Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music]
[Music] You know, I get when you Good afternoon everyone. This is the April 10th, 2025 meeting of the town of Chadam Zoting Board of Appeals. Pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28th, 2025
signing of the chap of chapter 2 of the act of 2025, extending certain COVID measures adopted during the state of emergency, suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law until June 30th, 2027. This meeting of the Cadam Zoning Board of Appeals is conducted in person
and via remote participation. Every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings provided for in the order. A reminder that people that would like to listen to this meeting while in progress may call
508-945-4410 conference ID 1 9431313 pound or join the meeting by the link in the Microsoft Teams link in the posted agenda. This is a live broadcast and simoc cast. Chattam TV um will provide it as soon as possible. If we
don't have real time access, we will post a meeting on the town's website as soon as possible. In accordance with town policy, the public can speak to any issue or business item on the agenda during the meeting when recognized by the chair. I'd ask that everybody shut
off any gadgets that make any noise whatsoever, if you would. And procedural steps for the meeting is we start off with a roll call of all board members and then we ask if there's anybody participating on the phone to make sure that you can identify yourself for us in
during what you're speaking. Um our staff Sarah Clark on my right will read the hearing notice. Then you are your representative can present your appeal or application. Anyone in favor will be asked if they'd like to speak and that
would be for up to five minutes and there'll be a clock on the board to keep you in line with that. Um, and then we will read any uh and all letters received by the board and then anyone who wants to ask a question or would
like to speak against the application will have also five minutes to do so. And if you have a letter and you want to speak, I'd ask you to choose. do you want to speak or do you want us to read your letter? Um so please try to follow along with that. Then the applicant will
have a chance to rebut anything in the letters or testimony. We will ask questions and then hear further information and then when we close the public hearing at that point it's just the board deliberating. We won't be taking comments or questions from
anybody else when we close the public hearing. We will deliberate and usually we vote on the appeal. Uh all votes are taken by roll call and at the end of the meeting we will close with a verbal confirmation and note the time of adjournment. So we're going to start
with a roll call of all board members authorizing and approving this um form of meeting starting with David Vch. Yes. Uh David H. Vich and I approve this form of meeting. Ed Actton I approve. David S. Nixon I approve. Paul C simple I
approve. Steven D. Dboran and I approve. Virginia Fenwick, I approve. And Randy Pardash, I approve as well. Now, we have a one set of minutes and before we actually approve them, there may be some comments. So, Paul, can you move the minutes? I will move the adoption of the
minutes uh circulated for March 13, 2025. Uh Dave V seconds and wishes to offer some corrections. Please do. Um so on on um these are all sort of housekeeping type corrections. On page three
uh near the top of the page there are um uh three u bullet points that um begin with Mr. Po Yo. And in those three we want to change the P to a D. It's Mr.
Mr. Doino. Okay. Okay. Then on um page five um and down the lower third of the page following the the the termin term of correspondence was read into the record.
Um below that we the first bullet point we want we'd like to strike um where it says wetlands permitting coordinator and substitute board of health and then to strike the second bullet second and
third bullet points um regarding um um correspondence received for this one. Okay. Then we on and then we get to page seven where uh near the top of the page again the following correspondence was
read into the record. The second bullet point and third bullet points should be followed at the following the date November 19th, 2024 in the first bullet
point putting adding the words wrote in opposition and under the last bullet the third bullet point uh under the following the date November 12th 2024 also wrote in opposition Okay. Anybody else? Um Jenny, did you
have a comment? Uh the I wanted to point out the Mr. Join misspelling. Um mine is super minor compared to all of those days. Um on page two, conservation commission, the very bottom, it's the one, two, three, four, fifth bullet from the bottom. Um should be capital C,
conservation commission. Okay. Anybody else? Uh, also very minor and I think Dave V might have mentioned this. I didn't catch it. Back on page five under the correspondence was read.
Uh, there's Robert and Andrea Dodd. The letter says it was November 11th, 2025. I think it should be 2024. We haven't had November 11th yet. As long as it was those were those were actually we were striking okay that
those lines and then moving them to another location. Are we ready for a vote as amended and so and Dave each votes to adopt? Okay. And uh Ed Actton approves.
Dave, I approve. Well, all votes to approve. Steve votes to approve. Jenny votes to approve. As do I. Okay, that was easy. Now, we're going to go to our first application. 24-140, Cynthia Waters, Care of William
F. Riley, um 48 C Miss Lane. Sarah, application number 24-140. Cynthia Waters, care of William F. Riley, Esquire, PO box 707, Chattam, Mass 02633. Owner of property located at 48 CUS Lane. Also shown on the town of
Chadam's assessor is map 1A block 20J lot X10. The applicant proposes to change alter or expand a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a new dwelling. The existing dwelling is non-conforming and that it is located 14.5 ft from the
southerntherly butter. The proposed dwelling will be non-conforming and that it will be located 14.5 ft from the southerntherly leter where a 15oot setback is required. The existing building coverage for the 10 dwellings is 9,12 square ft 11.2% and the proposed
building coverage is 9,263 ft 11.4% where 10% is the maximum allowed. The lot is non-conforming and that it has 10 dwellings where one dwelling is allowed. The lot contains 81,358 square ft in an R20 zoning
district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw. This was continued from January 9th and March 27th, 2025. Hello. Welcome back, gentlemen. If you could tell us what's new on this one,
that would be um efficient. Oh, thank you very much. William Riley on behalf of Cynthia Waters, who's present here today. Excuse me. So, on the top page of the handout, uh I showed you the changes. So, in the
previous design, the seller was 895 square feet. Now it's 859. First floor was reduced from 948 square feet which is adding 150 square ft to 912 square ft which adds only 114
square ft. The second floor was previously 914 square ft. It's now 821 square feet. Top of the ridge was previously 59.65. Now it's
57.75. So about a two- foot decrease. The building height from top of foundations is 28.85. Now it's 26.6 ft. Building coverage. Yeah. Goes
from 965 square ft to 926 square feet. Whoever's online, if you could mute. Yep. Okay. The southerntherly butter setback previously was 14.5 ft. Uh we're moving the building slightly north so
it's 16 feet and then the ceiling height on the first floor was 8' 2 in and now it's 7' 11 in. Those are the those are the principal changes that we've made. the I'm going to ask Chris to go through
uh how he made the changes and and uh you know what the goal of of both he and Miss Waters were in making them. So Chris Cannon the architect um the we we are not moving the building
north. Uh in fact we are shortening the building at 1 foot6 so that the northern uh portion stays exactly where it is. The south end moves 1 foot6 removing the nonconformity of 6 in over the line. Uh so um I thought that was a good place to
start because it provided me a reduction of uh quite a bit of square footage uh at each floor. So um so you know that was where I started. Um, I dropped the driveway 6 in. That was about the most I
felt I could do it and still be able to drive cars back up to Semist Lane because there is uh a bit of a difference between the two. Uh, I dropped the uh the basement uh level or
seller level um a bit so that I could then drop the first floor. Uh, I dro was able to shelf the foundation in a way that gets the first floor closer to the uh to the driveway grade. Uh, and then I
dropped the roof by re organizing the roof and the exterior of the house quite a bit. I I uh actually uh somewhat redesigned the exterior while still keeping sort of character that I had originally had. Um I you know was able to remove on the
south end the dormer that I had um bring the roof lines. That that was a previous design. That was a previous Yeah. And so I was able to bring the roof lines down uh to create the the sort of view and I use the term of a one and a half story.
I don't mean that by uh the way our bylaws intend for it to be. It's it's the impression of a one and a half story house. So, uh, I was able to bring the the roof lines down both on the front and the back and create instead of what looked like perception of a three-story
house on the back, I created dormers so that it was a little more in line with what we think of as uh the back of a of a Cape home. So, I created two dormers. You can see I broke them up so it reduced square footage also. Um and and
uh gave, you know, more of a look of of the one-story home. Again, it's not much I can do, you know, to the fact that we're built into the side of a hill, but by dropping it down even further, less of that uh that uh portion of the
building is is seen. Um the other thing is I verified that this uh the seller is indeed uh below uh it's more than 50% in the ground. It does not meet our bylaws criteria for being a story. So this is
indeed a two-story house. So um on the uh sheet reg um you'll see all these changes uh that I made. Um, I outlined them in there and and I think that pretty well tells it and Bill Bill covered those.
So, uh, happy to answer any any questions. Thank you. Thank you very much. Um, okay. So, at our last meeting, uh, Mr. Nixon expressed a concern about how this h house would fit into the
neighborhood and suggested, uh, that we model the entire neighborhood. and the uh we investigated that and the cost candidly was kind of out of sight. So what we did was we took a lot of pictures. So what I'd like to
do to uh show Mr. Nixon, what the neighborhood itself looks like is Can we show uh Andrew's drone footage? Now, is this is this Andrew stuff or Okay. All right.
So, oh, can I stop you there for just a minute? So, what uh Chris did was he put up 2x4s on either end of the gable and then ran a string between them. It's difficult to see, but they're little
pink ties on the on the line. That's the height of the proposed ridge. Okay. Go ahead, Sarah. So, these are the other homes in the neighborhood. So, you see how our design fits in. So I think you know what it's kind of an
eglectic collection of designs and I think that um you know the Chris's design is compatible with those designs. And then um the third page on my
handout, you compare the gross floor areas. And so at our last meeting, uh David pointed out a pardon me, Mr. Nixon pointed out that our house was the largest house in the neighborhood. So,
under our current proposal, uh the gross floor area is 2592. Again, we're adding over 800 square ft of gross floor area because we have a basement and previously we did not. Um but as you can
see, uh there are um three homes that have larger uh gross floor areas than we do. Uh there of course there are then others like 18 which has never been modified and I I don't think 42 has been modified either but anyway so um but I
think that our design is compatible in size with uh the neighborhood and then the um what I'd like to do is go to uh picture three. One of the things we talked about a lot last time was the
impact uh on the view uh is that picture three. Okay. So, all right. So, this is the view from the deck on the Marino house. We weren't there. The drone was
there. And so, you can see so uh you can see the 2x4s sticking up from the roof. Uh so the south end of the house is being shortened by a foot and a half. So the view from the marino deck
uh remains largely unchanged um because the view over the roof is basically other houses in uh in Haritch and really distant views. And I should comment that prior
to the first meeting, uh, Mr. Marino and Miss Waters had a conversation about, uh, removing some trees and the, uh, so, uh, Cindy
contacted the neighbor and these because the trees weren't on the condominium property, they were on the neighbor's property. And I removed four trees. You can see the stumps there. Uh, and after she did that, she was told, "Well, you know, that still wasn't
sufficient, and that's that's why the Marinos were here to object to our last design." Um, so there was also conversation about uh whether other homes in the
neighborhood were impacted uh by the change in the ridge height. So if you want to go back to the you have to go I think all the way back to the beginning of Andrew stuff. All right. So uh see
the the picture three that I referenced is the one that's was taken from the by the drone from the deck of the Marino house. All right. So anyway, so that's basically the view the Marinos have
today. And as I say, the house is moving a foot and a half. I mean, a foot and a half is being cut off the house. Uh but when you look at the view above the house, you know, uh there's not that
much. So, go to the next picture. Okay. So, one of the things we talked about uh at the last meeting was whether there are other homes in the neighborhood whose views were going to be impacted. And
so, this is a two-story house behind uh the Marinos uh houses. So, the Marinos have the cottage here on the left and then they have another house on the right here, which you can just see the edge of. And so this is the
two-story house behind it that it was suggested the views would be impacted by the increase in our ridge height. And as you can see, the view is uh
mostly blocked by the uh the trees that already exist on the Marino property. Uh there is a tiny little bit of the view uh that would still be visible but the main view the majestic view of Nantucket
Sound remains. All right. Next picture this from a right. So this is uh from the south end of that same house as you can see uh they have a little deck there and so the view from that deck
must be out towards the near second because clearly you can't see anything from that little deck on the second floor out over our house. Next picture. Um, so this is a drone picture
uh from behind the Marino house. And so the uh uh in this picture the bottom part of the of the view would be blocked by the
roof but uh the main view the overall view of Nucket Sound is not blocked. Next picture. Um all right. So, so the house uh on the right hand side here is the
Marino's second home. So, Cindy Waters asked uh the drone photographer to take a picture from the house uh up at the corner of Seamius and Long Lane. And obviously,
there's no uh view over our property. Next picture. Um, that's uh that's 46. That's that's 46. That's uh Cindy Waters house with the So I
don't know. This picture must be from the house behind that. Um, we probably have the uh gist of this, Mr. Riley. Okay. Okay. Right. So, the
and we and we heard all the criteria last time. So, um, well, I just wanted to point out Yeah, sure. that you know we're only adding so in terms of number one adequacy we're only adding 100 square feet to the building coverage
compatibility of the size there are now three buildings in our condominium unit that are larger than our unit so we believe we're compatible uh we've reduced the non-conforming nature uh so that the building coverage
is of the entire condominium's going uh two ten of a percent. But uh you know because we because we removed the nonconformity in the south end of our house by cutting it off by a foot and a half. We've removed that
nonconformity. Uh and number four, I forgot to mention last time that we are adding a drain in our driveway to help control storm water runoff. Again, number five, we we believe that with the changes Chris has made,
uh that you know the uh other than the views of vistas from uh the Marino house, which I think remain essentially unchanged because they're on the south side of our house, uh that other other than that we're not
substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. And so everything else pretty much the same. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Cannon. So, is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wish to speak in favor of this application? Please raise your hand if you want to speak in favor.
Seeing none, I will read the one correspondence that we received on March 5th, 2025 from Sarah and Ronald Marino regarding ZBA application um
24-140. We respectfully request that a digital copy of the applicant's 3D model um be transmitted to or be accessible by our surveyor in a reasonable amount of time to review and provide comment on
the model. Our intention is to ensure an adequate standard of care has been applied to the 3D model and to verify the work product is a true and accurate representation of the proposed work. I further request that the applicant be required to contact East Southeast uh by
telephone and they give the telephone to ensure the best method to view the 3D model. A copy of this correspondence is being sent to the applicant's representative, William F. Riley, via email and certified mail. That concludes the correspondence. Is there anybody
here on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak against this application? If so, please raise your hand. Yes, sir. If you could, are both of you want to speak? Okay. So, one at a time, if you want to go up to the podium, you know the drill. The podium's
over there. State your name. When you get there, speak into the mic. And you have five minutes. Oh, we we we do that for you. Thank you. Yes. Hello. My name is Ross Marino. Uh I have two houses, one at 37 and one at 409 Semist
Lane. Now I'd like to begin begin briefly by uh referencing a case that was mentioned at the last meeting we had. Uh Kener v Chadam zoning board. I understand that many of you are familiar with the decision. Uh so I'll summarize the material facts briefly um to prove
that uh and to uh to prove that the material facts are not only relevant to today's proposal and explain why the potential injury to my property is far more uh substantial than what was the issue in Kennor. So in that case the Kenners objected to a proposed structure
located approximately 120 ft away from their home. The proposed home sat with an uh within the existing footprint and uh the changed in the change involved a 7 foot height increase in the roof from uh an original 12t
grade to its final 19 ft above grade. In contrast, the current application proposes a structure that would only sit 60 feet from our home, which is half the distance of Kennor and nearly 29 feet from grade, which is approximately 50% taller than the structure um and the
issue at that case. This is not just a technical difference. It is a material it is materially alters the scale and impact proposed uh in the building. As the Kenner's um as the uh court in Kennor noted, the board must consider the views and vistas of the neighborhood
and abuing properties when evaluating such proposals. While view obstruction alone is not legally significant to deny relief, the this proposal implicates more than just a view. Our property is um our property was previously approved for an outside deck which has been constructed in
reliance uh on the openness and natural light currently available. This proposed structure was uh would not uh or would cast significant shade over the deck and the yard for most of the day, making it functionally unusable for its intended purpose. This is not a merely aesthetic
complaint. It implicates the enjoyment and the use of our outdoor space, which was previously approved and relied upon, especially for a rental property. This house has been rented out uh by my family for over 60 years now, and uh the experiences it offers is quaint,
peaceful, and coastal. It's a central value to the character of the neighborhood. Guests come to Chadam not only to feel hemmed in by the uh feel hemmed in by the dense vertical construction, but also enjoy the open
skies and sea air. Eating outdoors, enjoying the yard, and viewing oceans are not luxuries. They are core to the property's identity and rental appeal. By contrast, this if this application was granted, the porch would sit in near constant shade. The yard would struggle to support grass and flowers, altering
the neighborhood's charm. The sense of openness would be replaced with a walledin feel, more characteristic of a city than Chattam. I live here, excuse me, I I live and I go to school in Boston. I know and I love the city, but Chadam is not Boston. It is a small
fishing town with historic cottage culture. These changes threaten that spirit. The town of Chadam's community vision statement emphasizes this very point. It states that Chattam retains its village character quote unquote with its Cape Cod style, its distinct
neighborhood concerns, its small intimate building scale, and its values and it values its spiritual perception and to a certain extent geological sense of isolation. Applicant 22 24-140 as proposed is plainly
inconsistent with these principles. In conclusion, the scale and height and proximity of the proposed structure are is incompatible with the neighborhood character. It diminishes the usability and the charm of the rental property and contradicts both the precedent set in Kennor and the town's own planning and
vision. I respectfully urge the board to deny this application. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Next. Ronald Marino um 49 3749 CMUS Lane uh regarding the uh photos
uh 3D survey really would have been helpful or even the photos if we had an opportunity to review them ahead of time. I think the perspective from which those photos were taken was quite creative at 50 feet above the highest
point in the neighborhood. Clearly, you can see the ocean very well. Uh not sure that those were an accurate representation of what is exactly out there. Um, my intention is to to have looked
through the zoning board rules and regulations and point out where I personally feel this application is in conflict with those regulations. The first thing that I found was that the application has a complete failure to
meet the intentions of the bylaw and the bylaw is to promote or maintain compatibility with neighboring properties. I don't feel that it does. Again, we hadn't seen the revised drawings until just now. Uh I'm still not convinced that it does. There's a failure to avoid the creation of adverse
impacts on neighboring properties. There's also a failure to reduce or minimize existing adverse impacts on neighboring properties. The the property is already uh nonconforming land. Um and we're going to increase that under
section B. enlargement, extension, and change. The zoning enforcement officer will determine that the proposed project does not increase the non-conforming nature of such dwelling. For dwellings with setback nonconformities, any addition within the required setback
area, including an increase in building height shall be deemed to increase the nonconforming nature of the dwelling. So to say that we've done tremendously to reduce the nonconformity, you haven't. You may have done it on the south side, but you did it on the you added it back
in in tfold on the top. I asked the board, "If this project is approved as submitted, then why have a bylaw at all?" Other pre-existing non-conforming structures may be extended, altered, or changed in use by special permit, which
is what they're here for, provided that the zoning board of appeals finds that such extension, alteration, or change will not substantially more will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conforming structure use. The
previous paragraph just showed that the application is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. of the 12 items that follow in paragraph B that the board uses to evaluate the criteria of the application. In making its decision, the zoning board of appeals shall make written findings at a minimum
each. Of those um additional 12 items, I feel that the application fails to meet the standard of the adequacy of the size of the site. It's the smallest piece of park land around over there of what's left of that singular piece. and it's
going to have one of the largest houses on it. The application fails to meet the standard of compatibility of the size of the proposed structure with neighboring properties. The application fails to meet the standard of suitability of the site, including but not limited to impact on neighboring properties,
including slopes on both sides. The application fails to meet the standard of impact of scale, sighting, and mass on neighborhood visual characters, including views, vistas, and streetscapes. That's right. From the town's own bylaw. Let's enforce it.
That's what it's there for. The lot coverage is already over 10%. It's already non-conforming. The proposal wants to increase it more. Um, I'll close by saying that upon reading the town of Town of Chattam's
community vision statement. It's clear to me that this application 24-140 is in stark contrast with that vision statement. The vision statement best summarizes why this application should be denied as submitted. There is
great concern that the Chadam not fall victim. I just want to just let you know just out of courtesy 40 seconds. Yes. Uh there is great concern that Cadam not fall victim to development forces which would deteriorate its uniqueness and turn it into any place
USA. But the overriding concern is for Chattam to hold on to what it has and ward off changes which could undermine its character and beauty. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that would like to ask a question
or speak against this application either in the room or online? Yes, ma'am. Please, you have to. You know the rules. Hi Sarah Marino. Um I am here to speak um not in favor of this this project.
Um, we do have uh pictures that are drastically different than the ones that were shown today if the board so chooses to see them. And that's what I would like to say. Thank you. Again, is there anybody here with a
question or wants to speak against or online? Seeing none questions from the board. Steve, madam chair. Oh, yes. You would you like rebuttal? I apologize. I always forget that. That's all right. And I have you to remind me
the uh again I'd like to see uh picture three if that's if you can find that. Okay. So uh this picture was taken by a drone. Wasn't 50 feet in height. It was head
height on the deck at the Marino house, which is directly across the street from our house at about head height. And as you can see, the real view is on the south side's
uh of our house. The view over the roof is, you know, the roofs of other houses in Haritch and and trees. Uh and not only is that view not being impacted, uh the south end of the house is being
brought into conformity with the setback and enlarging their view corridor by a foot and a half. So the uh uh you know there is an impact but from our perspective it
actually improves their view. the um in terms of they they talk about the compatibility of the house with the other neighboring houses. There are 10 homes in the Stish condominium. Uh there are three homes
that are have larger gross floor areas than our house. So, I think that our house is compatible within the Stanish uh condominium. And although the Marino cottage, which is directly across the
street, is quite small, the other Marino house uh is actually quite large, big two-story house. I do have to say I didn't understand what Mr. Marino was saying when he talked about shade and shadows because
we're downhill from them. So, I'm sort of mystified by that. But, um, so we think, uh, we think the lot is adequate. We're only adding 210 of a percent or even less now that we've shortened the
house. Uh, you know, so is this change substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood? Not to the Marinos, to the neighborhood. And since the Marino view is being retained,
uh I think that you could easily find and I hope you will that uh these changes are not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing structure. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Riley. Questions from the board. Steve, as we started, um I just two simple ones
just to sort of verify the the only sideline setback. uh non-conforming is the one that you mentioned in your application is the one on the southern side and all the other ones are in compliance with effects. Okay. And then in your picture number
three I think you referred to um the pole that's behind what I think is a chimney. Right. Is that the extreme south gable of the house of the new house? No. The G extreme gable of the
new house is going to be a foot and a half inside the lower roof. Okay. Yeah. Right. Yeah. More or less right there. Okay. So again. Okay. Thank you. J questions. Yeah, I have a few.
Um Mr. Riley or Chris. Storm water runoff. We talked about that last time. I think I heard you say you're adding a dry well to the driveway. That That's new. A catch basin. That's correct. Okay. Shown on
the site plan. Uh can you put the There you go. Right there. There's a lot of lines there. Yeah, a lot of lines here. Um Okay. And is that sufficient for I mean the the street runs down and it was brought up last time. So that that's you're
putting in what is you think is necessary size-wise industrial or so if I can answer that. Um there there two pieces to this. Uh we were requested by uh Standish to put in one at the uh
north west and the southwest corners. We cannot fit one at the southwest corner, but I think we'll still be able to get one at the northwest corner. So there there's going to be uh a catch basin or sistern of some sort down there to catch
water as well. So um I sized the one in here um to make sure that there was something which is still better than what's there currently. We are not changing the amount of water uh that's flowing onto this property. Matter of fact, that's going to continue to flow.
We're just redirecting it so it doesn't flow down the hills by uh you know the pitching the house away you know away from it towards the east. So uh this will be better even if we don't get the one at the north west corner uh this will be far superior to what currently
exists. Okay. And then knowing that um the water runoff is is was an issue at the hearing and probably has been in your new design. Can you talk a little bit about any extra attention to gutter detail or anything additional that you're doing
there? We would, you know, we would put gutters that would uh bring the water down and into uh the catch basin so that it could percolate, you know, any water could percolate down into the uh into the ground more slowly. Um the other piece
being of course the treatment of the driveway itself uh could be tremendous just because we can we have the opportunity to put layers of gravel in there which could could also contain the uh the water. So you know what happens off the roof is one piece of it. Um but
again there's no more water. In fact there's less because we're reducing um well it's not not quite less but um be very similar to what currently exists. So what exists we will maintain. We will certainly put gutters to to manage it.
But the biggest improvement is it doesn't have a driveway today in the front of the house. True. You're adding that. Yeah. You're dropping it down and then it's going to be impervious. I'm sorry, pvious um structure. So that's a pretty big improvement to a concern
right around water runoff. Okay. Um I I had a question. And the parking spaces, by the way, help to meet our bylaws, which currently the house doesn't meet the bylaws, not even close. And the parking space that currently exists sits on an
easement, so it shouldn't even be there. So, it's it's improving it in multiple ways. Okay, Mr. Riley, thank you. Chris, can talk about the trees for a second? You you mentioned in your narrative that u the Marinos had spoken to Mrs. waters
about trees on that southern side and they were taken down. But did I hear you say those trees are not on the waters property? So you were able to get it from the other neighbor. That's correct. So Cynthia contacted the neighbor. Okay. Next door and asked for permission to
remove the trees. It was granted. Yeah. So the trees were cut down and then the stumps were subsequently removed as well. So at some cost to miswaters. Unfortunately, you know, it didn't do anything to marketly improve
the view and so that's why the marinos are still here. Okay. Can I ask the Mr. Marino a question about the trees? I um Okay. Yeah.
You you can't talk until you get up there. How about now? Yeah. No, you're up there. Go ahead. So, the trees that were cut down, you didn't really improve the view from your first house, your more southern house. No, actually, no, they
did not. But you had asked a No, they did not. The history of that was the applicant came out and informed me of the proposed project. Great. And I said, you know, we both agreed
that those trees, some were dead close to the house, uh, some of those would be great if they were taken down. And I I said, "It'd be nice if the whole thing was taken out as a big tunnel because, you know, then we'd have a better view." But I never
agreed to pay for, never requested, never said, "If you go ahead and pay for that, I'm going to bless your project." Never. It was okay. But non-committal, but the trees, I mean, I can see the diameter of the trees and we saw the cut the cut stumps when we went to the site.
Um, they're pretty substantial trees. I don't know what type of tree it was, but it didn't that didn't help the view of your house from the actually No, because the pictures are taken in the winter time with no foliage on it. No, but taking out those trees, there was some
obviously there was some improvement because there were fewer trees. Okay. Um but not to the point where it's like, "Oh, that's marketkedly better." Okay. All right. Um question for you about the tree that's on your property that was shown
in the drone footage that Mr. Riley showed. Yes. Um I It was somewhere behind your property. This one? No, the the one where it's behind your property and it was showing a tree in the middle
that was pretty substantially blocking a view of the sound. Which one? That one? Yep. Uh yeah, that's in between our two houses. So those are your two houses. And then so I I know that the drone is not on the deck of the
house behind it presumably, but it is an image of your neighbor's view uh behind your houses and that's your tree? Yes, it is. Has anyone ever asked you in your neighborhood to take that tree out? Uh
no, actually we just took out We're going to stick to criteria in the questions if you could. Well, okay. I wasn't sure if that was a fair um but I Uh, we had a lot of trees, but and and we've taken a ton. Not a lover of trees
near the house. Okay. All right. Thank you. That's um that's all I have. Thanks. Okay. Questions? Paul? Uh, Mr. Riley, just go back to uh your photograph number three again. I had a question on that.
Right. Yes. Uh the ridge height of the new house is going to be how high in relationship to that one? It's uh in relationship to which? Yeah.
The what we see now in the photograph? It's 9 ft. It's 9 9 foot2 uh roughly um above the existing. The existing was elevation 17.5 I think. And oh so it'll be about 9 ft higher than what is there
now. That's why it's tough to see, but there we do have a a piece of rope with little pink things tied to it to mark the height. See? Oh, that's all.
Yeah. But again, from from the deck on the Marino's house, uh there's no view over, you know, the ridge of our house. I see. And and on the left hand side there, the view
improvement that you're talking about is about a foot and a half. Yes. It's that's going in. And that does that go to that window? Uh I don't think it goes that far. No, it's a foot and a half. You can see a sort of a white uh line to the right of
the corner board. Yeah. And it's around there. Yes, exactly. It's right around there. The ridge would would be uh at the uh the height 9 foot2 above the the uh main ridge currently. Um all the way across. And do you know what? Incidentally, if I may say that that the
the ridge that height is about the same height of the ridge at the house across the street, the Marino Marino's house. And as you look out the Marino's window at the first floor, you would be looking about uh into the second floor. Their second
their first floor is about 9 in above where our second floor is proposed. And do you know what time of day this photograph was taken? Uh yeah, I do. It was uh it was taken in the morning uh
yesterday. All right. And in terms of shading, um, it looks to me as if the the whole yard here in front of the marinos is shaded. Yeah. Because it it was in the morning.
So, yes. And what's happening is that the sun is then going to go towards Red River Beach from there. Right. Right. So presumably uh the shading that they're talking about that might affect their
deck would be coming from uh the higher ridge level of your new house. uh well the uh in the first place it would
have to be at the I'm not certain that it would but it would only happen if it's at the extreme end of the day when the sun is at its lowest point so that it would extend because because the house is 30 feet back from
the street and the street is 24 25 ft wide the marinos house is set back another 10 or 15 feet. So we're talking about as well as the young Mr. Marino said 60 feet.
Mhm. So I mean at some point the shade might actually you know reach their building but uh it would only be at the extreme end of the day. I mean it's just Okay. I have I have no other questions. David
Nixon questions. Yeah, I'm u I'm disappointed you weren't able to do a 3D presentation and I understand your reason why, but there's still a lot of confusion uh from the folks across the street and yourselves.
um if we can and we're fortunate because today we have the attorneys from both sides of the Kenner town of Chadam Hib scenario. Uh and maybe I should ask Mr. Ford more than you because I believe
he represented the Canners, right? How many houses did the canners assume were affected by the hive building? Was it one, two, three?
The uh my memory and just help me. Well, I don't remember. Um the Kennard House was directly across the street. Mhm. And the first floor of the Kenner house was the same elevation as the
proposed ridge on the hive house. The Wardell's who had the next house over also objected, but their view was not over the hive house. So I believe it was just one.
So it was just one, not two. That's correct. As far as I know. Well, I I don't know. I for some reason I thought there was two involved. Mr. Ford, can you help us out? One house.
Yeah. And so uh similarly uh the Marino cottage is the only house that's affected here. The the uh the second Marino
house, the one further north. Could you show that picture, Sarah, please? It has no view because the there are trees planted, existing trees on the north side of the of the
uh Waters property that completely block the view over the top of the Waters property. Too many pictures. Yeah. So, this is the view. Uh, so the the Marino house to the
north, whatever the number is there, 37 or whatever. Uh this is a view. So so the drone was at head height on on the deck of that property and this is the view. So we believe it's just a single
house here as well. Okay. Last question. Um going back to the Kenner Hive town of Chadam, what was the increase in the ridge on the hive house?
Um, it was either nine or 10 feet. If you remember that case, and there's no reason why you should. The hive house was basically in the water in in, you know, in the marsh.
And so, uh, what we did was, uh, they basically doubled the height of the house so that the first floor was now level with the street and then it was a second floor above it. Okay. Thank you, Edton. Questions? Um, just one question
to confirm. So, the, uh, ridge height, the original plan, the last time you were in, you you've reduced the ridge height by about two feet. Two feet. Two feet. Thank you, David V. Questions. Um, no, actually Chris answered, I just
want to confirm because I had done the math to get the that height difference from the existing ridge to the new proposed bridge, which as Chris is like 9'2 in roughly. That's how far those 2x4s stick up. I have no other questions. Thanks. So, so I just want to
just reiterate so your argument Ria Kenna about Kennor is that it can't just be one house. It has to be the whole neighborhood. That was the holding of that case. Correct. Correct. Right. Okay. And you and in this case you think with regard to the view it's only one house. Our only one that we're hearing
about. Right. That's correct. Yeah. And based remember the house behind that the young Mr. Marino talked about there's a sixoot stockade fence. So there's no view from the first floor. Yeah. It's only from the second floor and that's blocked by the tree on the Marino property. Yeah. Okay. Great. Great. Good
to know. So, um Paul, I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. Dave V seconds and vote yes. I vote yes. All vote yes. Jenny votes yes. As do I. Okay. Deliberations. Now, we'll start with Dave V.
Well, I I um I I I hear the uh um you know, the objections of the Marinos, but I I don't think they really apply in this case. I I think that, you know, by by my rating of our criteria, um that this is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Uh I
think it meets our criteria. Um and I and I would also uh um I don't often agree with Mr. Riley, but find that it's also is true. There's no no shading represented from this increase in roof except perhaps at the very end of the
day and on a in the summer and and you know it's not there's not shade is not likely to reach that Marino cottage under any circumstances other than that. Thank you. Oh, thank you Paul. Your thoughts? Well, I uh I do walk this area quite
frequently and I'm familiar with it. Um, I understand the uh concerns that the Marinos have expressed. uh but I do think that uh when you look at the standards that we need to apply with respect to the entire uh neighborhood
and when you look at the concessions that have been made by uh the applicant uh it seems to me that the time frame when when the shading is going to affect this area uh to the extent that it does
it's really it's going to be late in the day when to a certain extent you're looking directly into the sun and it becomes a bit of a But um it it seems to me that overall this is clearly not substantially more detrimental to the
neighborhood as a general proposition. Thank you, Mr. Nixon. Deliberations. Well, it's uh it's similar to the Kennerhive scenario. Um and I'm glad Mr. Ford was
here to confirm there was one house involved and from the presentation by the Marino family I get the impression that there's one house involved as far as the effect of the uh higher
ridge so that looking at our criteria I do not believe that this is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood while it might be substantially more have a metal to the
one house that the Marinos uh highlighted and as such uh I will be voting in the affirmative and Ed Actton deliberations um you I appreciate the Marino's
argument but I I also believe that um the applicant has made you know significant changes to the application um reduced the ridge height shortened uh that that southerntherly side of the house by a foot and a half. And um I
believe it it it does now meet our criteria. Thank you, Jenny. Uh I also appreciate the argument that the Marinos made and I empathize with you.
Um however, the Kenner legal case is um has been discussed. I think it is applicable and I agree with with Ed and my colleagues that I think impactful changes were presented. There was a lot of discussion at the last hearing and
the summary that Mr. Riley put together the previous and the current show lowered height of almost 2 feet, reduced gross floor area impacting the cellar, the first floor, the second floor, dropped the driveway, and I think most importantly was that storm water runoff
and the changes to the house are going to help with that and that end of the street where the marinos are. So, I know that doesn't compensate for a view, but um I I can't see that it's more substantially detrimental to the neighborhood. So, I would support it. and Steve, if you were voting.
Well, you know, I appreciate the the concessions that were made to uh to the height and and the setback that you've corrected. Um I think that the new design is is much improved. Um I like what you've done with the the southern gable there to kind of clean it up and
and remove some of the mass that was in the um original presentation. Um, you know, I I I think this is a good project and I, you know, I feel for the neighbors, but um, you know, it's one house in the whole neighborhood that that might be affected. So, I think I would support
it. Yeah. And I just think the neighbors should take some solace in the fact that it's a better project now because of you. Um, if you hadn't come last time, chances are we could have approved it last time and now you have a little bit of a smaller house. you have better uh environmental factors with this house.
So, um I think you you should be commended for coming and we appreciate that. Um is there any uh thing you want to say about uh construction time and all that uh conditions? Well, I think it would be the standard because it's a a crowded neighborhood.
So it would be no exterior construction after uh 4th of July and or before uh Labor Day. No work after
5:00 or before 8:00 or on weekends or on weekends. Okay, very good. Paul, I'll move to approve the application as submitted with the condition that all construction activity and vehicles should be contained on site or at neighboring property with the
permission of the property owner. That between June 30th and Labor Day, no exterior construction would be allowed, no work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8 am and 5:00 p p.m. only. Dave seconds and votes yes. I vote yes. All
votes yes. Jenny votes yes. As do I. It's unanimous. Thank you very much. Thank you for Thank you for your time. Okay. Miss Abby is next. 25-006. Michael G. Ford, Esquire. Um 103
AB Esami Run. Application number 25- Z006 Missy Abby LLC care of Michael D. Ford Esquire, PO Box 485, West Haritch, Mass 02671, owner of property located at 103
Absigami Run, also shown on the town of Chattam's assessor's map 12E, block 23G, lot A15. The applicant seeks to modify variance number 24-042 granted on May 9th, 2024, which allowed for the construction of a
swimming pool 25.5 ft from the road. The applicant now seeks to modify this variance to allow for the constructed pool to be located 25.2 2 ft from the road where a 40ft setback is required. The property contains 21,928 ft within the R40 zoning
district. A dimensional variance is required under Mass General Law Chapter 48 section 6 and section 8D2C of the protective bylaw. And welcome attorney Ford. Welcome um David Oppenheim. Thank you. Uh thank you Madam Chair and members of the board of appeals. So,
we're here as as indicated in the ad to modify a uh a variance decision which this board u granted for the installation of a pool at 103. And you may recall you found unique conditions relating to the shape of the
lot, the celestial shape as we talked about it last time. Uh such that um a large portion of this lot um was un unable to be built upon because the frontage requirement um ran parallel to
the curvature of Absigami Run. And as a result, you found that uh that shape uh was a unique condition and one which if you applied the bylaw literally it required um a 40ft setback for the pool created a
hardship. So um this case is all about the two plans that you have in in your materials. First, the plan that accompanied the variance that shows the setback that was approved by the board 25.5 ft or 25 1/2 ft um off of Absigami
at its closest point and the plan that's before you which is the uh existing conditions plan uh which shows it at its closest point of 25.2 ft. So, um it's approximately at that one point um it's
approximately um uh 3.6 in um closer to the roadway uh than it was authorized by the variance. And the area of the pool that is um 3 um 6 feet closer is point22
of a square foot. So um as Mr. Oppenheim said it's the size of that phone that's that's 2.22 square ft. So, um it doesn't comply, however, uh with your decision uh or with the
plan and that's why we're back here. Um we'd suggest respectfully that it's uh dimminimous. Um it certainly was not an intentional uh uh mistake. um uh but it is one for which uh we've discussed with the building commissioner and he
believes that uh and I think correctly so that we have to come back to this board to get relief. I'd suggest to you that if you're uh willing to grant this um that the same variance conditions uh that you relied on to grant the uh
variance in the first place all apply um in this case as well. And I'm happy to go through those variance conditions. I I I don't think you need to. Okay. So, uh I I think with that we'll we'll take questions. Okay. Are there
anybody questions? No. No questions. Well, a wait. Virginia, did you have a question? I did just have a question. What would be um I got to What would be an alternative to correcting it? No, we can't because you'd have to remove
basically you'd have to take all the water out of the pool. You'd have to put a triangle the size that you've seen. You saw that little piece of wood and we'd have to redo the entire um patio around it, which is all granite. And to make it
square, we didn't The pool is no bigger than it was supposed to be. Um I can't honestly tell you how this happened. Um I my best guess is I think it's my fault quite frankly in a sense if this is even what
happened. Um the grinder pump uh pipe is at the north end and it was you know it's flexible and it was back filled and was basically where it was but it might have moved slightly and we didn't want any concrete on the grinder pump. So I'm guessing I don't know this is what happened that they may have slid it
slightly towards the south towards Bagot's property which was not subject to the variance and not realizing that the road came in another couple of inches on that side. the road curves in. So if you move it down, so we didn't make the pool any bigger and and in my own head and this is my I've been in
front of this board many times and I've always leave myself flex and so I I guess in my head I was dealing with 25 ft which was what we the sideline setback. I had Ryder and Will Cox make it 256 so we would have room. It was
staked properly. Um could we have done more? I'm not throwing anybody under the bus. It's on me. Uh, it's the first time I've ever been here in 50 years for forgiveness. It's fine. Okay. Um, I forgot to go through the actual Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams who wish to speak in
favor of this application? If so, please raise your hand. Seeing none, I will read the one correspondence from our health agent, Judith Giorgio, April 8th, 2025. She tells us she has no concerns regarding the modification of this
variant. Thank you, Judith Giorgio. Um, is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams who wish to speak against this application? If so, please raise your hand. Seeing none, now we'll go back to questions. Sorry about that, Steve. Oh,
no. Did Does anyone have any questions? We We didn't seem to have any more. Very good, Paul. I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. Dave each seconds and votes yes. I vote yes. All vote yes. Jenny votes yes. As do I. Okay, now we'll do deliberations.
uh Ed um it it it's a very small small uh change and uh you know sometimes in the real world and and in construction mistakes are made and this is a a very small mistake
in in um in my opinion and let's see Steve I don't think this is going to have an adverse effect on anyone uh Okay, slight mistake. Not a big deal. Well, that's why I asked Mr. Oenheim
what uh you know what the correction was. We all know like a lift and shift is not is not a tenable solution here. Um the the correction would be at an extreme cost. Uh the disruption of the neighbors, the terrain, the property.
Um, it's such a small item um that I think that uh we are sometimes the board of construction forgiveness. All right. And Paul, your thoughts? Yes, I uh I agree. I did not vote in favor of this application when it came through before,
but it's been approved by the board and the applicant has been operating with good faith and frankly the place looks gorgeous. Uh so uh I I see no reason to uh say that this would be substantially more detrimental in any way. Right. And
let's see what David Vch I agree with my colleagues. Yeah. Very good. And Mr. Nixon, your thoughts? Well, my only uh negative thought is that this business about dimminimous
uh I know we have the ability to pronounce that something is dimminimous but there's no definition of it is is dimminimous an eighth of an inch is it a foot is it 100 yards I mean it could be anything you want and
opening that door I think is a huge mistake However, in this scenario, and this goes back to the reason I voted for the variance to begin with, which was, if you ever recall,
uh the property was being penalized with essentially having two fronts. And that's that's what pushed me into thinking, okay, then the variance is okay. So I whittle down to do I think that I
could change the variance. No, we voted for it and I voted for it and this I'm not going to say the word this small error. We'll call it can I call it small
error? in. Yeah, there is right or wrong, you know. And I I think Jay and I have had this question. There's right or there's wrong. Well, this is wrong, but I still would vote for it. Yeah. And I was going to use the word dimminist, but I won't. I I will just say it's minimal.
And uh I appreciate that you're even here on it. Somehow I'm surprised it was even caught. Um so with that, let's take a vote. I will move to approve the application as submitted with the conditions that no driveway access shall
be permitted from the southwest corner of the premises fronting on Absigami Rain Run to a point on Absigami Run 10T offset from the northerly end of the existing stockade fence a distance of approximately 70 ft along Absagami Run
and two a row of plantings consisting of shrubs and trees at least the height of the exist Existing stockade fence shall be planted and maintained in the approximate 10-ft buffer between Absigami Run and the existing stockade fence. I believe that's all that we need
for conditions at this time. David seconds and votes yes. I vote yes. All votes yes. Jenny votes yes. As do I. It's unanimous. Congratulations. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. Now we're going to go old old mail road
for a similar application. Uh 25-011 Matthew Gavin Allison Gavin care of William G. Lichfield Esquire and Sarah will read the application. Application number 25-011. Matthew J. Gavin and Allison
Sgavin care of William G. Lichfield Esquire 330 Orleans Road North Chattam Mass 02650. Owners of property located at 80 Old Mail Road, also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 14I, block 27, lot AC7. The applicant seeks a
dimensional variance from the required setback for a deck that was constructed 23.97 ft from the Easterly Abu where a 25 ft setback is required. The property contains 10,000 square ft within the R40 zoning district. A dimensional variance is required under Mass General Law
chapter 48 section 10 and section 8D2C of the protective bylaw. Welcome, Attorney Lichfield. Nice to see you. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. Bill Lichfield here on behalf of Matt and Allison Gavin, who couldn't be here today, but their builder, Sean
Tab Bear, is here with me. Uh the chair correctly noted that this is unusual in that we have uh two variance hearings in a row, both uh related to small mistakes. Uh, I'd like to say that we
have a further commonality and blame this on Mr. Oppenheim, but I guess that wouldn't that wouldn't work. He did take the blame for the last one, so I thought I could follow suit. But, uh, I'll try to be brief because you already had a long hearing. The Gavin family, as you may recall from the hearing a year ago,
has owned this property for more than a quarter of a century. And last year they came before you for a special permit to construct some additions to make the house more comfortable and more accommodating for their four children. That included expanding the deck uh on
the east side of the house which was built uh which was to be built in accordance with plans showing it 25.03 ft from the easterly lot line. A line which as you know from your site visit drops down quite dramatically uh
downhill. Simply put, a mistake was made. Uh there were apparently two sets of plans prepared by the house designer and our builder Shawn inadvertently used the wrong one, which resulted in the deck being
23.97 ft, which is essentially 24 feet from the lot line rather than 25. Those two plans are the second and third sheets of the handout that you have. The print is small, but I've annotated it. Uh, one shows the deck extending 18.6 ft
from the fireplace. The other shows it extending 19.6 ft from the fireplace. And unfortunately, the ladder was used for construction. So, what is shown there is the result. What Sarah has brought up. We are
23.97 24 feet at the northeast corner and 24.16 at the southeast corner where 25 ft was supposed to be the case. The work was comp completed and the discrepancy
uh of one foot was noted when the asbuilt was was prepared. Sean came to see me in February and I explained that variances are infrequently granted. But having seen the deck on my daily walk, uh knowing the reasonable nature of this
board and having learned more about the circumstances, I told him that a very uh small amount of relief might be authorized by this board. As we know and as you know, a variance requires all of
three things. Uh finding that owing to circumstances relating to soil condition, shape or topography of the land or structures but not found generally in the zoning district that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the bylaw involves a hardship and that
desirable relief can be granted without doing substantial deriggation of the purpose and intent of the bylaw. A little history and I'll try to be brief may be helpful because I think most of you know it. From the time our zoning bylaw was enacted in 1954 until the
Dedric case uh about 10 years ago, this one foot extension into the setback could have been allowed by special permit. Uh that's because the lot and the existing house are both nonconforming. We're less than 20 ft from the road where 40t is required.
We've got a shed which is literally on the lot line. were too close on the west side and the lot itself is 10,000 square feet. That was how we operated until the Dedric case was decided which showed its somewhat questionable understanding of
Chattam zoning because it also suggested that the goal of zoning was elimination of all non nonconformities which essentially says we're going to level the old village. I don't think that I don't think that's appropriate. But the result of Dedric is
that this is the only way to validate this minor deviation through a variance. All of the lots in all mail road in this part of all male road were created long before we had zoning. And every time town meeting was asked and did vote to
upgrade zoning. The voters were assured that relief for changes to existing properties would be available from this board. Unfortunately, Dead Dedric decided 30 years after the zoning change in this part of North Chatam made those asurances false. It's the law though and
we have to live with it. As I said, a mistake was made or rather there were two. Uh first, the designer created two sets of plans. One showing an extension a foot wider than the other and those were the plans that Shawn used. The homeowner is the applicant here. He
didn't do it or they didn't do it. Matt and Allison didn't do it. The hardship is decidedly not self-created. A self-created hardship is when a buildable tract is divided into several lots leaving an undevelopable or
undersized lot or one with insufficient frontage. Variance is requested to validate that and that isn't appropriate. This is instead closer, I think, to the case on Cove Hill Circle a couple of years ago where a builder inadvertently
exceeded the house limit. The relief was granted to the homeowner notwithstanding of the builder work for the homeowner. You properly granted a variance in that case allowing the homeowner the use of the house without further delay of difficult or difficulty and found no dergation from the purpose intent of the
bylaw. The neighbors there weren't opposed, nor are they here. And in fact, the chair will read letters resulting from Shaun's having knocked on their doors, having visited with them, and explaining how the mistake was made. The letters uniformly see this one-oot deviation as inconsequential and without
detriment to the neighborhood or the public good. There are other arguments that could be made. They're in ground steps on the right. Those are outside or those are within the setback area under our bylaws definition of structure which is any
combination of materials are assembled or maintained at a location on or in the ground or attached to something located on the ground. I could make the argument that we could get this by a special permit because we're already too close to that lot line. But there's no point
in doing that frankly. uh the grant of this innocuous variance is I think the sensible and preferable alternative. So I'll go into the three criteria. One that there are circumstances relating to the topography of the land or structures. First, the sloping
topography is by no means found throughout the R40 district and makes the sideline setback an inherent vegetative strip. You should see it when the when the trees leaf out. It's it's dense back there. But in fact, you won't see this deck the way you see it right
now in the winter. Beyond that, unlike uh almost every other house on the south side of a male road, the existing structure or house currently met uh the easterly but not the westerly sideline setback. And most importantly, the structure itself is not a house. It's
not a shed. It's not a tennis court. It is a low to the ground deck. The structure by its shape is essentially without mass. Second, the literal enforcement would cause hardship. As you know, the cases say that a far lesser hardship is required, lesser showing of
hardship is required for a dimensional variance. It's a a discretionary matter for the zoning board of appeals. The hardship here has numerous aspects. Financial for Sean uh who doesn't have insurance. We asked him about that. that he has workers comp, but he doesn't have
liability insurance. He'll also have to redo the footings. That will delay the process. Moreover, the color of the deck materials is a special order. It will take a significant amount of time to obtain and Shawn is essentially a
one-man construction company. He has other commitments, and if he comes back to do this, as he will for the homeowner, it's going to delay other homeowners who are expecting him. It will also cause further disruption of noise disruption and noise for the neighborhood. There's a case called DJ
Aliovani versus Rockport zoning board of appeals and the appeals court not the ZBA the appeals court noted in that case that when it's a matter of inches which is involve what's involved here could be readily the basis for variance. There is
no single aspect of hardship here that is necessarily severe. But taken together, the hardship for the applicants will be impactful and certainly more significant than the truly small, not dimminimous relief that we're we're seeking here. And finally,
that the desirable relief may be granted without doing harm to the bylaw. The neighborhood was built under the old well, some of the houses were built before zoning. This house was built with the old R10 setbacks of 15 feet from the abutters. And again, the voters were told that they wouldn't lose any rights.
Then came Dedric, but the relief that we're seeking is consistent with with what the voters were promised. It has no negatives for the neighborhood and is very very minor. Uh, thus I think you can find it to be without detriment to the public good or quote as our bylaw
says those qualities which distinguish Cadam as a desirable community including quality of life, preservation of value of land and buildings and prevention of overcrowding and blight. You've been out there. The deck is not a blight on the neighborhood. It's essentially
innocuous. Uh Jay can't ignore it. That's not his job. But you can grant the relief that we are seeking today. I won't send Mr. Simple back to high school by again quoting Shakespeare on the qualities of mercy, but the the same
point remains. There are nonetheless sufficient legal bases for this request. There's also a degree of please assist us in this regard because we know there's never a right to a variance. On the other hand, however, I am reminded
of what a late member of this board said about a variance request several years ago. I'll call it the Hler theorem in a case far more difficult than this one. I'll paraphrase Bob's simple summary. We'd look silly if we didn't grant it.
I've mentioned to you for my fondness for a legal scholar named Carl Lewellyn who argued that formalism or mechanical application of rules without considering outcomes, circumstances, and realities didn't serve the law or the public good. And he has said something that
applies here which you've heard me quote before. The rule follows where its reason leads. Where stops the reason, there stops the rule. Here there's no reason not to allow this deck to remain where it is. It was a mistake but a harmless one. I think you can find the
affected abutter is completely unconcerned and one of the letters the chair will read from an immediate butter makes a succinct point. She said quote I think the halaloo over the overage is sad. May not be legal terms but I think it sums up the matter quite well. It
shouldn't have happened but it did. By the same token there's no good purpose in removing that deck. The minimal variance involved in matter of inches avoids significant expense and delay in the homeowner's use of their house, prevents more disruption to the
neighborhood. And I think that you can find that owing to circumstances relating to the topography and the nature of the structure involved, which are circumstances which aren't uh found throughout the R40 zone, that a literal enforcement of the dimensional regulations of the bylaw would involve
hardship. admittedly not insurmountable but comparable to the minimal deviation involved and the desirable relief may be granted without any detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially deraggating from the purpose and intent of the bylaw. Be
happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wish to speak in favor of this application? If so, please make it known. Seeing none, I'm going to read first. First, I'm going to read Judith Giorgio's and then I want to make a deal with you about the other ones. Uh Judy
Georgio writes on April 8th that she um uh let's see has no comments or concerns about the sideline variance for the proposed deck. Then we have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight neighbors in favor. Madame Chair,
I uh anticipating your request, we would wave the reading of the letters under the assumption that we would all like to go home based on a positive vote on this request. Uh well, I can't make that kind of a deal, but uh I I will say that I will name the people that wrote and that
they were all in favor. Barry and Violet Dissollettes 41 Old Mill Road. Ann Rosski also uh 36 Old Mill Road, 42 M Old Mill Road from Mary Bowers and
Matthew Gavin, Ellen Foresight from 53 Old Mill Road and um Debbie and Randy Harwood from let's see they live on 80 Old Mail Road and then Sean. No. Hi, Sean. It's Joyce. This must be something
different. 70 Old Mill Road. Uh, let's just say that they're in favor just for the fun of it. Uh, and um, Richard Hall, Kathleen Edwards from 80 Old Mail Road,
PE Peter and Mary Ellen Marsden of 26. These people all voted, they all want us to vote in favor, every one of them. And so we appreciate that. Um, so anybody that doesn't want us to vote in favor, anybody here against this application or
has a specific question or on Microsoft Teams? Seeing none questions from the board. Are there any? No. Okay, Paul, I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. Dave Beachs and votes yes. I vote yes.
Paul votes yes. Jenny votes yes. As do I. Okay, now we're going to do deliberations. Uh, we'll start with Steve if you were voting. Well, I don't see a problem with this. I think the hardship would be in disassembling that deck and reconstructing it. So, uh, it's a
mistake. Um, it's still more than 20 feet away from the property line. I don't have an issue with this. Very good. Jay, do you I agree with Steve's comments. Um I uh yeah what one one foot is um is
small and I think that the similar to the one we heard it it's the disruption to try to change it would be the hardship and um I think you've made the case for meeting all three of the requirements for the hardship. So I would support it and Paul
uh yes I agree that it's not a blight uh on the neighborhood. There may be other bllightes on that road of different type but not this particular one. Um and I like the idea that it's a structure without ass. That's a concept
that I hadn't thought of before. Um so I think it clearly meets our criteria and uh I will vote in favor of it. All right. and David Vch would say you. I I agree with my um colleagues and and to
echo sure if I have the term correctly, but we we occasionally are the uh construction um what was it, Jenny? Construction. Um a board of forgiveness. Board of forgiveness for construction errors or something along those lines.
Um and and I this is definitely one of those cases and I agree. Thanks. And Ed, yeah, I agree with my colleagues. It's um certainly not a blight and it's um a small u small mistake. The one question
I have is you're creating a nonconformity. Now, we actually closed the public hearing, so you can't really do that unless we all vote to open it back up. No. Okay. Maybe you could educate me on that at some point. Thank you. All right. And Mr. Nixon.
Well, I'm going to vote no. This is a good example of what happens when individuals hire builders, architects, whatever it might be. And don't ask for certificates
of insurance showing in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. uh you would never want to hire anybody that couldn't give you a certificate of insurance showing they had workers compensation insurance because it that would be illegal in Massachusetts. You do not have to carry it on yourself, but
if you were going to hire somebody else to do anything, you do. And then the prudent person would make sure that the individual we hired had professional liability, usually called ENO, Arizona omissions insurance, because that is
where this should be adjudicated. It should have been a claim by the homeowner against the and I don't even know if in this case it's the builder who's responsible or whoever gave him the plan. I don't know that yet. But uh
that's where this should be handled. Not here. Not in the board of forgiveness. You know, we're just doing this too much. We have to draw a line. You know, do you have insurance? No. Then why did
you hire this person? It just doesn't make sense to me. So, I'm voting no. Okay. And uh I'm not going to use the word dimminimus because I actually wouldn't think this is dimminimous. I don't but I think you you know you've given an adequate argument and uh I
think uh the prudent thing to do is to vote in favor of it in my opinion. So um Paul I'll move to approve the application as submitted. Dave V seconds and votes yes. I vote no. I'll vote yes. Jenny votes yes as do I. So for Thank
you very much. Yep. Thank you. Good to see you. All right. Now we're going to go to 108 Beach Plum Road. Paul DeWeiler care of James Norcross S wire and uh this is also a
modification application number 25-12 R R Paul Deweiler Care of James Morcross Esquire PO Box 707 Chadam Mass 02633 owner of property located at 108 Beach Plum Road also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 4D block 16
lot 23 the applicant seeks to modify special permit number 24-043 granted on May 23rd, 2024, which allowed for the demolition of the two existing dwellings and the construction of two new dwellings. The applicant now seeks to modify the special permit to allow for one of the dwellings, the
cottage, to be located 20 ft from the coastal conservancy district where 23 feet was approved and 50 foot and a 50ft setback is required. The lot contains 21,600 ft of buildable upland area and 94,000 square ft of land area in an R20
zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and 14 and sections 5B and 8D 2B of the Chattam protected bylaw. Attorney Norcross, welcome. Thank you. Uh good afternoon. Jamie Norcross representing Paul Deweiler. Uh Paul is
here in the audience today. Um, as you heard, this is a uh request to amend the special permit that was granted by the board last May. Uh, key difference from the prior two applications is we haven't started the work yet. So, uh, this is coming in before the fact. And so, what happened is, uh, this was a a proposal
to tear down and rebuild two uh, structures on the property. And in conjunction with the rear structure, it was going to require a pretty significant retaining wall. And when Paul got the specs for the retaining wall, uh it was going to require the removal of a number of mature trees in
that area and Paul would rather keep the trees. And so uh the change is to shift the structure over uh 8 feet uh to the east. The setback to the coastal conservancy district is only changing by three feet. However, because the deck is
being shrunk in terms of the width um so that's the sole extent of the change. the footprint of the structure other than the deck is remaining entirely the same. Um Dave Clark uh presented this before the conservation commission and they uh indicated they would approve uh the proposal as amended at their next
meeting. And so uh with that I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wish to speak in favor of this application? If so, please indicate. Seeing none, I will read the three correspondents that we've
received. And first one is from Judith Giorgio, our health agent on April 8. She tells us she has no concerns. And then we have a note from um the conservation commission, and they will um be um provide conditions to
allow this to meet the performance standards. And that was received on March 27th, 2025. Christina Bassid from the CHC tells us that they found this property not to be historically significant and did not impose a
demolition delay and that was received on March 17th, 2025. That concludes the correspondences. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams who wish to speak against this application or has a specific question? Also seeing none, are there
questions from the board? Seeing none, Paul, I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. Dave V seconds seconds and votes yes. I vote yes. I'll vote yes. Genie votes yes. As do I. Okay. Now we'll do deliberations. Uh we'll start with Dave
Vich. Uh totally support this to save trees. Absolutely. Yeah. Very good. Um Mr. Actton, I agree as well. If um if it's going to uh when I was out there, it looked like there were a bunch of mature trees in that area. So, I can understand why I'd
like to keep them. Mr. Nixon, yes, I have no problem with this. It seems to me uh it's a reasonable request. All right. And Paul, certainly not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. I I agree. And Steve, yeah, as long as the conservation uh
commission is okay with it, and I think it's a good idea to save the trees, so I think it's a good idea. Yes. and Jenny, I agree with my colleagues and I would be the biggest tree hugger probably of the group and so um yes, very good. Paul, I'll move to approve the application as submitted. Uh I believe
we sub we put conditions on it last time. have a condition that that all construction activity and vehicles contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner that between June 30th and Labor Day, no exterior construction will be allowed. No work shall be permitted on the weekends and
construction activity between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. only. Dave seconds and votes yes. I vote yes. All votes yes. Genie votes yes. As do I. Congratulations. It's unanimous. Last but not least, we have 411 Main Street. Also, James M. Norcross,
Esquire, care of Joseph and Donna Boie, 25-13 411 Main Street. Um, Sarah will read the uh application. Application number 25-013, Joseph and Donna Boby, care of James M. Norc, Cross, Esquire, PO Box
707, Chattam, Mass 02633. Owners of property located at 411 Main Street. also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 15D block 53 lot 33. The applicant proposes to change alter or expand a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the
construction of an addition. The existing dwelling is non-conforming and that it is located 6.8 ft from the easterly of butter where a 15t setback is required. 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 1,312 ft 12.1% and the proposed building coverage is 1596 ft 14.7% where 15% is the maximum allowed.
the lot is non-conforming and that it contains zero ft of frontage and contains two dwellings. The lot contains 10,822 square feet in the GB1/R20 zoning districts. A special permit is required under Mass General Law Chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of protective
bylaw. Welcome. Thank you. Uh Jamie Norcross representing uh Joseph and Donna Boie. Uh with me this afternoon is Leslie Sneeberger, the architect for the project. I'm just going to touch on a couple uh bits of uh overview and then turn it over to Leslie to run through
the design for you for the changes. Uh Mr. and Mrs. Boie purchased this property in 2019 and they're looking to create uh some additional living area in the home as the goal is it's going to become their full-time residence in the not tooistant future. Um the proposal, as Leslie will explain, is to demolish a
small section of the existing structure and build an addition on the west side of the home. Uh in terms of non-conformities, uh the lot is non-conforming. It's 10,800 ft² where 20,000 ft² is required and it has, as Sarah mentioned, no frontage. It's kind of unique in that regard. It has an
easement across the uh Gibson Southern's property out to Main Street. Um the existing structure is non-conforming uh as to the east setback at 6.8 ft. Uh the cottage is also non-conforming onto the as to the west setback. Um the proposed
project will not create any new non-conformities as our addition will be on the west side of the property and will be well outside the uh 15% excuse me the 15 foot setback and our total building coverage while increasing is still going to be below the 15% maximum allowed. Um so with that as some
background I turn over to Leslie to run through the design for you. Welcome. Thank you. Leslie Schneburgger architect for Donna and Joseph. Um, as Jaime's let you know, um, this is a property that's existing non-conforming with a small,
um, L on the west side of it. Um, so, um, you the way this has been set up, if you look at the the drawings to the left, those are existing drawings to the right are the proposed. Um, so as far as um looking at the house from Main
Street, the peak you can get through the bushes, um, the little L that's coming off of the west side is to be removed. That's currently, um, a half bath and, um, some extra space, crawl space in the basement. Um, and then, um, that is the
area that the additions happening. It is the most buildable area. Also was the easiest and kind of most aesthetically appropriate for the home. Um, so front door actually stays where it is, but now it has a little overhang porch on it. Um, and then there's the second floor up
above. Um, so in the west elevation, that's where the majority of the change um, happens. The one-story edition is gone and instead it's a twotory. Um, although I I would argue maybe one and a half story edition um, on the west side.
Um, the crux of the project is because the homeowners are making this their primary home. Um it has currently three very very small bedrooms on the second floor and so the addition is now ho housing um a new primary suite. Um it's
still modest and and not overwhelming but it does allow for um a comfortable size bedroom um a private bath and um a closet dressing area. Uh that is the closet dressing area is coming from one of the existing smaller bedrooms. So,
it's not changing the amount of bedrooms on the third on the second floor. Um, it's still three bedrooms on the first floor. Um, knowing that this is a home for the a much longer period of time as they've retired. Um, we've created a den
that can serve as a first floor bedroom. The house was connected to sewer um a few years ago and there's some notes and we've done some re research onto that. So, this is an auxiliary um a great workspace for right now. an auxiliary should it be needed to serve as a
bedroom. Thank you. Great. Thank you, Leslie. Uh just going through the criteria. Uh number one, adequacy of the size of the site. Uh applicant believes the size of site is adequate for this proposal. Uh as I mentioned, the addition will be located over 35 ft from the west lot line, well outside the 15t
setback required. Uh building coverage is only increasing by 284 square feet and below the 15% maximum allowed. compatibility of the size of the proposed structure with neighboring properties. It's kind of a unique location uh for a neighborhood comparison because you have commercial
structures in front of it on Main Street and then a residential neighborhood behind the property on Homestead Lane. However, even with the proposed addition, um the size of the home is compatible with neighboring properties. Uh if you look at the growth fuller area numbers, I think you can see that it demonstrates the compatibility in terms
of size. A lot of these are smaller lots. And this home again while increasing his side is is still quite modest in the scheme of things. Extent of the proposed increase in non-conforming nature. Uh there is no increase in the non-conforming nature. Our addition will meet the setback suitability of the site. Uh we believe
it's suitable for the project and the construction work without any negative impact on neighboring properties or the natural environment. Uh impact of scale sighting and mass. Uh it suggests there's no negative impact on neighborhood visual character. Uh it's set back quite a distance from Main Street and is largely unseen from the
road. Uh as it relates to the neighboring properties, um the Bob's property has extensive hedges around the perimeter that provide additional privacy and screening. Also, it sort of sits up a bit as it relates to the properties on Homestead, which I think actually minimizes any additional size
because it's it's set back and it's kind of at the high point looking out over the rest of the neighborhood. Uh it's a residential use in a residential neighborhood, therefore compatible. Uh we have as Leslie mentioned it's connected to town sewer and it has town water. There'll be no negative impact on
traffic flow and safety and the rest are not applicable. Um so just quickly to summarize again we think it's a a reasonable proposal reasonable for the neighborhood and certainly not substantially more detrimental. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wish to speak in
favor of this application? If so please make it known. Seeing none, I will read the two correspondences. One's from the HBDC and one's from our health agent. The HBDC tells us on February 19th, they had a
meeting and they rendered the following decision. And the commission voted 300 approving the demolition of two the 20 uh 2003 addition of the mudroom and laundry room. Demolish a partial opening of the exterior wall for a new addition with this standard condition that any
changes or alterations be approved by a certificate of appropriateness um and require additional approval by the HBDC. And that was March 17th, 2025. And then we have a note from our health agent that she wrote to us on 211 2025.
U the property is connected to Chadam sewer and is approved for a total of four bedrooms um including the bedroom in the cartage on the property. The plan will add a fifth bedroom to the property and will require the approval of the sewer department for additional flow.
Did you want to comment on that or we good? Um I can let you know that I have um correspondence with the sewer department that it's feasible. Yeah. Oh, very good. Okay. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wish to speak against this application or has a question? Seeing none, we'll do
questions from the board. Uh Paul, do you have any questions? I have no questions. Steve, I have no questions. No questions. David, I'm puzzled. Jamie. Mhm. That in
2006 it was sold for $1,451,000. In 2019, 13 years later it was sold for 1,199,000. Why the $250,000 reduction over 13 years? It doesn't make
any sense to me. Good question. Well, although 2006 was a bit of a boom and 2019 was before the COVID boom, so it could have been in that sweet spot there, I guess, if you were a buyer. Not anymore. Maybe Leslie knows more about this. This feels like a
trick question. Can't tell you. I said, "What is going on here?" Well, apparently I wasn't there in 2019 when the boat came in because Anyway, all that I just was curious. Thank you. Okay. Any questions
from you, Ed, Edton? No questions. No questions from you either, David Vich. Okay, very good. Paul, I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. David seconds and votes yes. I vote yes. All votes yes. Jenny votes yes as do I. Okay, deliberations. Jenny,
I love the project. Um, I think that the ch the as Leslie mentioned modest but very impactful what they're proposing um and what Leslie's drawn. I think it is so smart to add that fourth bedroom um which is the future bedroom uh
downstairs. I think that's really um a smart idea. Very attractive. Um it's what I would call great you know a great house getting greater like better even better if that's possible and so therefore not substantially more detrimental. Very good. Steve, what say
you? Uh I think the same thing. I think it's a great project. I think this is going to look like it's been there all along and um I don't have any issues. And Paul, you go back there and you find this house and you think, "Whoa, where did this come from?" Very nice. Uh it
looks uh looks uh great. I certainly not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. And Mr. Nixon, it meets all of our criteria. I was still mystified, but that's okay. It's good to be mystified when you come right
down to it. No, this is I have been around for a while and I'd never been in back to see this house. I mean, and uh actually happened to be there and Miss Fenwick was there also. And just walking around.
Great view and peaked into the little cottage. Wow. I mean, what a nice property. What a nice property. And I'm very happy to support this. And Ed, um, you know, you are creeping up, you
know, at the max coverage, but you're in a part of town where you should be close to the max coverage. I guess that's where we're supposed to have the density. No, I have no issues. I think it meets all our criteria, Mr. V. Yeah, I agree with all the previous and um and and it looks like it's probably not
going to be impacted by developments further down Homestead Lane. So, that's good. Okay. Well, um, I'll move to approve the application as submitted. I think at this location, we do standard conditions, which would be all construction activity and vehicles would
either be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner between June 30th and Labor Day. No exterior construction will be allowed. No work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 pm only. Dave seconds and votes
yes. I vote yes. All votes yes. as to why it's unanimous. Congratulations. Thank you very much. Thank you. And that concludes our hearings for tonight. Uh guess we need a motion to I'll move I'll move to adjourn. Uh Dave V seconds and
votes yes. Ed Actton votes yes. I vote yes. All votes yes. Votes yes. Sorry. Jenny votes yes. As do I. Good night, Chadam. And what time is it? 4:54 p.m. Wow. Really? How'd that happen? All right. Thank you.