commission
on May 8, 2024. Again, I don't know if that date is correct or not. The project has been continued multiple times as they had not applied to the ZBA. The project is scheduled to be heard on January 28th, 2026 to review the project again. It
will then be determined if and when it will be conditioned to meet the performance standards under the wetlands protection act and the town of local wetland bylaw chapter 272 and the regulations there. That's the extent of the correspondence.
Is there anyone here today on Microsoft Teams who would like to speak either against it or has a specific question? If so, now is the time to join in the conversation. Don't say anyone questions from the board.
Oh, >> I I didn't know if you I didn't know if you were going to say, "Are there any?" And that's why I raised my hand, but >> Oh, no. >> You're not saying I No, never mind. I figure there might be because I got one. Uh Dave, I have no questions.
>> Oh, Ed, >> how about storage of kayaks and things of that nature? I I the plan doesn't seem to provide for that. >> It it is it is not proposed on the plan. If there's any desire for a kayak rack,
we'd have to come back and visit you. >> Okay. Uh myself is I feel like it's not a bad idea. Otherwise, they just end up in the marsh grass. So, um, but I guess that's not up to me. >> Paul, >> no questions.
>> Yeah. So, yes. So, um, Mr. Litzville, I had the occasion to listen to the last conservation hearing and I I I'm not surprised with the letter. It's not our usual letter that it will be uh conditioned at our next meeting. Um, and
I remember there was a comment that they didn't really know what was happening there because it had been so long. So I feel a little hesitant. So can you help me with that? >> Yeah. Well, perhaps Bob Perry can, but this has been continued a number of times uh for a variety of reasons, but
it will require as you know any anything that requires for instance ZBA and board of health and conservation approval needs all three. So they have their own separate set of criteria and rules, but I I would fully anticipate that this
would be deemed by them as preferable to simply wandering through the wetland. But I don't know, Bob, whether you wanted to answer or respond to that, if I could, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. >> I hope that my microphone is working. Can you hear me?
>> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Um the project began uh yes quite some time ago and it was um uh subjected to the proper reviews of
several committees and a minor revision to shorten it. um conservation commission at the point in time we did meet um acknowledged that there was an existing uh atgrade walkway on the property and that the alternative of
getting the elevated feature in place would be beneficial to the marsh and it it's certainly true that a lot of time has gone by. I don't have a great explanation for that. I know Bill's been busy and we did spend uh two meetings
with Shellfish and one meeting with the South Coast Harbor Group, but the um I think the the strong point is that the conservation commission that would be tasked with formally voting for this under the wetland bylaw and the
wetland act um felt that this was a unique case that there was already established access and a wooden uh a platform that went across the marsh. So, um I'm not surprised they they might not
recall this. Uh there may even have been membership changes, but we are required to go back to the commission and u seek their vote. I hope that helps you with with this circumstance.
>> It helps. Um, however, we it's just not our usual way to to not to permit something without knowing that they're going to first. I think the bylaw even instructs that they they go first that we send everything. So, that's why I'm not I'm not doubting you and I'm sure
it's fine, but it just seemed a little off. So >> well they they don't vote to my knowledge they don't vote before it gets to ZBA but they tend to give an indication and I think it's the uh the time frame that did ensue between our first meeting with them and this
meeting. Um my professional position is that it's a sound project and it meets uh the various requirements that are uh rendered by the division of marine fisheries for elevation above the salt marsh and that that it will relieve the
salt marsh of the foot traffic. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So I I had actually that same question because we had earlier tonight another application with a catwalk. it was continued. But, um, so I I like to look
at the conservation, you know, just for to learn a little bit more about what, you know, what what they're proposing, how it's different, etc. And I I couldn't actually find the conservation hearing where it talked about the project. It was all continuences. So, so thank you, Randy, for asking about that. I think what I'm
hearing Mr. Perry say is that on the site plan it's showing um you you know the comments about the project it's showing that their existing inground steps are going to stay the um they'll be removing existing steps and removing
existing boardwalk from the marsh. So that's noted there. Um maybe you said it in your narrative, Mr. Lucho, but if you did I didn't I didn't catch it. I just wanted to point out that it sounds like that's a pretty important part of the project to remove those pieces and the
positive there is that you're then proposing the elevated catwalk. So, I just wanted to I think it's making more sense now as to what um the original project was and the comments that Mr. Perry made were helpful in in the context of this um site plan where it's
showing that a lot is going on. Um a couple questions though, Mr. Lynchfield. What is the legal distinction between a catwalk and a dock? >> Uh, basically a dock goes out beyond the high water mark. And under our current
regulations, I believe we have had for x number of years a prohibition on docks within the greater stage harbor waterways, of which this is one on new docks. >> Yeah. Uh, so a catwalk, walkway, whatever you want to call it, leads you
to but not out onto the water. >> And is it um is it being allowed because of the pre-existing uh structure that was there or could you build a new catwalk today? >> You you you could and they are requestable, I guess, is the best way to
put it. >> Okay. Um, and then also you use the word seasonal in your update and then in the narrative it says seasonal. Is that also the same as removable? Is that the plan? Okay. So, it'll be pulled out the walkway and the steps.
>> Yeah. Conservation Commission will assuming they approve this as they do and Bob can correct me but a conservation commission will have specific conditions in its order of conditions that as they usually do that things like this have to be stored up in
the upland not in the marsh. >> Okay. And so that actually is my last question is then you could not tie kayaks and things like that to the legs of the catwalk because they would be
>> it the purpose is not to to have it serve as a dock. I can't sit here and swear swear that at no point will somebody leave a kayak or a canoe attached to it briefly, >> but that's not the purpose of it. >> Okay. All right. Thank you.
>> I have no other questions. that was uh they've been addressed. >> Okay, >> no questions. >> So, I'm looking at the profile and tell me how much is going to be removed. Do you know you know at at what point do you say well okay there's a
line >> where Sarah has had the cursor over to the left. >> Yeah, it says begin seasonal catwalk. So everything beyond that is going to be removed. That's that is new and to and removable
seasonally. >> Just to give you perspective, if I might, every dock or I should say the majority of docks in Chadam and in Pleasant Bay at large are seasonal. Uh Quaset in for example is 220 foot long
uh pier with floats. I did that design and it it's fully removable >> and stacked in the upland in the offse. >> Okay. Thank you. Any other questions?
All right. Deliberations, Paul or Randy? No. Paul, I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> David seconds and votes yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> Randy votes yes. Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes. We'll start with Ed. Uh, I I have no issues. I I believe it's
going to be an improvement. Uh, gonna keep people from, you know, walking through the marsh. Um, so, uh, if I was voting, I would vote in the positive. >> Paul, I agree. I think it satisfies our criteria, will not be detrimental to the
established or future character of the neighborhood, and will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the bylaws. Randy, >> I uh, agree with Paul. Yeah, I I agree with Paul too and Randy. Um, it's an it's an existing a portion
of it's existing and it's being improved upon and it's going to be conservation. One thing I did catch in those hearings is that they they do like uh not trapesing through the marsh and this will help with that. >> Yeah, I agree with everything else w with everything that everyone else has
said. Um, I guess we'll need to rely on the conservation commission for a final determination, but um, other than that, I think this is a good project. >> I agree. Uh, good project. Nice addition to the property.
>> Uh, provides uh, seasonal access for cats. I I'm all favor of it. Okay. All right. Uh I uh have a general question of uh what is
trapes? Does anybody know what a trapees is? >> Trapes. >> You know, I I have I thought that I have never seen the word trapes written. I've heard it. Did you make this up, Mr. Lichfield, or did you get it out of
>> Webster? It may have been on a pres presentation I made 20 years ago and I just revived it. >> Okay. Very good. >> Did your mother tell you not to trapes through the house with those white shoes? >> Okay. Um so, uh I guess my question would be what do you think about
conditions on this one, Bill? They be >> Yeah, I don't think they're necessary or applicable. >> Okay, I'll move to approve the application as submitted. I will say we probably should have all construction activity and vehicles contained on site
uh or uh by permission with neighbors. >> That would be that would be acceptable. >> Uh David and votes yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> Yes. Yes. >> And I vote yes. Thank you very much. Unanimous vote.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. Uh, where are we anyway? Uh, are we at 121? >> Application number 25-121 Shaun B. Chrysum and Faith T. Chrysum, 211 West Newton Street, Unit 5, Boston,
Mass 02116. Owners of property located at 197 Emory Lane. Also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 15H block 6A, lot EB22. The applicant seeks to enlarge, extend, or change a conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the conversion of
the existing garage to habitable space and under the second except clause of section six of master under law chapter 4A requires the grant of a special permit. The law is non-conforming and that it contains 20,871 ft where 40,000 ft is required in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is
required under Mass General law chapter 4A section 6 and section 5B of the protected bylaw. Welcome. The floor is yours. Please identify yourself and roll with it. Thank you. I have Mark Lewis. Um >> hi.
>> He's our tech virtual. Um but uh we're just proposing a uh a conversion from our garage um
to basically be a a playroom for one area and then an office for myself is what we're we're planning. >> I hope you have our criteria to go through. >> Yes. >> Go ahead. You're going to go through the criteria
for us. Wait. Uhhuh. Okay. We seem to be having a problem today. Uh, >> do you want me to help him? >> Want me to help him? >> I'll help him. >> Well, you we want you to save your
voice. >> Mr. Actton, you go ahead. >> Dave. >> Oh. Oh, Dave's gonna do it. He's got it. >> My turn, I guess. >> Before Dave starts so everybody understands, we send out this criteria which as you can see sometimes gets ignored
>> and that's unfortunate because we live or die on how we interpret the answers to our criteria. So when we have someone that isn't going to do it, uh, and we sometimes feel some members feel
let's help them out. So go ahead. >> So I'll walk these uh through the criteria with you that that that apply to to your proposal. The first is um uh adequacy of size of the site including but not limited to >> uh maximum lot or building coverage and
setbacks. >> You're not changing the >> we're not changing >> not changing the footprint or lot cover. Okay, good. >> That's correct. >> Compatibility of the size of the proposed structure with neighboring properties. Size of the structure really isn't changing, is it? >> It'll be the same, right?
>> Yeah. It's some dormers, but I mean the the foot footprint is not changing. Correct. Correct. Yeah. Okay. Um suitability of the site including but not limited to impact on neighboring properties or on the natural environment including slopes, vegetation, wetlands,
groundwater, water bodies, and storm water runoff. >> Same thing. not gonna apply to this doesn't really it's not going to affect those >> no effect >> uh impact of scale sighting and mass on neighborhood visual character including views vistas and streetscapes
>> correct we're not changing any massing of the house or >> there's some change to the some to the >> aside from the dormers that >> yeah there's some dormers on the garage proposal but >> that is correct >> but aside from that and that that's really insignificant as far as the
street cape or views of Vista's neighbor properties. Great. Okay. >> Um >> yes, >> the um comp compatibility of pros use with neighboring uses. There's no change of uses revenue.
>> Uh adequacy of method of stew disposal, source, water, and drainage >> the same. >> Same. >> Yeah. Uh and the house and uh adequacy of utilities and other public services. >> No change. No change
>> and that's the extent of the criteria that that would apply to your stakes. >> Thank you Dave. Anything else? >> Nope. >> No. Okay. Very good. Is there anyone here today on Microsoft Teams that would like to speak in favor of this
application? If so, please indicate. >> Don't see anybody. >> Mr. Lewis, >> I believe Mr. Lewis is online. Um he is the builder or architect. I'm I'm the architect. Can you hear me? Okay. >> Yes. For >> some reason, I'm who speaking.
>> I am here. Who's the architect? >> Oh, I I can't be heard though or seen. >> We can hear you. >> I'm not sure why. >> We can hear you, Mark. >> Oh, you can hear me. Okay, good. Thank you. Well, so so if you can't hear me, I
apologize. >> Yeah, my my computer's not working quite properly, but um so I I did do a project down the street. um at 26 and I was approached by by the creeks to do this project and I thought it would be fairly simple project um being it was very
similar um I quickly learned out that it was not because of the non-conformity but I I do uh have friends that live in Chattam I spent a lot of time in Chadam um I feel like this project is suitable for the neighborhood it um you know decent design and for the use that the
family needs um this space greatly because of their growing family so I appreciate your I'm in cons uh consideration for this project. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Anyone else like to speak in favor? Then I'll go on to the correspondence.
Judith Giorgio, Board of Health and Chadam writes on the 6th of January, I have no concerns regarding converting this existing garage into a family room and office. The dwelling will remain three bedrooms. Then we have a letter
from Shelley Lavalo, 193 Emory Lane. We're writing regarding the proposed renovation. The applicants are our neighbors and we own the adjacent property 193. The front of our home faces the elevation where the proposed changes will occur. We understand that
the existing building is on a non-conforming lot requiring a special permit from the ZBA. Earlier this past year, the Chisums shared their initial plans with us, which involved converting their garage into a two-story living space. After review with local zoning
and code officials, they revised the scope to a simpler conversion of the garage into a dwelling space. As we understand it, the footprint and roof height will remain unchanged, but dormers and windows will be added to the elevation facing our home. Currently, that side of their house consists of
solid walls and a large roof. In our opinion, the proposed change is not detrimental to the neighborhood and is consistent with the scale and character of surrounding homes. The massing will change slightly, but the height and footprint remain the same. The addition of dormers will enhance the appearance
of the home and align with the Cape Cod architecture. Overall, we fully support this application. We recognize that the board must weigh the challenges and benefits of approving a non-conforming use, but we believe this project represents a positive improvement. Since purchasing their property in 2020, the
Trisms have consistently invested in exterior renovations, landscaping, and maintenance, which have enhanced both their property and the neighborhood. They are valued neighbors, and their continued investment benefits the town of Chadam as a home. Thank you.
Then we have a note. This is dated uh December 30th. It is from Laura Donghue 2011 Emery Lane. The email originated from outside the Okay. This is not on my note for my approval of this application
for enlarging 197. I bought the property and live next door to this residence. I'm fully in support of the application and the work involved. That's it. Is there anyone here today or in Microsoft Teams that wishes to either speak against or has a specific
question? If so, please indicate you'd like to speak. >> I don't see anybody. Okay. Uh questions from the board. Paul, >> I have no questions. Seems pretty straightforward. >> Randy,
>> I agree with Paul. No questions. >> I have no questions. >> No questions. No questions. >> Uh, no questions. >> Okay, Paul, I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> Dave Beachs and votes yes. >> All votes yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh,
uh, Jenny. >> Yeah, I think it's a very nice project. Um, more suitable for the live your evolving living needs and it meets all of our criteria. So, I would support it. >> Dave, thank you. >> Uh, well, it meets all the criteria. Um,
I hate to see someone losing garage space. I'm a big proponent of garage space, but um, if it works for you, that's fine. I And I think it's a nice project. >> Thank you. Steve owns seven cars, so remember that. >> Uh, I agree with my colleagues. I think
it's a great project and it will be um some nice living space. >> Dave, uh, certainly not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. I I actually think it'll be when it's all said and done. I don't think anyone's going to notice actually. >> Thanks, David. >> Ed,
>> uh certainly meets our criteria and u I would uh vote for it if I was voting. >> Paul, >> I agree with my colleagues. >> Randy, >> I I didn't I already agree with Paul? >> Yeah, I think I agree with Paul. >> All right. >> So,
>> that's it. Okay, Paul, I'll move to approve the application as submitted. Uh, I guess the question would be what people think in terms of conditions on this one. >> I don't have any uh concerns about anything outside of
>> construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner. I'll move to approve on the basis of that condition. >> Uh, Dave seconds and votes yes. >> All votes yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> And I vote yes. That's unanimous vote. Thank you very much.
>> Great. Thank you board. Thank you very much. >> Okay. Uh Mark, I think we're going to take a five minute break. All right. Okay. Thank you. >> So, we'll be back in five to 10 minutes.
Okay, >> everybody. We're back in session here. Thank you very much. >> And Sarah >> 92. >> Let me get my little Okay. Uh 25-092 please.
>> Application number 25-092 CBI owner LLC care of Paul Maldun 693 Main Street Chattam Mass 02633 owner of property located at 297 Shore Road also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 16E block 26 lot F12. The
applicant proposes to change, alter, expand a non-conforming structure on a conforming lot via the demolition of the existing structure, Bay View Cottage, and the construction of a new con a new structure in a conforming location on the lot. The existing structure is non-conforming and that it is located
25.4 ft from the road where a 40ft setback is required. The proposed structure will comply with the setback requirements of the bylaw. The building coverage will remain 4 thou 47,463 ft 20.8% where 10% is the maximum
allowed. The lot contains 229,685 ft of buildable upland in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under master law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5 via the protective bylaw. This was continued from November 6, 2025.
>> Mr. Singer, >> good afternoon. Happy new year to her. >> Happy new year to you. >> All right. >> Uh thank you for hearing us again today. Um we were continued as was just noted and the continuence. There was a question about building coverage and setbacks. Uh given where the Bay View
cottage is now and um Sarah if you have that new the plan there it is. So Bay View cottage is on the top here and it's the entire the cottage is the entire what's shown both in gray and orange. And so uh there was a question we continued so that the applicant and Mr. Mr. Mulun and Mr. Jennings are here
today. They met or Mr. Maldun I think met with Jay and they they've been talk they worked it out between um the last meeting and today and as I understand what what you see is the uh what is being proposed is that the gray part of well all of Bay View
Cottage comes down. So as you know you go down the street you see Bay View kind of looming high over the uh um street on Shore Road. That's all coming down the and is going to be moved and we can discuss it but it's going to be moved back same footprint to the location in the center of the property amidst all
the other cottages. Um the orange part that is what's going to the question was over the the there's a mechanical bunker that was under the building. And so that orange part is what will remain below the patio grade. It's going to be 36 inches in depth. It's a crawl space
that's going to be accessed by a scuttle. And it's my understanding that that that now is going to be a conforming distance from Shore Road and it does not uh equate to building coverage and therefore um there is no change in building coverage. So as we
had presented to you during the first meeting, we are eliminating the pre-existing non-conforming encroachment into the front setback from Shore Road. There will be no change to the pre-existing non-conforming building coverage. I think it was 10.8% 8% that
stays the same. Uh it does become a two-story structure. There'll be two units in it where we're moving a unit elsewhere on the property. So there's it's a net wash on traffic and on rooms and density. All no changes in that. Uh but it eliminates that non-conformity and gets the structure um back behind
other structures. It's really not going to be visible. You won't see the structure um from uh Shore Road or C view. Um you might in between other buildings um along uh Kettle Drum. Uh but as you know that goes halfway and
then stops. Um I went through mindful of what you've said earlier today about your findings. I went through all the findings during the last session. I'm happy to go through them again if you would like. Um but I know it's been a long, you know, long meeting. Um, as far as you can see Bay
View on this image, um, on the, uh, left and where it's going to be going is roughly standard conditions that you generally impose are are fine, you know, for this particular project. They actually are not planning to start work until uh, the
fall fourth quarter of 2026. So, there's going to be no activity, you know, between now and then. If you have questions for Mr. Mold, Mr. Jennings, or myself, we'd be happy to answer them. >> Thank you. Yeah, I think uh I think now we need to hear from our our building
commasar. Incidentally, I know his card doesn't say that. It says commissioner, I think, but there's no commission. So, how can you be a commissioner if there's no commission? So, I think commisar is a more appropriate term for Jay. And
the important part of that word is SAR. Zar. He's in charge. Hward is gold. >> He's the zoning enforcement officer. >> He's all of that. And that. So, Comrade Briggs, >> please.
Please. >> So, I'm comfortable with the fact that this is in essence going to be turned into a utility vault. Uh I met with Paul. Paul has spoke to Paul on this and uh as Andrew Singer had said, it's only going to be three feet in height. It's just to maintain existing infrastructure
below grade and it's going to be, you know, a lot of it's going to be demolished and removed. So there is no building coverage issue in my mind. I I think that's been explained to my satisfaction. >> So nobody needs a variance, huh? >> I don't believe so. No.
>> Okay. Okay. Um, fine. I don't think we need to hear frombody else. >> Nope. Just for questions. >> Yeah. All right. Is there anyone here today who would like to speak in favor of this or on Microsoft Teams?
I'll read the correspondence. We got Judith Giorgio both of health. Proposed construction of the cottage will relocate the existing hotel into two you separate sites with two rooms each suites, I'm sorry. The first floor areas do not meet the definition of a
bedroom, so there's no privacy. Therefore, the cottage will remain classified as a two-bedroom unit. The property is served by a private wastewater treatment facility and so forth. And then we have a note. This is
from Carolyn and Richard Comfort on November 4th. They write, "This letter has been written in response to your notice of so and so concerning the public hearing that we had back in November. Where abouts of interest since we own two
houses directly next to the Chattamar in their houses are 28 Kettle Drum Lane and 221 Shore Road. We're writing this letter not as an objection, but as a request that you spec specify certain restrictions as to when the demolition construction work can take place
concerning the Bay View Cottage. Since we'll be occupying our property during the entire month of April 26th, and we'll be either occupying or renting our property from June 1st to September 15th, we would request that the demolition construction work not take
place during those time periods. As I'm sure you must realize, the noise, dust, and truck traed by this type of work can be very detrimental to the enjoyment of one's property. We're looking forward to being advised of your decision. Well, I think what I heard from you is you're not even
going to start until after September 15th. Is that correct? >> That is correct. It's going to be in the fall. >> Okay. So, >> all right. I think >> no issues with that. >> So, I don't know if Mr. or Mrs. Comfort is here, but hopefully that uh answers your question. Okay. Is there anyone here today or in
Microsoft Teams who would like to speak either against this application or has a specific question? If so, please let us know so you can join the conversation questions. Dave, >> I have no questions.
>> Ed, no. I think uh the questions we or I had originally about the the vault and coverage has has been resolved. Paul, >> um let me just uh I think along with
that I probably helped screw this up the last time around, but my my question is uh you've said that this is going to be at grade or below grade. >> The vault is going to be so there's going to be a patio at grade and then the three-foot vault will be below. So
when it when in your prior memo you said the former foundation would be rep repurposed as an open patio. >> So are you going to pave over the area that was the bottom of the cottage the the floor
of the cottage? >> Yes or at least part of it. Uh there was a the patio would be extended over it. Correct. At grade. >> Uhhuh. And because it's uh at grade uh even though it's it's coverage, it's not
coverage as such. >> It's not building coverage. >> Not building coverage. Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Is the reason Excuse me. Is the reason it's not building coverage because it's not uh doesn't have like um
>> a cover. I wanted to use a better word, but can you explain to us um Jay why why it's not building coverage? >> I mean, I can try. I mean, like a septic tank or some utility vault or a large handhold or something that handles utilities or stores util utilities
that's underground. It wouldn't count towards building coverage. It's not necessarily a roof. It's only three feet tall. It's just a an underground enclosure of sorts. So, I don't see it as being considered building coverage because of that. >> I think it seems confusing because the
water can't get through to the grass. So, it seems like it's coverage. >> Is that what you're >> It's sight coverage, but it's not building coverage. >> Okay. >> And what the zoning bylaw looks at is the building coverage. >> It's building coverage. Okay. >> I mean, a patio wouldn't be building coverage.
>> No, I know that. True. True. But patio also has like grooves in between. So, >> some do. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay, that's it. >> Ken, >> uh you might not know this. Uh so, uh are you planning to put like the extend
the chairs where that area is for will that be there? Will just be um will it just be uh I guess from the street? Will you see >> anything there? >> I believe there would be a desire to put chairs, you know, temporarily, you Yeah,
because there there are some already there and it just looks like that could be a natural extension. >> Might just sort of continue. Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you, >> Dave. I have no other questions, Lee. >> No questions. >> Okay. >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations.
>> Dave each seconds and vote yes. >> All vote yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Deliberations. Um, well, I I think this seems like a great plan um to move the cottage um
to improve the uh setbacks. Um and I, you know, trust JBriggs's um determination that it's not building coverage. So, if I were voting, I would I would vote to approve this.
>> Dave, I agree with Lee. I I don't see I I think it's u I think it's fine. I think the um determination helps the um to settle the project and and it's a good project and not substantially more detrimental. Um and uh I I will I can
support it >> and um I agree as well. Um, I don't think it's going to be detrimental in in any way and um agree with Jay's u opinion that doesn't
doesn't increase building coverage. Um, nothing's above ground. Uh, there are, you know, utility vaults commonly placed, you know, around town that don't count as building coverage. So, I I would support the project. Paul,
>> I agree with my colleagues. >> As do I. >> Well, I actually was happy to hear Jay's ruling because when we had Paul's presentation in November, um I remember him saying that it was going to create some significant
it was significant infrastructure and it was going to connect create some significant impacts to the to the property if all the wiring related things. And so, um, I I was actually hopeful that it was going to turn out like this. So, I I think it's important
to support what is a very important business to downtown to to Chattam, which is Chattam Bars in and um I think it's actually from the street going to look better too because you won't have the house there and it gives the CBI the
opportunity to double the size of the property going, you know, by adding a second floor. Um, so I I think and it meets our criteria. So I I I'm supportive of the of this project. >> Steve, >> I think it's a good idea. I think what's left after the house is removed is going
to be all subterranean. And uh you're going to be expanding the patio a bit, so it might make it a little easier to find a table and chair in the evening. So I think it's a great it's great idea. >> Steve, you have to bring your own.
That's a sacred. Uh, okay. Paul, >> I'll move to approve the application as submitted. I think it sounds like it will comply with our standard conditions. So, I would impose the standard con conditions. All construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the
property owner. Uh, between June 30th and Labor Day, no exterior construction will be allowed. No work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p p.m. only. Uh David seconds and votes yes. >> All votes yes. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> And I've already asked a unanimous vote. Thank you, Mr. Singer. >> Thank you very much. We appreciate your time. >> Okay. 25-122. >> Application number 25-122. John E. Swson Co. Inc. Car of William F. Fryley, Esquire, PO Box 707, Chattam, Mass
02633, owner of property located at 196 Shore Road, also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 16E, block 15, lot 3. The applicant proposes to install an exterior mechanical system appliance generator 1 foot from the coastal conservancy district or a 50ft setback
is required. The property contains 3.2 acres in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 9 and section 8D2B of the protective bylaw. >> Mr. Riley, uh, good evening. Oh, good
afternoon. I know you were planning on the evening, but uh, so I'm representing the Hawthorne Motel, owned by the John Swenson Company, Inc. They're installing a new septic system uh that's going to require
a pump system up leech field is going to be in the front parking lot up by Shaw Road. Uh so water health regulations require that a generator be provided in close proximity
uh to this portion of the septic system. Uh so we've uh located it above the coastal flood plane. Uh but its proximity requires a special permit because the setback would
typically be 50 ft which apparently is uh something the board of health wouldn't be happy with. So um I think that we don't use the don't have many connections to the normal criteria but
size of the site is clearly adequate for the placement of a uh generator and associated equipment. We are increasing the non-conforming nature because we're not meeting the setback from the coastal conservancy district.
I think the site is suitable uh for the work. Uh we're also working with the conservation commission issue with a special uh pardon me an order of conditions which we believe will they'll enter uh once you've voted.
Uh the applicant believes there no change on the impact on the neighborhood visual character that were compatible with neighboring uses like our neighbor chat bars in u so
method of sewage disposal they're doing a completely new septic system so that should be an improvement and we don't think to be any impact on traffic flow and safety or noise and litter. Oh, we think this is not substantially
more detrimental to the neighborhood. In fact, we think it's going to be an improvement. That'll be our presentation. >> Thank you, Mr. Riley. Is there anyone here today on Microsoft Teams that would like to speak in favor of this application? Don't see anyone. I'll read the correspondence. This is from the
Conservation Commission here in Chadam. The applicant submitted a notice and so forth. The project was heard on October 22nd, 2025. The project is scheduled for an order of conditions on January 14th, 2026 when it will be conditioned to meet
the performance standards under the wetlands protection act and the town of local wetland bylaw chapter 272. That is the extent of the correspondence. Is there anyone here today on Microsoft Teams who would like to speak either
against this or has a specific question? >> No. >> Okay. Questions from the board. Uh Ed, >> so the existing leeching field for the existing leeching field for the septic system, do you know I can't seem to
doesn't seem to be identified. Is it ex where it the new proposed >> sorry >> leeching field? >> The leeching field for the septic system >> existing. >> It doesn't seem to be identified on the plan. >> Well, they're I can tell you they're
down below. Actually, the the um >> uh if you look >> at the uh >> the dotted line ones, are those the existing? >> Yeah, the circles. >> Okay. So, >> yeah, that that's the existing system. So that the whole idea of this is
they're moving the Leechfield up uh up far away from the coastal conservancy district up by the road. >> Okay. >> And they need a pump to get there. Pump requires a generator. >> And um
I mean we all know that this property is for sale. Is this um you want to give us the inside scoop of uh why all this work for a property that's being sold? Well, I think the I don't know if it's
all I know is it it is for sale. Uh but I think whether it sells or not, you know, this is they're bringing everything into compliance with current regulations. >> Paul, no questions. >> No questions.
>> Quick question, Mr. Riley. So, you made a comment that the generators being uh nestled in just within the right side of the flood flood plane line, but the septic, which I know you're not here for that, doesn't have to be uh it can be in
the flood plane. >> Well, it's the leech field that you worry about being in the flood plane. >> Okay. >> So, this is the septic tank is in the flood plane. Presumably it's a tight, you know, it's it doesn't things aren't supposed to leak from the
septic tank. >> Uhhuh. >> They up to the leech field and then it leeches down into the groundwater presumably. So >> Okay. >> The right now the existing leech field is >> you know in very close proximity to the
flood plane. >> Yeah. >> So this is a huge improvement from a border of health point of view. >> Understood. Okay. Thank you, >> Dave. Um, I don't think Well, is it does the generator need to be elevated in any way? Is it going to be up on a platform?
I know you're outside the flood plane, but you're going to take any extra precautions. >> I think they they put it on a concrete base other than that. >> Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you, Lee. >> No questions,
>> Dave. >> I have no question to you. >> Okay. >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. Steve seconds and votes yes. >> All vote yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> And yes, >> Paul.
>> Well, it looks to me like it makes sense to make this change from a conservation viewpoint and from our viewpoint. So, I intend to approve it. >> Randy. >> Yeah, I agree with Paul as usual. >> Yeah. from an environment from an
environmental and a uh business perspective, I think it makes sense and it it meets our criteria. >> I think it's a uh a needed um a needed thing to do for the business and and for the environment. Nothing
else we can do about it. >> I I agree with my colleagues, >> Dave. As do I. Ed. >> Yeah, I certainly agree. It's certainly going to be an improvement to having that leeching field elevated out in front of the building.
>> Yeah. You know, when you look at what's planned for the leeching field and what they think is there, you know, it's like, wow, five, six times bigger, something like that. Okay. You know, environmentally,
you're getting it away from the water, moving it up. So, okay, Paul. Uh, I'll move to approve the application as submitted. I guess the question would be conditions. What >> I don't think I don't think you need any conditions. They're clearly not going to
do the work during the during the summer season. >> That's for sure. >> They're not going to do the work while they have while they have guests on the property, do you? >> Right. >> I don't think you need any conditions. >> Everybody agree with that? >> I agree. I'll move to approve the
application as submitted. >> Dave seconds and votes yes. >> Wall votes yes. >> Yes. Virginia votes yes. >> I vote yes. Unanimous decision. Thank you, Mr. Riley. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay. 25-123, please. Sarah.
>> Application number 25-123. Robert Beth Jacobs. Care of Robert Bath, 94A Commerce Park South, South Chattam, Mass 02659. Owners of property located at 63 Thompson's Trace, also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 9G block 6
lot T4. The applicant seeks to enlarge, extend, or change a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the conversion of the existing garage to habitable space and under the second except clause of section six of chapter 48 requires the grant of a special permit. The law is non-conforming and
that it contains 54,135 ft where 60,000 ft is required in the R60 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law Chapter 4A section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw. >> Good afternoon, Bob Vth. I'm here
representing Bob and uh Beth Jacobs uh for Thompson's Way. Um, we're looking at converting the existing garage into a new master bedroom with a bathroom. Um, there's it's a four bedroomedroom house
and uh there is no real change to the exterior, but I'll go over the the criteria. Um it's uh adequacy of size of the um site including but not limited to we're not
changing and the uh house is just under 1500 square ft. Uh no change compatibility of the structure no change in the size of the structure uh extent and increase of the non-conforming nature of the structure.
Uh no proposed increase um of the uh of the size of the structure. Uh no change in the site um impact and scale and mass in the neighborhood there. Uh we're not changing anything uh on the
exterior other than some windows on the east side. Uh compatibility of the neighborhood use. It's very compatible. Again, uh not a large home. Um, and we're not increasing the size of the home.
Um, the adequacy of the sewage. There is a septic system. So, there is a new bathroom, but that will be uh hooked up to the existing septic system. Uh, no impact on flow of traffic uh and safety. Noise and litter. We will have a uh a
job site uh uh container on and site utilities provided. Um, and no impact, no visual impact as we're not increasing the size of the house. >> Thank you for having the criteria going through it.
>> I've been in that position of standing up here without the criteria, so I know what it's like. It's it's a horrible feeling. So, I know >> we appreciate it. >> Okay. >> All right. Um, is there anybody here today or in Microsoft Teams that would
like to speak in favor of this project? Don't see anyone. We have a little bit of correspondence. We have Judith Giorgio, Board of Health, saying on January 6th, I have no concerns regarding converting this garage into a
bedroom. Existing four bedrooms will remain. The existing first floor bedrooms to be converted into an office. Then we have a note from Helen Roth on January 6th. I would like to voice my support.
I understand that they would like to convert their existing garage to a living space in order to create a first four bedroom so they may age in place. I hope the town of Chadam allows it. Something about aging in place.
And then we got another note. This is from Alfred and Deborah Fuller. 37 Thompson Straits. Oh, I didn't tell you about the previous >> soul. Didn't know. Okay. Uh any rate Alfred and Deborah Fuller January 6th
regards to this application as abutters we have no objections to the changes the Jacobs wish to make to their residence and that's the extent of the correspondence. Is there anyone here today or on Microsoft Teams who would like to either a speak against or has a
question about this application? If so, please indicate you'd like to join the conversation. Okay. Questions from the board. Does anybody have a question? >> Paul. >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> Dave seconds and vote yes.
>> All vote yes. >> Yes. Yes. >> Yes. Who would like to start? >> Oh, Steve, you volunteered. Good. Thank you. >> Well, we have the case of another lost garage, but I think it's a good project. Um,
>> it's a small garage. >> I think it's a good project and if it helps them uh age in place, then more power to them, >> I agree. It's um looks like a good way to get a master bed and bath.
>> Dave, aging in place is sometimes how I feel sitting here. Uh no this this is a a u very I mean the the visual impact on the will it' be minimal no one's going to
see the difference of it at all and u and I enthusiastically support it >> and I would certainly support it as well and meets all our criteria and uh uh wish them the best >> certainly meets our criteria I will support it Randy
>> I agree I agree with my colleagues Paul, I'll uh move to approve the application as submitted. I think the only condition I would suggest would be that all construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner given the location on this particular property
in Right. >> Yeah. >> Oh, I completely agree. Uh Dave seconds and votes yes. >> All votes yes. >> Yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> Yes. Congratulations. Thank you. >> Okay, I think we finally come to the
last one. 25-124, please. >> Application number 25-124, Daryl G. Messier and Deborah J. Messier, care of Thaad Eldridge, 1038 Main Street, Chattam, Mass 02633. Owners of property located at 65 Florence Drive.
also showed on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 3B, block 52, lot G14. The applicant seeks to enlarge, extend, or change a non-conforming dwelling in a non-conforming lot via 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 second except clause of section six of Mass General Law Chapter 4A requires the grant of a special permit. The existing building coverage is 1,154 square ft, 13.2%
and the proposed building coverage is 1,299 square ft 14.9% where 15% is the maximum allowed. The law is non-conforming and that it contains 8,792 ft where 20,000 ft is required in the R20 zoning district. A special permit is
required under master under law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw. Before you start, may I thank you for the whole board for the Bayberry candles that the Boy Scouts gave to us. I burnt mine to the socket. So therefore, I'm going to have great
health and tremendous wealth in the new year. So all that will be thanks to you. >> We're happy to say we were able to provide those candles to the five major boards. >> Wow. >> All the members and and all the scouts are appreciative of all the efforts that
>> all the volunteers make. Thank you. So, please welcome >> tell us about 65 Florence Drive. >> All righty. For the record, Thad Eldridge. I'm here with the messers who are she's diligently working in the back. He's sitting through the the meeting and learning all about zoning and criteria.
I'd like to say save the best for last, but I'll settle for last but not least. We have um a concrete block house, slap-on grade. The Messiers have owned this for a season. Um, they've enjoyed it, but they would like some storage
space and they'd also like some space for guests, children, and and so on. So, um, they're proposing to take down the concrete block house, which is is pretty unique. Um, put up a house that does maximize
the coverage. We're just below the maximum allowed coverage. Um, it will remedy the sideyard setback nonconformity. It will provide the basement storage space and half 3/4 up above, not the full twotory um in order
to address mass. So, the lot itself is adequate. We are moving that building over to remedy the the nonconformity. Um, in the neighborhood, we have homes that range from 752 ft to 2460. this at
1299 is right in there. And number three is the extent of the nonconformity. It's just the living space that's increasing as we're remedying the the sideyard. Um we have recreated the site. The neighboring
property does get a puddle in it and not just from this property, but we're remedying the storm water runoff that would flow from this property onto the Abutter. Um the existing home is unique and the proposed house has some charm. Uh it's
not overwhelming to the streetscape should fit in pretty well. We're residential. The existing septic system will be reused. It's a post95 title 5 system and otherwise I don't think there are any criteria that need to be addressed. If you have questions I'm happy to
answer them. >> Thank you very much. Is there anyone here today or in Microsoft Teams who would like to speak in favor of this application? Don't see anybody. So, I'll read the correspondence which consists of a note from Judith Giorgio.
This is an existing two-bedroom dwelling and will be replaced with a two-bedroom dwelling. The second floor loft area must maintain a 6-foot opening and open railings along the top of the stairs. As proposed, the plan is acceptable and not encroach on the existing septic.
That's it. Is there anyone here today or in Microsoft Teams that would like to speak either against this application or has a specific question? If so, now is your chance to enter the conversation. Okay, questions? Uh
>> Paul, you have any questions? I have no questions. Randy, >> I don't either. >> Jenny, >> yes, I do. Thad, can you tell me what the height of the ceilings are uh in the proposed
first floor, second floor? >> I can look that up. I realize you're not the architect, but I just I didn't see it on here. I didn't know if you knew. >> We have a uh first floor 8 foot four and a half to the top of the plate.
>> And then second floor 7 foot four and a half. >> I'm sorry. Sorry. Can you repeat that? >> Second floor is 7 foot four and a half. First floor 8'4 and a half. >> Oh, okay. All right. Um, that was my only question. Thank you,
>> Steve. Uh, I have no questions. >> Lee, no questions. >> Dave each. Um yeah, this I was noticing that uh it looks like even uh if we prove this the loss of
that house will still leave a sister house about two doors down the street. Is that true? >> We'll be back for that. >> Okay. Just wondering. No, thanks. That's it. >> Charmed. >> Yeah, probably no more charming than the one that you're seeking to change, I
would think. That's all. >> Um, just curious, you could have gone to three bedrooms with an an IIA, right? If if if the owners wanted that >> with the restriction on summertime rental or rental,
>> just just keeping it too. Okay. >> You have to be on the mic. So with that, my question is that when I looked at it at the rendering of the proposed new home,
it it I didn't think that it was compatible with the neighborhood. It just seemed to me to rise up. And now there are a couple of other two-story homes in the neighborhood. I grant you
that. But that's not the That's not the prepundonderance, but it just it just seemed to me to be too much of a house for that lot and that neighborhood to be
compatible. So, please speak to us about that. >> Oh, certainly. Looking at the vicinity map. Thank you, Sarah. Looking diagonally across the street, the 1683 ft home. That is a one and a
half story with some doghouse dormers on the front. 1622, 2036, 1988. The there are many houses around that are more than one story.
So, it's There's certainly more than one-story homes in the neighborhood and we can expect others to be converted in the future. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Well, I just that was my that's what I was hitting.
>> We did rain them in and keep them at one and three under less than one and 3/4 knowing that a full two story would be overpowering. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Uh let's see. We've had questions >> actually.
Sure. >> So that u tagging on to that do you consider that what you said one and a half and one and three/4ers in your narrative but that's not a twotory >> not a full twotory. The second floor
doesn't have >> because of the the the top is dormers. Is that why >> it's dormred and then it's not entirely living space on the second floor. >> Okay. Generally a twotory, you're going to have 95% of the first floor area on the
second floor. >> Okay. And then um just a quick question to Ed's. So this lot is 8,700 square feet. Um you could get a threebedroom with that size of a with an AI, >> I believe. So, but it's the the board of
health is requiring um the deed restriction. >> Yeah. No short-term. I was just I just thought I didn't know that. Okay. Interesting. Um Okay. Thank you. Well, >> I think uh just as a comment, I think Dave, maybe your your concern about the
size or mass of the building might also come from the fact that if you if you approach it from Forest Beach Road going up Florence Drive, you've got some fairly small places on the left hand side and you're then on the top of the hill. >> Yeah. >> In effect. So that it it would be
>> it'll be a little more imposing than it would be if it were further back on Florence towards Forest Beach >> because you're going to be going up the hill >> because you're going up the hill. You're at the top there and it's sort of an open space uh on Bay View.
>> Okay. And I would also add, Dave, and and when I looked at it, I I noticed is that the the pitch of the main roof is slightly steeper than you might expect to see visually. It's it's a 13 and 12
instead of normally they kind of go up to a 12 and 12 and on a house like this, a Cape Star house. So that might have been the other reason that you kind of saw it. >> Okay. All right. Well, you had your cohorts here to uh to help you out.
That's good. All right. Um Paul, I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> David seconds and votes yes. >> All votes yes. >> Yes. Yes. >> And yes. Okay. Deliberations. Randy. >> So, um I'm looking at what's there now
>> and my notes were not complimentary. I'm not going to tell you what they were, but so I I have I'd have a hard time finding that this was substantially more detrimental than what's there now. It's a a new attractive looking um
dwelling and um so I don't think I would be founded in the law to um to oppose it. >> Ch. Um, well, I I initially thought it was too tall for the neighborhood. I I felt
like there were many more singlestory and a few um one and a half stories. Um, so I just I'm I want to hear what my colleagues have to say. I just I want to be open to it. the 11 foot increase in the height
of the current house and I albeit the current house is small and I I totally understand the the desire to expand and um and replace that but that's a really significant increase in that neighborhood and I also heard you make
the comment that other houses will be improving you know as well and that's that I can see that potential but there could also be some folks there that wanted a small house there because there are small houses there. The lot is 18 is
8,729 square feet. It's a small lot. So, I was concerned about the mass criteria five. Um but uh but I want to hear what my colleagues have to say. >> Steve, >> uh well, I think there's a lot of very
similar projects going on in the adjoining uh streets and neighborhood over there. So, I think this is not going to be the last time that we're going to be visiting um a project like this. Um I I think it's a nicel looking project.
I I don't think I have any issues with with this going up in that neighborhood. Lee. >> Um, yeah, I I had similar concerns um when we were out there looking, but I also noticed a lot of other houses that have been redone recently, and they are
very similar in um you know, stature to this one. Um this this proposed house is is only 1,299 square feet. That's not a very big house. And I think maybe it is the height. I mean, it is getting close to
the max. Um, but I I would approve it if I were voting today, >> Dave. >> Um, yeah, I don't I I think it's it's um I mean, it's the neighborhood is is in transition and has been and and I don't
think this proposal uh is um excessive in any way really. Uh again, I as Mike commented about the main roof pitch, but that's not uh not a big difference that from what might be considered standard,
if you will. The ceiling heights are are is completely standard. I mean, 8ft studs on the first floor, 7 foot studs on the second floor, and that and that's why you get to those those kinds of numbers, and that's not given what we've been hearing lately about people want 9
foot ceilings and various things. There's none of that here. So I I'm not concerned about the u the increase in height really. I it's not I don't see it in in looking overall at the neighborhood as substantially more detrimental. I I think it's fine.
>> And I agree the the ceiling heights are are modest. You know the new construction these days you know people are demanding sometimes 9 foot ceilings. Um and these these are very modest. It's a modest onecar garage. Um
the size is is is not particularly, you know, large. Um Cape style. I I would find it hard to not approve approve this house if I was voting. Well,
you know, I I know this is the four runner of what's going to happen in the neighborhood, but is are we going to be happy when we look at that neighborhood and everything is 29 ft tall? You know, I I'm not
convinced that I am. I'm not convinced that that's what I want to see that neighborhood become. But is it substantially more detrimental?
No, it's not. Uh I think it's somewhat detrimental, but not substantially more detrimental. So, well, I guess uh I had I didn't have an opportunity to to to talk about that, but I I think that uh
um I do have some hesitation because of the size of the lot and the size of the house that's going in there. And uh well I think it would fit better uh farther back on the road. As I mentioned, uh it seems to me that
um I'm pretty close to saying that uh it is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood uh given the the size of the house. It's not that it's a big house. It's that it's on a small lot and that it's maxing the
uh limits that we have in terms of height and so forth. Um, and I have I have the feeling that as you go up that hill uh towards Florence from on Florence towards Bay View, there's going to be a tendency to say, "Wow, that is
really quite large for where it's at." So, I would be inclined to say that it can be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. >> Jenny, back to you. >> Wow. Um, >> well, I uh I agree with Paul as as I
mentioned. Uh those were my concerns at the beginning. I thought Dave, you made some good comments though about um you said, "Do I want to see that neighborhood be a bunch of houses at 29 ft tall?" And this one's being proposed
at 288 and 3/4. So that's almost 29. Um and and and I agree where it is cited on that in that neighborhood is, you know, up up on like the higher part of the road. And then the lot size, the 8,000
square feet. So I I'm leaning more towards going back to my initial thought that it's a little too tall. So I I'm I'm leaning towards Paul, what Paul's saying. >> So uh Thad, um would you like a straw vote?
>> Sure. >> Okay. Oh, >> I listening to everybody um and thinking about the size of the lot and the neighborhood and what our role is here. Um I think it would be reasonable to ask
you to come back with something a little less tall and I think you've heard everything and you're experienced. So I would tend to go along with the colleagues that feel it's not the most appropriate for that lot at at this
point. Just so you know. >> So if it's just the height and we can decrease the roof pitch, bring it down a bit, can we ask for a continuence or should we ask for a withdrawal without prejudice? You know, the continuence wouldn't be soon.
And I said instead of spending the money for a withdrawal that all you're going to do is change the height of the house. Is that what you're essentially saying? >> I mean, that's the concern that I'm hearing from the board. >> Mhm. >> So, if we were to bring this down to
either a >> Yeah, I I I guess um >> there, >> as you know, I'm not a I'm not wild about continuences, but I guess in this case, I could I could go along with that. >> Certainly why I asked first.
Right. Yeah. Okay. So, um we'll skip the straw vote because I think you already heard the straw vote. >> Oh, yes. >> Yeah. Okay. So, Paul, I think we have a >> question. >> Oh, >> when do you reasonably expect to be able
to have revised plans to the board? >> What's the most convenient time for the board? item. >> Uh, earliest I would be scheduling for right now would be February 12th or February 26th. So, they would need it a
a week, at least a week prior to that. >> So, they're not planning on building until September. So, we have time. There's no pressure there. The 26th would be more than fine. >> Okay. Okay. So, Paul, that's the motion. Continuence to the 26th of February.
I'll move to grant the request to continue it to February 26, 2026. >> Uh David seconds and votes yes. >> All votes yes. >> Yes. Yes. >> And yes. Unanimous vote. Thank you that and again thank you for the
>> Oh, sure. >> Scouts with all you do for the scouts. So, thank you. Okay. >> Well, somehow we have staggered to the end. >> One more thing to do. All right. Motion to >> Oh,
no. It's still the time. >> I will I will move to adjourn. >> How we need everybody to vote on this. >> So, I I will second that motion and vote yes. >> Ed votes yes. Paul votes yes. >> Yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> He votes yes. >> Yes.
>> And I vote yes. And the official time is >> 3:48 p.m. >> Wow. All right. Good.