Heat up here. Don't heat. Welcome everyone to today's Town of Cadamon Board of Appeals meeting. The date is February 12th, 2026.
We'll start with a message from the governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Please note this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly hereafter for scheduled and on demand viewing on any smartphone or tablet device. If anyone else is recording the
meeting, including the use of AI note-taking apps, please notify the chair. Pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28, 2025 signing of chapter 2 of the acts of 2025 extending certain CO 19 measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions
of the open meeting law until June 30th, 20 uh 27. This meeting of the Chattam Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted in person and via remote participation. Every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided for
in the order. A reminder that persons who would like to listen to this meeting while in progress may do so by calling the phone number 1508-945-4410 conference ID98537956 pound or joining the meeting online via Microsoft Teams through through the link
in the posted agenda. While this is a live broadcast and sim and simoc 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, hearing, or business item on the agenda during the meeting when recognized by the chair. We need a roll call of all members authorizing this form of having our meeting. Stay with Mr. V,
please. >> Uh, yes. David H. Beach and I approve of this meeting format. >> Ed Actton, I approve. >> Paul C. Simple. I approve this format. >> Randy Podash, I approve. >> David S. Nixon, I approve. >> Virginia Femagic, I approve. >> Steven D. Deborne, I approve.
>> Lee Hvey, I approve. We ask that any citizens or non-board members participating in the call via the phone, please give us your name and the last four digits of your phone number for ID purposes only. The meeting meeting format is as follows. The hearing notice
will be read by the lady to my right. She is the PO for the town. That is the principal permitting officer. Her name is Sarah Clark. We would then have a presentation by the applicant or their authorized
representative. We would then ask for anybody who wishes to speak in favor of the application to do so. It's a time limit of five minutes. We would then read any and all letters that the board had received. Then we would ask for
anybody who wishes to either spoke speak against the application or has would like to speak with a question about it. That is next. Following all that, there might be a little bit of rebuttal testimony. Then we would have direct questions from
the board members. When we're done with that, we close the public hearing and we go into deliberation and eventually we'd vote voting on the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for a zoning board of appeals. In order to be successful, you need to have a super majority. In our
case, there are five votes. So that means you need to get four votes to be successful. Voting today will be Paul, Randy, myself, Jenny, and Steve.
Are there any questions? Okay, I'll start with our PO. Um the board has two sets of minutes. One from January 8th and one from January 15th. >> Randy,
>> I I move to approve the uh minutes from January 8th, unless there's any questions. >> I will second that motion and vote yes. >> Okay, we need a vote. >> Vote yes. >> Yes, >> Paul. >> I voted yes.
>> Jenny votes yes. >> Steve votes yes. >> I voted yes. Okay, the second one's I move to uh approve the minutes from January 19th >> 15th >> 15th 2026 unless anybody has any changes. >> Uh I'll second that motion.
>> Very minor change on page two first sentence. Andrew Singer requested continue application 2534 to February 5th not 4th 2026. >> So I move that as amended. >> I'll second that motion and vote yes.
>> Yes. Yes. >> Steve votes yes. >> I vote yes. Okay. Application number 25-131. Please sir. >> Application number 25-131. Brian and Nancy Berdick care of Leslie
Schneburgger 1475 Orleans Road, Unit A, Harwitch, Mass 02645. Owners of property located at 356 Stage Harbor Road. Also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 13B block 30 law 11. The applicant seeks to enlarge, extend, or change a non-conforming
dwelling in a non-conforming lot via the removal of a roof overhang and 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 2756 square ft and the proposed building coverage is 2,848 square ft where 2850 ft is the maximum allowed. The law is non-conforming and that it contains
20,517 square ft where 40,000 ft is required in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under master law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw. >> Welcome Leslie. >> Thank you very much. Uh Leslie
Schneburgger here representing um Nancy and Brian Berdick who unfortunately cannot be here today. Um are recovering ones recovering from a surgery. Um what's before you is a pretty simple proposal um modest I would say um for uh
a small demolition removal of a a roof overhang. There you go. Um, so you can see there's a a a route that's proposed actually in here in the existing. There's a fairly large overhang over the existing roof of um of
the garage. Um, and then there's a pergola in between that garage and the house. And what we're looking to do is take that roof overhang off and take the pergola off. Um, put a small much smaller sort of copper wash really over the garage um garage doors. Um, and then
put a a true roof, a copper roof, um, that you can see in the middle here, um, between the garage and the house for a breezeway, um, enclosed by a breezeway between the two. Uh, it's, um, it, sorry, it's about, um, a couple it's 100
square feet. It's a small addition. Um, and it brings building coverage up to, as Sarah said, 2,448 square feet on the property. Um there's not much more to say so I'll run through the criteria I think would make sense. Um so adequacy of the site um as as
we've talked about the site is 2517 square ft. Um this addition will be under the allowable coverage building coverage at 20 2848 square ft. Um compatibility of the proposed structure with neighboring
properties. Um on stage harbor almost every house is a house a garage and most often con connected by some sort of breezeway. So I think it's very compatible and in keeping with that neighborhood um extent of the proposed increase in the non-conforming nature.
It doesn't actually increase the non-conforming nature. It doesn't come any closer on the setbacks or um reduce the change the size of the lot. That is what it is. um suitability of the site not include not including but not limited to impact on neighboring
properties, natural environment, slopes of ve vegetation. Um I think it has no uh impact to neighboring properties. It's between the two much two larger structures. Um there's already a pergola there, so there's already a roof in between. Um if anything, I think it's
improving um what's there in the aesthetics of it. Um, and for impact on the on the the site and the neighborhood, um, the existing stone patio, uh, relays water off into the sides. This roof will have downspouts and
gutters, so it will actually have less impact. Um, impact number five, impact of scale, sighting, and mass on the neighborhood vis visual character, including views and vistas. It won't be blocking any views and vistas. I think the copper element um over the garage
doors is a nice traditional detail that will be an improvement. And I think the breezeway will be lovely. Um it's a much better dynamic to a neighborhood pattern of language to have a door facing the street whereas right now the door is kind of hidden off to the side. So I
think the impact will be an improvement. Um compatibility I think as stated above um it's really similar to other homes in the area having breezeways connections. Um adequacy number seven adequacy of method of sewage disposal source of
water and drainage. This isn't going to make any change to sewer. There's no um septic related to it. Um and as discussed gutters and downspouts will contain all the water. Um impact on traffic flow and safety. Uh this won't change the amount of people or cars or vehicles um at the residence and it
doesn't block any um anything safety wise. Um number nine, noise and litter. Uh the construction will obviously be contained. It will be very minor. It's a very small project. Not changing anything. Um adequacy of utilities and public services. It won't be making any
changes to those. Um I don't think 11 and 12 are applicable applicable. >> Okay. Thank you Leslie. Uh I presume that is the conclusion of your presentation. Okay. Is there anyone here today or on Microsoft Teams that would like to speak in favor of this
application? If so, please indicate like to speak. I'd say there's no one for that. So, we'll go on to the correspondence. We have one piece of correspondence. This is from Jude Giorgio, Board of Health. She writes on February 9th, "I have no
concerns. This is a sewer property approved for five bedrooms." End of correspondence. Is there anyone here today on Microsoft Teams who would like to speak against this project or has a specific question? If so, please indicate that you'd like to speak.
Gentlemen in the back. >> Ryan Phillips, 374 Lane Road. Um, how tall is this addition? >> Um, it's if we could pull up Could we pull up the drawings? >> It's the portion It's the portion in the center right
here. It's lower than everything else. >> All right. Thanks. Are there any other questions? >> Okay, we'll go on to questions from the board. Does anybody in the board have a question? Okay, Randy.
>> So, um, I move to close the public hearing and move into deliberations. >> Okay, we need a vote on that. >> Oh, all this. >> Randy, >> yes. >> Jenny, yes. >> Steve, yes. >> And I vote yes. All right, deliberations. We'll start with Dave
each. Um, G, I don't know why anybody on Cape Cod would want to replace a patio sandwich between two buildings with a better looking mudroom, but uh, it certainly makes sense to me. It's not substantially detrimental in any way.
Meets our criteria. And were I voting today, I would vote for it. >> Ed, um, yeah, I think we're all pretty familiar with this property. I think this is the third time it's been in front of us in the last couple years and seems like every owner wants to make
their own little modification. Um, but I certainly think it's a good idea and again if I was voting today, I'd have no issue. >> Thank you, >> Paul. >> Yes, I think it meets all of our criteria and uh assuming that they can stay within two square feet, they're all
set. But hopefully they're not going to come back here for any change on that. >> I'm sure that's true. duly noted, >> Randy. >> So, I think it fits in with the neighborhood. It looks just like all the other houses on the street um to to a
degree and uh it's not substantially detrimental. >> Jenny, >> yeah, I agree with Leslie. I think it's an improvement to connect um the two buildings more fully and um it's not substantially more detrimental and I would support it. >> Steve,
>> I agree. I mean, I think it's pretty harmless. It's not affecting any of the setbacks or anything and not detrimental at all. So, good project. Thank you, >> Lee. >> I agree with my colleagues. I think it is an improvement. >> Okay, Randy. >> Yes. So, um the
our our staff has suggested all construction activity and vehicles be contained on site or neighboring property with the permission of the property owner. Does that work? Yep. >> And 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 eight and five. Does that work for the applicant, too? That does. >> Okay. So, I would move that we approve the application as submitted with those conditions. >> Paul votes yes. >> To second it.
>> I'll second the motion. >> Thank you. Ann votes yes. >> Yes. >> Randy votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> He votes yes. >> I vote yes. That's a unanimous decision. Thank you very much, Leslie. >> Thank you, everyone. Okay. 20 cents. Oh, 26-02, please.
Application number 26-00002. Hall Family Realy Trust Care of Michael D. Ford, Esquire, PO Box 485, West Haritch, Mass 02671. Owner of property located at 5 Windy Hill. Also showed on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 12A block 4A lot
C7. The applicant seeks to enlarge extend or change a non-conforming dwelling in a non-conforming lot via the construction of a dormer and the conversion of an attic to habitable space. The proposed changes will comply with all all bulk and dimensional requirements of the bylaw but is considered a substantial alteration and
under the second accept clause of section six of Mass General Law chapter 4A requires the grant of a special permit. The building coverage will remain 2,973 ft where 3,000 ft is the maximum allowed. The law is non-conforming and
that it contains 28,853 ft where 40,000 ft is required in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw. >> Mr. Ford, >> thank you uh uh Chair Nixon and members
of the board. Mike Ford. Uh, it's my privilege to represent today David and and Meredith Hall, trustees of the Hall Family Realy Trust. The Halls are here u um in the audience today. Um, this is a an effort by the Halls to uh gain some
additional uh bedroom space. They have a large family and uh uh this uh change in the uh attic space in this particular house to a bedroom and a bathroom um would allow them to accommodate uh that large family particularly at summer
gatherings. Um it's a very straightforward project. Uh the total area of being converted to living area is 572 square feet. Um you can see it on these plans.
Um, why are we here? Um, the only reason we're here is because the lot, which is 28,850 square feet, um, is non-conforming. 40,000 square ft is required. The structure is conforming in all respects.
Um, lot coverage, um, setbacks, height, and will continue to be, uh, meet all requirements of, um, setback and height. However, under the second except clause of chapter 48 section 6, this seems to be your day for these um if there is an
increase in the non-conforming nature of u the building or lot then it is the building commissioner's discretion uh to refer it for the requirement of a special permit. And in this particular case uh where there is additional living area even though we don't have a floor
area ratio metric in our bylaw um the building inspector has the authority to uh refer this to the board of appeals as a substantial change. Therefore, we're here seeking approval under 486 for uh something that we believe is um not more
substantially detrimental uh to the neighborhood. So that's the process. We applied for a special permit under both 486 and uh section five of the zoning bylaw. If I may, Mr. Chair, I'll go straight to the findings.
>> Fine. >> So, uh the first finding requires um that the site be adequate. Um I'd suggest the site is adequate here. There's no expansion of the building footprint or coverage. Uh this is a conversion of some interior area for the
additional bedroom. Um and so I' I'd respectfully suggest that the site um is adequate. There is an additional dormer uh bedroom and bathroom on this second floor, but again uh as I indicated, it doesn't um invoke or uh change in any
way any of the metrics um under the bylaw. The u the lot coverage just forformational purposes is 2,973 square ft. 3,000 is the limit uh of a lot this this size uh under the bylaw.
Um no changes to height. Uh the height continues to be uh what it was when it was initially constructed which is just under 27 square feet 269. So I'd suggest respectfully the site is adequate compatibility of the size of the proposed structure with neighboring
properties. We think it fit it fits in with the other properties in this neighborhood. There are a couple of letters I believe that the chair will read in support of neighbors uh for the project. Um so I I think it fits in uh with the neighborhood. The extent of the
increase in the non-conforming nature of the structure or use there isn't any. As I've indicated, um, we meet all of the, uh, requirements of of the bylaw, save for lot size, and we'll continue to save for lot size, uh, once this is
constructed. Suitability of the site, including, uh, but not limited to impact on neighboring properties or the natural environment, uh, including slopes, vegetation, wetlands, groundwater, water bodies, and storm water. Uh, we'd suggest that it will have no negative impact on neighboring properties or the
natural environment. There are no wetlands on the site. Impact of scale sighting and mass on the neighborhood uh including views, vistas, and streetscape. Uh we believe it will not have any negative effect. Um it fits right in. Um uh it's it's the most of
the work is interior and there's one small new dormer on the exterior. Compatibility of the proposed use with neighboring uses. It's residential will continue to be. This is an important one. Number seven, adequacy of method of sewage disposal.
the uh halls um the year before last actually had the septic system upgraded for a five-bedroom uh with an alternative system in anticipation of bringing this forward before the board of appeals and uh you'll see that when the chair uh reads the uh in the memo
from the board of health. Impact of traffic flow and safety uh we don't believe there will be any um it'll continue to be accessed as it is. Um, I'd suggest it'll have no impact on noise and litter and uh there are uh adequate utilities on this site. 11 and
12 I don't believe are applicable. So I think the board can easily find in this particular case that the expansion as described will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Uh we're happy though to take any questions the board members may have. >> Thank you very much. Is there anyone
here today on Microsoft Teams who would like to speak in favor of this application? If so, please indicate you'd like to speak. Seeing none, I'll read the correspondence. First is from Judith Giorgio, Board of Health. On February 9th, she writes, "I
have no concerns regarding this proposal. The board of health approved the attic renovation with the installation of an IA septic system in 2022. And then we have a note. This is from
Douglas Landy on let's see February 5th. I'm writing in support of the pending application seeking approval to finish off the current unfinished portion of the second floor as a fifth bedroom. We live directly across the street and have no
concern with the project. We understand the changes proposed are 90% interior and with a dormer change which should have no effect on the appearance of the house. The halls are very nice neighbors and we hope the board will approve their application and Mr. Landy lives at 194
Champlain Road. Then we have a note. This is from Joanne and Bob Moss, 154 Champlain. They write on February 2nd writing in support of the pending application. At the time we they designed the house and built it in
2007. At the time we were limited to four bedrooms by the existing septic system. We were told the town's public sewer would be extended past our house in the next few years and would allow for the connection of an additional bedroom. So we incorporated that in our design as a
future bedroom but left it as unfinished. I understand the halls have installed a new septic system which is approved for up to five bedrooms. The sewer public system is still a way of now some 19 years later. The completion of the fifth bedroom will be very easy
and cost effective because of the way it was designed and built. We live there until 2020 when we move three doors down to 154 Champagne Road with the restoration of the 1790 Star Lighthouse and property. We are happy with the
project as we were with five Wendy Hill. We received numerous com compliments over the years from passer buyers complimenting the five Wendy Hill house design and landscaping. The changes proposed are 90% interior and whether dormer change which would should have no
effect on the appearance of the house. The halls are very nice neighbors and we hope the board will approve their application. And that is the extent of the correspondence. Is there anyone here today or in micros that would like to speak either against
this project or has a specific question? If so, please indicate you'd like to join. I see no one. So, uh, let's have questions from the board. Ed. >> Uh, I have no questions. >> All right. Paul, >> no questions. Randy,
>> no questions. >> I have no questions. >> Do you? I don't have a question, but I have I think an observation. Um the on the site plan, the east setback, although it looks fairly
substantial, it's not called out on the plan and maybe you can just have that corrected. >> Okay. There were two plans. Uh one had the >> Oh, the east setback. Yeah. Okay. Um >> it's not it's fairly substantial. I I
realize that, but >> Yeah. It is very substantial. Uh I know the setback required on the side is 25 ft >> and you know the other ones are called out on the site plan and that one is not. So if you could just have that corrected. >> Okay. We we can have that added.
>> Yeah. >> Certainly. >> Thank you, >> Lee. >> No questions, >> Dave. Nor do I, Dave. Thanks. >> Okay, Randy. >> Oh, I move to close public hearing and move into deliberations. >> I'll second the motion. I'll vote yes.
>> Randy votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> Steve votes yes. >> I vote yes. All right. Deliberations. Paul. >> Well, this is pretty straightforward. Uh the the uh changes are all within the footprint. U it certainly seems like it
would be not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. >> Randy, >> it meets the criteria and I agree with Paul. It's certainly not substantially disruptal and uh seems like a very good project. >> Jim,
>> yeah, I agree with you, Mr. Ford. Um it's a modest and very nice project on a beautiful property. Um and uh no changes to the footprint, meets all of our criteria. So, I would support it. >> Steve, well, I think it's a nice project. It seems like there was a lot
of foresight uh and when this house was built that they were planning this far ahead. So, I think it's a great project. It's not detrimental to anything and u I think it'll be great. >> Lee, >> I agree with everything my colleagues said. >> As do I. Ed,
>> certainly agree with my colleagues and I agree with the comment from the previous owners uh about the numerous comments about their house. I've always loved this house. >> So, I don't know if we need conditions. You think does anyone think we need
conditions given 90% of it is interior? I would I would still keep the summer. >> Keep the summer. Okay. So, I move to approve the application as submitted uh between June 30th and Labor Day. No exterior construction will be allowed. No work should be permitted on weekends
and construction activity between 8 and 5 p.m. only. All >> second. >> I'll second the motion and vote yes. >> Randy votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> Steve votes yes. >> And I vote yes. That's unanimous vote. Thank you, Mr. Ford.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay, Sarah, let's go on to 26-065, please. >> 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 showed 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 stairway and elevated walkway with attached kayak rack under section
4A3A of the protective bylaw. The lot contains 31,100 ft in the R R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law Chapter 4A sections 9, section 9, and section 8D2B of the protective bylaw. This was continued
from August 28th and November November 6, 2025, and January 8th, 2026 for readvertising. >> Mr. Norcross, you seem to have aged a few years since the last time we saw you.
Yeah, they send the junior partner out to do these. Uh >> anyway, hello Mr. Riley. >> Is yours still running on behalf of uh the Lime Hill Road Trust? So, this is a
situation where uh uh because there was continued because there were changes made to the design. Um our neighborhoods uh had some concerns. conservation commission had some concerns. So, they
initially I think they uh were gonna have a a walkway along the top of the ridge uh which would have interfered with the view of one of the neighbors. So, they moved the path down below. Then they were going to have granite steps cut
into the ground. And uh apparently only only the designer liked that. So they have now elevated the stairs uh to a path which is down at the bottom
of the hill there. Uh they're doing uh some substantial replanting along that along that section uh by Blue Flax Design. Um, and then we we have a a catwalk or
elevated walkway out uh to the edge of the marsh. Uh the uh and we believe that there are benefits here. Uh not only is there a substantial
replanting plan on the bank uh which is going to improve uh habitat for the little critters and birdies, but uh you know it's it's going to provide screening from people who are walking
down uh which will improve the view we believe of the dog at property. Uh, another benefit we believe is that by having a catwalk that goes out to the uh to the edge of the marsh
uh people who are accessing the water uh won't be damaging the marsh. Um I don't know how many of you are familiar with uh the effect on the marsh when you don't
have a catwalk. the uh uh I have some pictures here I'll pass out. So, this is something that occurs really uh all over town. These are two pictures, one from the Oyster River and one from
the Oyster Pond. And you can see that there's there's no walkway. You can see there's no walkway and the the um so the marsh
uh which uh property fronts on is gone because people access the water. That's what people do. So uh we think that uh there are substantial benefits as a result of this design. I'll run through the criteria.
Right. So this is uh this is not our standard criteria because it's not a pre-existing non-conforming structure or use. So this is uh considered under uh section Roman
numeral 8 small C number four. So adequacy of the site in terms of the size of the proposed use, the applicant's property contains 31,000 square feet and the proposed structures have been designed in accordance with the requirements of the con Chattam
Conservation Commission and the Department of Environmental Protection. The applicant believes that the site is clearly adequate in terms of size of the proposed use. Suitability of the site for the proposed use. Uh the site is suitable for the
proposed use. The elevated stairways and walkways down coastal and vegetated banks are an environmental benefit as less damage is caused to the underlying vegetation and will also provide safer access for the applicant and his family.
Impact on traffic flow and safety we none impact on neighborhood visual character including views and vistas. I think that the plantings we're proposing uh uh will prevent the project from being seen from
the upland side. I seen from the water side the structures are not large in size and uh with the new plantings we believe that the site uh will be much more visually appealing.
Uh we have no sewage issues here. Utilities not applicable. So we have number a compatibility the proposed use with surrounding land uses. So this is it's an accessory structure to a residential home. The proposed
project is compatible with surrounding land uses that are all residential in neighbor nature. Furthermore, as mentioned above, several neighboring properties already contain similar structures, making this proposal consistent and compatible with the neighborhood
impact on the natural environment, including slopes, vegetation, wetlands, groundwater, and water bodies. The applicant believes that the proposed project will represent a positive to the natural environment by eliminating potential damage to vegetation by those
currently walking down the existing bank without the use of an elevated walkway. Furthermore, the extensive mitigation plantings and removal of invasives further pre present a benefit to the environment. And lastly, as indicated by the
correspondence from the conservation commission, which is in your pack, the commission will be issuing an order of conditions for the project. So, we believe that we comply with the requirements of section Roman 8 and that this would be an appropriate use of the
property and we ask for you your approval. That would be our presentation. >> Thank you, Mr. Brownley. Is there anyone here today or on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application? If so, please indicate.
Gentlemen in the back burns, 147 Lime Hill Road. Um there are five properties um that use the easement that go down to the water. So this was the old Buckley property and
we've lived in our home now for full time about eight years. Uh that embankment is very treacherous going down to the water. So as we go down to the culdesac and then we take the five-foot easement down to the water, it
is very steep. And so it's very dangerous. A lot of us have have slipped going down to our moorings. So I'm in favor of some type of staircase down to the water where we keep our our dinghy
and we have our mooring. And I'm sure the other neighbors would also be in favor of this uh this because it is at my age now. 10 years ago I could do this thing, but now it's getting a little bit hard getting getting up and down there. So I think Dave, you were there last
year, you and I been for a few minutes and I think you pretty much saw the embankment and knew how treacherous it was. So thank you very much. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on the subject as a being in favor?
I see no one. So I'll read the correspondence. On December 22nd, there's a note from the Conservation Commission. The applicant submitted a notice of intent on July 7th. The project was heard by the conservation commission on
September 10th, October 8th, and December 17th. The project is scheduled for an order of conditions on February 25th, 2026 when it will be conditioned to meet the performance standards under the Wetlands Protection Act.
That is the extent of the correspondence. Is there anyone here today on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak against this project or has a specific question? The gentleman in front. >> Hi, Bill. >> Hi, Ted. Uh my name is Theodore
Stribert. Uh I uh have a piece of land next uh I abut right where the path goes and I have a path that goes through but I have no structures on on my and nor do I contemplate
doing this. Uh I'm concerned about structures being applied to the beach, especially the one that protects the bank uh that is uh closer to my property. That one would would secure
the bank against uh people going down. It's quite steep and uh I think it would would form a uh would be an addition. Uh the second one goes across the um the
plant growth and uh would block anybody circulating across along the beach. Uh I'm curious, is there a u difference in in population? Do the people that have
the easement or are they restricted to one the staircase and or and not to use the the boat to the dock or is there any usage segregation?
>> Uh well he you're not supposed to tie boats up to elevated walkways. You know that's usually Everybody on Lime Hill that has access to these bit can use both structures.
Is that correct? >> Not that I'm aware of. As you know, I'm filling in for the young my young lad who's busy doing other things. Um there's been no discussion, >> okay, >> with me that indicated that they were granting variances to allow the use of
these structures. >> Okay. you know, if he's a good neighbor, says Bob Bernste. They are, but I'm >> I'm not privy to him. Is there an explanation of why there's a ladder at the end of the
bigger structure, the westmost structure, uh seems to be even below was below the ladders going in below uh water level almost down to the bottom
of the >> well that water is. So the um well presumably uh they would I'm not entirely certain but generally in a situation like this
they have what's called an outall. So they have a skiff or dinghy uh that is rigged with an out hole. So it's you have a shiv at the bottom of the ladder and a line just you pull the line in the
dinghy comes into the bottom of the ladder and the ladder is there so you don't have to actually jump into the dinghy so you can climb down into the dinghy. So that's why there's a ladder I see. Although it would be entertaining to watch people jumping.
Well, I typically would not like to see more structures on the beach front there. >> Thank you. >> Is there anyone else? Yes, the gentleman in the back.
Brian Phillips, 374 Road. I think I may have missed one of these meetings, but I've I've been following pretty close if there was one recently. Um, there's been a lot of controversy with this. Uh, the shellfish warden was against it. I think the coastal resiliency uh lady was
against it. I'm pretty sure there's a general overall consensus against this in the situation because there is public access. And kind of the argument was that, you know, they should improve the public access so everyone can kind of have good access instead of each person, you know, or potentially building these
catwalks that can only be used uh by them. You know, it's kind of like everyone wants one. It's we're now talking like a substantial impact if not just this one. So, I mean, I didn't see I I might have missed a meeting where they approved this, but I think there's
a general consensus that this is bad. We shouldn't be building, you know, these things. And that's all I have right now. Thanks. >> Yeah, Mr. Phillips, I don't see any correspondence from like any of those folks that you mentioned. Is do we have anything at all, Sarah?
>> No, because it's not up here. Um I did not seek comment from anyone other than the conservation commission. I believe Mr. Phillips would be speaking of the conservation commission hearings where they did um get several and lengthy correspondents from other
>> town. I believe they were made in person at the meeting >> live. >> Yeah. And in the conservation commission's note to us there was no reference to it. >> No preference. >> No reference. So >> no reference. >> Okay. Okay.
>> All right. Okay. All right. Is there anyone else questions? >> Could I respond? >> Yeah. I think one of the uh one of the issues we have and that's why
I passed out those pictures is uh you know people are going to access the water. uh that's why they pay, you know, significant amount of money to have a property that does have access to the
water. And so the the uh the town, whether for good or ill, has banned peers. Uh so people are using elevated walkways so they can still get to the water without
damaging the salt marsh that lies between the upland and the water. And we all know I believe how valuable salt marsh is uh in the ecological sense. A lot of life begins there. A lot of different life
forms are there. very important um environmentally and the the u and as you can see from uh the pictures I passed out, you know, where
you know, one at the end of Capri Lane, I actually represented some property owners there who wanted to build a community dock since private peers were no longer allowed. And the uh uh
and as you can see at the end of Capri Lane where people keep their dingies, the salt marsh is completely wiped out. And the the other picture on uh Oyster River. You can see there a couple of
either skiffs or or some sort of vessel there. So they they get in the they get the skiff down. you drag it down to the water and it cause it destroys the salt marsh. So we believe that the the
benefit here uh you know outweighs you know the social concerns of g whiz we have too many structures we believe the structures provide a benefit and you know it's clear that
uh we addressed these concerns at the uh conservation commission meeting and and the end result was they're prepared to issue an order of conditions uh by which these structures will be built.
Okay. Thank you. Uh questions from the board. Let's start with Randy. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, um so I listened to that conservation meeting um more than one and I don't think it's a gimme that they're going to issue conditions because two of them were more
than on the fence about it. One of them said she's not going to approve it and another one said she wasn't sure and they were disgusted by the project basically. >> They were >> well I think I think that's a very strong term uh since they've decided to
issue an order conditions clearly we have satisfied their concerns. Well, I I didn't get that impression, but anyway. Um, so isn't it true that that extra path for 50 feet that's what is it 50 feet long at the top of the coastal bank? Is that's where it is at the top
of the coastal bank? >> I'm sorry. >> What extra path? >> So, you you're asking for um a proposed landing and stairs, right? >> Yeah. one one
>> in the path from the bottom of the stairs to the to the elevator walkway. >> Yeah. So then the other is uh >> proposed three foot wide managed access path, >> right? That goes that actually is at the bottom of the coastal bank.
>> That's not at the top of the coastal bank. >> No, because it's it's the salt marsh goes right up to the edge of it. Yeah. >> So it's it's along the salt marsh. >> Yeah. So, why do you have to do that when you already can go straight down and you
have those proposed 3 by8 uh foot landing and stairs, right? You have that and you you go down and everybody can use that that has an easement, right? Use that to go down to the water. You can >> use that. >> Okay. So, that's one way to the water.
So why do you need to put more things in the in the salt marsh when it's fundamentally bad for the environment to do that? Why can't you just use the >> That was that was fully discussed
in the rationale for having the the elevated walkway uh over on the left hand side rather than directly under the stairs the uh at at the conservation commission meeting. So I mean candidly I don't really recall
why. I mean I know there was uh significant reasons why it's placed there and we we presented those reasons to the conservation commission. >> But you're asking us for a special permit. So, I want to know why one
access to the water isn't enough, that you have to disrupt a path and then have another set of stairs with uh a kayak rack when you already have the other first portion to go down. Why do you need to do two more things? That's what
I'm asking. >> Um uh >> you're asking to do three things, right? >> The elevated stairs. >> Yep. >> The path, >> right? >> And the and the catwalk. >> Yeah. So, >> and you want to know why is the catwalk not in front of the stairs,
>> right? Well, at all. You already can get to the water from your first path. >> You can only walk through the That's where the salt marshes. If if you look on the plan, you can see the salt marsh goes right up to the edge of the path. So, the salt marsh is all along the
front of that property and and it's and it's quite wide. And so the the uh uh >> so what happens when you get down the
proposed landing and stairs? You end up in the salt marsh, right? >> Right. >> Okay. So then you you have to be in a salt marsh. So that's one structure that you want to put in the salt marsh or
leading to the salt marsh. Why isn't that enough? Well, the stairs the stairs are not in the salt marsh. We only have one structure in the salt marsh. The stairs are on on the on the coastal bank
and you get to the bottom of the coastal bank. There's no coastal beach is just salt marsh. So >> So you have vegetation down the hill, then you have salt marsh that goes out into the deeper water.
And the the uh so the purpose of the catwalk is to is to get you across the salt marsh uh to the edge of the water to the edge of the salt marsh so they're no longer uh going to be damaging the salt marsh.
>> But do you know what I mean? Like why do you need to put both you're trying to get to the water and you're getting are you not getting to the water? Can you help me out with that? Aren't they getting to the water with this ask? >> No. >> No. What are they getting to?
>> Um, >> what is the point of that ask? >> So, uh, if you look at the plan, Randy, the bottom of the first set of staircase, that is the top of the salt marsh. If you go further down, you'll see the line um the dashed line that I'm
moving the hand over is the bottom the end of the salt marsh before you get to the water. >> Okay. >> Right there. >> So, everybody that has access through this neighborhood can go down that one.
Right. >> Right. And then where do they end up? >> Well, where they end up is not our issue. >> Well, you're asking for us to approve that. So, I'm just a little confused. Aren't you asking for us to approve
those steps? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, what do the steps lead to? >> They lead to the >> They lead to They lead to a path that goes like this. >> Okay. So, can everybody go down that path, too, or just your client? >> I don't know. the title issues there.
>> Okay. >> I'm not familiar with them. Apparently, from Mr. Burn's point of view, he's had discussions with our client and and they're going to use this stuff, but you know, nobody's explained anything about the title issues, the
real estate title issues to me. >> So then once you get to the salt marsh, you you're asking for a catwalk to go over it. >> Correct. Okay, I don't have any more questions,
>> Jenny. >> Okay, I have a few more. Um, I don't think it's clear where the path is, at least not I thought the path was beh see see where the the notation says
proposed three- foot wide managed access path. I thought the path when we did the site plan or did the site visit, there's a path that's behind all the brush. That's not the path. And and it's on that side. >> So is that
>> it was initially it was proposed that the path would be at the top of the hill. >> Okay. Where the mark where the green notation says manage. >> Oh, I know. But see that arrow goes down here now. >> Okay. Oh,
>> and the reason >> okay >> the reason for the change >> I didn't see the arrow >> is that uh Mr. Lichfield representing Mr. Dogget appeared at the conservation commission
meetings and objected to it and it was clear to Mr. Heiser that if he continued to propose a walkway at the top of the bank where Mr. Dogget would see people walking along.
>> Okay. >> Apparently that's very offensive. Uh >> so now the >> and they and and Mr. Dogen has a history of uh litigation. So they decided that >> okay >> discretion was a better part of valor
and they moved the path down to the foot of the coastal bank. >> Okay. There are a lot of green lines. So, I actually didn't see the green line with the arrow that was pointing to the um the other side of the coastal. I guess that's the coastal bank. Okay.
>> Yeah. And that's the in this clear area. That's that's the walkway and and this is all the uh work that Blue Flax is going to do to improve. >> So, when we were there before and we saw that path and then I saw a path in that area. That's why I thought that that was the path referring to. Okay. So, so
you've got a lot going on. Can I break this down? one. You've got elevated, landing, and stairs. The landing is 3 by eight. How long are the stairs? I mean, I'm looking at the drawing here. It looks like it's 38, but it doesn't say how long those stairs are.
>> Which stairs are we talking about? >> The um elevated landing and stairs, uh the f first part of the project, the stairs that we're talking about where the neighbors can use it, that's currently not there. It's like uh inground steps that are being replaced
with an elevated staircase. That one. Yep. >> Well, >> so >> it >> it's eight eight steps I count, Jenny. >> Okay. So, >> there's a section on on the plan. >> So, the plan >> So, the first section is 8 ft.
>> Yep. That's the landing. And then the the bottom part >> then you've got the stairs. >> Okay. And there are eight stairs according to Dave each and each one of them is 18 inches. Is that so? >> No. Each step would well it depends on the I mean the ratio they the treads
would be less than a foot probably. They might be about I don't think they'd be 18. >> I'm just trying to get an idea of how long that whole thing is as opposed. So I could I could look at it and guess that it's 20 feet from >> 17. It scales 17 feet. >> 17. Okay. So, you're asking for a 17
foot elevated landing plus stairs that are three um three feet wide. Then there's a three- foot wide path that is in between is at the top of the marsh and the bottom of the coastal bank
going all the way and that's a nice long stretch of path. Is that >> right? >> That's just for people to access. It's not You're not doing anything to make a path, are you? You're not putting in pavers or I mean it's >> No, it's just people just walking on the
ground. >> Okay. So, I just was wondering why it was why is it even being delineated? Is there a reason why that's >> Yes, I I'm happy to explain that. >> Okay. All right. Because under under, you know, given the wisdom of the town
meeting, they felt it was important that if you having a mode path in the conservancy district that the zoning board get to determine whether or not that's okay.
>> Okay. >> So, this what happens? This predates Chadam's wetlands protection bylaw. And so the people who were uh concerned about abuse of these areas built a lot of
these protections into the zoning bylaw. We then passed the wetland protection bylaw, but nobody went back and took these protections out of the zoning bylaw. So they remain there. So that in fact I think Mr. And Nixon may recall
a time when we had over at the end of Uncle Albert's way a mode path in the conservy district that was denied. So you know so that's but but that's why it's there. Initially
the zoning bylaw was used to pro for wetlands protection. So that's why it's there. >> Okay. But is there really a path there or is it a mode three- foot wide path? in between salt marsh and the >> I believe until now they've walked along
the top. >> Okay, I'm I'm going to tack on to Ry's question. How are folks going to know when they go down this shared new staircase? Okay, that is replacing the existing inground steps. How are they going to know to stop and take a right
and walk down the path and go over the count? Well, why wouldn't they just cross the salt marsh? But what's preventing them from doing >> in the first place? The owner of the property is submitting the application. He's very much aware of the path and the
location of the uh catwalk. >> Okay. So this this is uh so the staircase is shared. The dock or the not the dock, the catwalk will not be shared >> as far as I know. >> Okay. So, you're asserting that this is
for the protection of the salt marsh when everyone else will be trapesing through the salt marsh because they have access to the catwalk. >> No. >> Is that not right? >> I don't know if they're trapesing through the cat the salt marsh or not. >> Well, what are they going to do at the
bottom of the stairs? >> I'll tell you what. We'll we'll prevent them from using the stairs. That's I I I'm >> trying to understand the argument is we want to protect the salt marsh. I watch conservation too. It's a big issue,
>> right? >> That's not protecting the salt marsh if everyone else has to go through the salt marsh. >> You know, it's difficult for me to get my head around your argument because right now,
as Mr. and said, "I guess they walk down walk through the salt marsh and get to the dinghy." >> Okay. >> All right. So, we're going to reduce the number of people that do that >> by one neighbor. >> Well, maybe Mr. Burner is going to do it, too.
>> Well, I I'm just trying to understand I'm not making an argument. I'm trying to understand the value of a 40 foot catwalk for one person when everyone else is walking through the salt marsh. I mean, that's what I'm understanding. It's not clear. Th this is uh as I
mentioned, there's a lot going on and it it's frankly it wasn't clear what was happening. I'm trying to find out. We're trying to provide protection for the salt marsh and have a a way to get out to our uh skiff and the and we're doing
significant plantings above the uh 4ft walkway uh which are a real benefit to the environment. And whether whether there's one person that uses this
>> or five people that use it, I mean there there are people who walk through the salt marsh all up and down the river. We're trying to reduce the amount of traffic through the salt marsh. >> Okay. Um a couple more just quick
questions. Um the kayak racks that are also being proposed. How two kayak racks and how many kayaks does each rack hold? >> Two. >> Two. So that's four kayaks proposed. Okay. Um
and um >> so the kayak racks are just on the side of the railing. So they're not like a separate structure. They just it's just a hook on the side of the railing. so that you can hang your kayak there so you don't have
to carry it all the way back up the hill >> right at sort of at the top of the um right after the stairs the top of the catwalk and then Mr. Mr. I did watch the conservation hearing and you were there and you mentioned that because it was asked why can't it be a shared catwalk
and you mentioned that it's uh a legal issue. It's it's it's it's a private catwalk. Is that >> Well, there's the uh I've represented people who uh had agreements with people to use
and they run into insurance issues. So, it's easier for them to simply not do anything in writing, allow the neighbors to use it, and then they're not uh they have no
liability to the people who are using it. I believe that the situation in terms of insurance has to do with insurance. Oh, Mr. Insurance is right next to you. That's So, I've had problems. I've had
clients who have problems because of that. So other than that, >> so it is it what's being proposed is a private catwalk. >> Fair to say. >> Well, it's only owned by a single person. So yeah, it's private. >> Okay, that's all I have. Thank you,
>> Steve. >> All right. I I just want to sort of continue the the previous two conversations. So this the new path that's being proposed, it's highlighted in green there. Does that start and stop
at the elevated stair on the east side of this picture? >> It it starts at the elevated stair and goes to the catwalk. >> Okay. So, there's public access. It says on the by the on the west side of where the catwalk is going to be. It says public
access, which implies to me that there's people that walk along there. So, if they were to walk there and walk around the proposed catwalk and along that path, where are they going to go when they get to the end of it other than on those elevated stairs?
>> Now, I'm confused. >> Well, that that pathway dead ends at at the elevated stairs. >> Yeah. See, we have a thing called a colonial ordinance of 1641 that gives people the right for fishing,
fowling, and navigation in the below the uh mean high watermark. And so the purpose of public access is to preserve the rights granted in the colonial ordinance of 1641.
So, we don't know how they got to the property, but when they get to the catwalk, see, presumably they're not walking on the upland. Presumably they're walking somewhere, you know, between the high
water mark and the low water mark. And so the state regulation requires that to keep the rights under six the colonial orders to 1641 you have to provide public access
and it used to be we used to have the steps over the over the structure. They've changed their regulations now. So as long as we provide access around the upland side of the stairs that satisfy u preserving the rights under the
colonial ordinance for people who are walking along fishing, cohoging, you know, whatever people do when they're walking along in the mud. I'm I'm not a big fan of that myself. In fact, when I came down to Cape, I made a deal with the Quhogs
that I wouldn't bother them if they didn't bother me. So, >> all right. Is is so is there then the same level of public access around the elevated stair? Where do people go
when they get to that point? >> Well, if they get to the elevated stairs, they're trespassing on my client's property. The Colonial Ordinance preserves rights uh below the mean high water mark.
And so uh so the mean high water mark is here. So presumably people are walking along. The reason we don't have anything at the elevated stairs is that you know they're
walking along the main high watermark and they want to get around the structure. So they go up around that like that so they don't have to walk out into the deep water. >> So you're blocking public access. We're not blocking public access.
>> Well, if they have to walk around it, you're blocking something. >> There are regulations governing public access. And as we show on the plan, we're complying with the regulations regarding public access.
I mean every structure that we deal with and you've approved this board has approved many over the years. Every single structure provides public access either you know recently they've approved it just by
letting people walk up on the on the high ground and around when we're doing revetments. revetment requirements have to provide public access along the top of the revetment. So this is simply being in full
compliance with the state regulations. All right. And I and I guess I'm I think it was asked before, but I don't I don't Why can't the catwalk be built at the end of the elevated stair? Just have that straight out instead. Why? I don't
get the the need for the path to go west and then down some more stair. I don't understand that. >> Well, I have to tell you, I don't remember. >> Okay. >> I was at the meeting. >> That's fair. Okay. >> But it was months ago at this point. >> Okay.
>> And it was >> all right. >> And again, it was approved by the conservation commission in this format. >> Okay. All right. Thank you, >> Randy. You do. So, >> know the answer to that. >> I have learned the answer to that because I asked it. Why can't you just
put the catwalk at the end of uh the um initial steps and I was told by the most reliable source I've ever met that you would need a variance for that because it it wouldn't meet the setback requirement. >> Oh, that's right. Yeah, that's correct. Yeah.
>> Yeah. So, um >> let's keep that let's keep that on the back burner of our minds. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Yeah. >> Right here. >> Yeah. Yeah. So Sarah is the one that answered that. >> Yeah. Cuz the >> Cuz the under our bylaw, the stairs
could be 3 ft from the property line. >> Imagine asking for >> but the catwalk has to meet the setback, >> right? Yeah. >> So in addition to it would need a variance. Um, I think that the reason the catwalk is
moved over to the west is because that is where the applicant's property line is. There is a line um that points to a reserved beach, which I'm not exactly sure what that means,
and then a line that um has a um private beach. And I think that the homeowner owns a portion of that beach. >> Oh, I think I think No, it's a neighborhood. See the uh if you show the
easement going up to the Yeah. So that's the easement that Mr. Striber was talking about. So the entire Mr. Burn the entire neighborhood has a right to use that easement to come down uh to the shore.
And so in the subdivision plan, uh, this area is a reserved beach. So you they couldn't put structures on it. >> Okay. That and so that's the meaning of a reserved beach, >> right?
It's part of the subdivision >> and can never have structures on them, >> right? So that is why it has moved to the west. Um >> is there an association
ass associated with this subdivision? >> I'm not familiar. Mr. Burn might know >> you come up. >> I guess there's five properties within the subdivision.
There are um Get up here. I'm gonna help you out. No. Um there are one, two, three, four, one, two, three, four, five, including Dogard. So Dogard also
being on the culde-sac has the right to the easement. So he could come out his driveway and and go down the easement. the beach. Um, based on what I know is the beach is our is we have access to the beach uh in
the easement. So, we can now I'm not sure about if there's public or private. So, he may have a section of this is that's a private beach. >> I think I think it's reserved for for you and the other property owners. >> Right. Right. So, that's >> in here.
>> That's right. So, um, >> you're going to have to put your towel down there. And >> No, you don't want to put a towel down there. No. Um, so what to extend that catwalk
straight down. We need access to to the land, the dingies. So, we come down the embankment. Our dinghy is there and it's between Sam's, right near Sam's easement at the bottom of the hill. So,
um to put a catwalk there and then have to climb down a ladder. That's not going to work, you know, for us to get to. I'd rather have straight down steps um also from the top of
the their their near their home that gets very steep down there. So, I think their intention is to add some more steps coming down. But, uh the catwalk, I'm assuming, uh that we could use the the catwalk. That's what I'm assuming based on
conversations I've had. Uh that that would be open uh to us uh the four or five properties that are there. Um which would be good because sometimes when you're coming in on a boat if you want to if you have people on the boat
you want to get close to some type of structure and so it makes sense. But we're using next to Sam, there's another structure on the other side of your easement where there is a ladder and sometimes we'll pull our boat in there
uh when it's low tide or high tide just to let people off and and come down. So, uh but I'm assuming that we could use that. We're going to be able to use that. Yeah. All right. So, that answer your question. Mr. Heiser has granted the other members of his subdivision the
right to use the catwalk. That's very nice, >> Dave. I'll come back to you. >> Um I don't think I was going to ask um Bob for a comment, but we've heard that now. Um and I don't um I I I think I'm
understanding the the the complexities here, but so I don't have any questions right at the moment. Thanks, >> Ed. >> Yeah, I had questions for Bob. if you don't you don't mind. So, in >> in practicality, how do how do you see all this working? It's a it's a
culde-sac. Um the the first set of stairs is they're not private. They're open to the public, but there there's no place for anyone to park. >> Can't park. It's a private road. >> Yeah, it's private road. >> Nobody nobody parks there. >> So, even though that says public, it's
really just for your association. >> It's only for the only five properties that can use it. And there's a sign at the top as you uh enter the easement. >> Yeah. >> It's only for certain properties. So, it's private. It's it's marked. >> I missed that. And we we can't do the
catwalk um straight off those stairs because you It's too long. You need a variance. So, it needs to be 20. It needs me to set back. >> I don't want to be walking down a ladder because I need to get down >> Yeah. >> to the salt marsh. And we don't use a
you know, we we go straight out. So, so the first set of stairs are at go all the way to the bottom of the bank. Then you traverse along the bottom of the bank to the catwalk and then the catwalk goes across the salt marsh. Yeah. Okay. I Okay. >> I I fully understand it. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Thank you, >> Paul. >> Thanks, Bob. >> Okay, I think I understand it. But I guess the last part that wasn't quite clear on is are you saying that the uh catwalk will be available for use by all
of the other people on the culdeac? >> Well, that was that was a conversation that that Mr. Burn had with Mr. Heiser. >> I understand that. But you're you're representing the the client who is going to put in the catwalk, right? >> Yeah, I know. But I haven't had that
conversation with them. and u my senior partner didn't tell me >> Mhm. >> you know if that was part of it but Mr. Burn has been assured that he and the other homeowners in the subdivision will the five other prop property owners will be able to use the catwalks as well as
the stairs. So if we made that a condition uh of uh approval uh are you saying that that would be acceptable or well one of one of the difficulties with that is that this
august body as wonderful as it is as omnipotent as it is doesn't have the right to grant property rights. So,
you know, you could put it in there, but it wouldn't be effective because you don't have the you don't have the power to grant a property, right? The agreement that Mr. Burn has with his his neighbors, you know. >> Mhm.
>> So, uh from your viewpoint, uh it doesn't make sense for us to try and make a legal requirement that it be available. >> No, you could. But on the other hand, from an environmental viewpoint, u we're not solving any problems unless
everybody uses it. The well, in the first place, I disagree that we're not solving any problems. The uh uh my suggestion would be that anything
that reduces foot traffic in the salt marsh is solving a problem. You know, Mr. Burnley has a good relationship with Mr. Heiser. So, Mr. Heiser's told him, "Sure, you
guys can use it." Part of the problem with imposing an obligation is that >> uh then each property owner
is going to have to provide insurance coverage. It just gets uh complex. If you want to put that condition in, you know, I said go ahead. I don't know, you know, what what the effect of it would be, but
you can put it in there and in the uh uh you know, and that that would be your condition on the on you presumably would have to you know, I don't know what I don't know what Jay
would do, but >> All right. Well, I think I think you've answered my question. Uh, so I don't have any further questions. All right. Thank you, Paul. Jenny, you had something else? >> Well, just there's a note on the site plan that
says public access around the end of the walkway. >> I'm sorry, what? >> There's a note on the site plan. Oh, way to the far left that says public access around end of the walkway.
>> Yeah. Per D. Yeah. So, that is referring to the walk the whole walkway from the from the stairs, elevated stairs, right? That's the walkway we're talking about. >> I think it's anybody coming up here, no
matter how they get there. There's no >> I think that's a fair interpretation, but I >> how they're going to get there. It's simply stating that if you are, let's say, trespassing or you're coming along here and you end up there,
>> they are going to provide public access around the end of that stair and then take this. But but there's nothing here, right? >> No. Um, so where the public access stairs would be required to be would be
on the plan where you see the points B and A. >> Okay? >> Right there where it segments on the catwalk because the line just above that is your mean high water line. >> Okay? But we don't know how somebody's going
to get there outside of walking along the >> So the note is saying public access around the end of the end of the walkway meaning down where it's at the private beach reserve beach they walk around. >> No,
>> at the bottom of the catwalk at the top >> or walk >> public access. >> Yeah, it's pointing to that. >> It's right there. And they've got arrows showing public access >> to the to the >> So you'd come along here. Who knows?
>> So they're walking up the public's walking up and through the marsh and then back down through the marsh. Well, the the purpose of public access
is so that somebody's walking taking advantage of the colonial ordinance and the D allows structures. In fact, the regulations encourage structures. Uh they want to make sure that there's a
way around. Just as I pointed out, all the revetment orders have a requirement that the public has to have access along the top of the revetment. And so it's the same thing here, you
know. So if you're walking along the beach and you come to a revetment, you know, presumably you can continue walking along the beach, but the property owner is required to provide access up around the structure. So you don't have to go out deeper into
the water. I mean that's it's a D regulation. We're just following it. >> Okay. So uh I think we should go into deliberations. >> Can I clarify one more thing? >> Well, and you can start deliberations
too. >> Oh, okay. So just this is an actual question though. What's the difference between the reserve beach and uh it says end of reserve beach and then reserve beach, private beach, two different beaches.
>> Well, I think the uh the subdivision plan when the property was originally subdivided, the person who did the subdivision said, "Oh, we have a beach. It's great sales technique. Of course,
it's a where the salt marsh, so really wasn't much of a beach, but that's, you know, when they created the subdivision, they gave every property owner in the subdivision the right to use that area as a beach.
>> Okay. And then there's also a reserve beach, private beach at the end of the ladder. Same. >> Same thing. >> Okay. So, it's the same thing. So, everybody has access to that, >> right?
>> For sure. Okay. But your client has is the only one according to what was said at the conservation committee meeting commission. Um, your client would be the only one that can use the proposed uh
um steps and kayak racks. Those are his kayak racks, right? >> Right. >> Yes. >> Yeah. And that that's his catwalk, >> right? >> Yes. >> That's his catwalk. And there was a big stink made out of that. That was his catwalk. And you said that the neighbors
don't get along and that's why they need their own way. Now what I was I was referencing, you know, my history with neighbors trying to share structures and the the uh in my experience
lots of times they start out agreeing and then they run into difficulties. But I mean, right now we have a a grant of permission, not an easement, but permission for the other members of
the subdivision to use the catwalk, the stairs, the walkway, and the catwalk. >> I I know that you're saying that, but um I'm going to leave it at that because that's what I heard at the meeting. So, thank you. >> So, now I'll move to
>> deliberations. Yeah. If I could just make one comment, it's proof. Mr. Burn is proof that the the neighbors are getting along. >> That's one neighbor. There's five. >> That's also today. >> That's today. So, I'm going to move to close the public hearing and move into deliberations.
>> I will second the motion and vote yes. >> Randy votes yes. Jenny votes yes. >> C votes yes. >> I vote yes. Okay, Randy, >> I have to go >> deliberations. >> All right. So, um I'm just going to sort of uh
opine that the extra path um is is not needed because the idea for the resource area is to to avoid and minimize and you know there should just be one way down and they all have access to it like you
said and you know disturbing the you know the salt marsh is um not really in compliance with the um the bylaw if you don't need to do it. especially I know there's a tension between property
owners rights and um and the environment and uh I think Paul hit the nail on the head when he said we're really solving anything with this because there's going to still be people walking right through the salt marsh and now you just want to
add another structure and another path and you know we this there was a presentation at the board of selectment recently about the the perils of putting structures in the salt marsh. And I understand that there's also um an
effort that's made right now that's in the works to try to increase uh salt marsh um areas. And this would be one of the areas that they would want to increase the salt marsh on. Um that's my understanding based on people I've
talked to. Um so that path restricts that potential. So, I'm not in favor of this because I don't think it's necessary and I don't think the property owner's rights outweigh the um damage to the environment. So, that's my position. Jenny.
>> Uh, yeah, I watched the conservation hearing, too, and they really did stress the um vulnerability of the salt marsh, the importance of the salt marsh, and uh concerns about wh why all these structures are being built and and where
and really the necessity of it. Um it it seems to be I mean I I'm not clear on I I'm for the um preserving of the salt marsh and I can see how the catwalk would do that but it's it's not clear in
the previous hearings that we watched um and it's not clear tonight that this wouldn't be just for a handful of people or and and not for the good of the whole area. So, I I am not convinced that it's going to solve a problem that that we
have because people will go down the stairs if they don't have access to the catwalk and walk through the salt marsh. So, um I um yeah, I I think it's I think the one
word I would use is looking for a way to minimize the impact. Conservation said that as well. It's 40 feet long. We're talking about proposing that catwalk and with four kayaks on it. Um it's just I
think it's too uh too much. I wouldn't be able to support it either. Steve. >> Uh, well, I'm I'm a little concerned about, you know, and I I see that there's public access or at least a neighborhood access to the end of the
proposed landing and stairs um to where it meets the pathway. I'm unclear and I'm sort of apprehensive about approving this. If the neighborhood doesn't have access, if the if the easement maybe or whatever, however you
want to do it, the easement is extended along that pathway for everyone to use to get to the catwalk. If that's not the case, then this is a catwalk for one family because nobody else can technically get to it. They have to dead
end at the bottom of those stairs. Um, so I guess I would I would rather see some something in writing to say that, you know, these five houses are going to be able to use this path in the catwway in perpetuity because right now
that, you know, you could say that they're going to be able to use it and and Bob Burns, you know, thinks he they can use it. I don't know. It's not in writing, >> Lee. Um, yeah, I'm I'm torn on this one, too.
Um, always in favor of protecting the salt marsh. Um, in the long run, I think that a professionally designed and installed catwalk would do that. And it's actually intended to
be stay. I mean, it's not going to be taken out seasonally. It's going to stay. So it is a minimal dis disruption once as the installation. Um and but I I did listen to the
conservation commission hearing as well and conservation shellfish the stage harbor coastal they were all really opposed to it only because I think they think that there's just too many. Um and the question is when is when is it too
many? When do you have when do you have to just say no? Um, so I'm not voting today, but I would really struggle with this one. I understand a a homeowner's right. Um, I do understand that, but I think in this
location it's just very tricky. Dave. Um well, the um I think that um you know this I'm kind of glad I haven't watched conservation commission
hearings on this honestly. Um because I I I mean were I voting today, I think I I can find a way to vote that I would vote in favor of this. Um I mean we've raised a number of issues and that are concerns and but you know we're in
this complicated situation of trying to um uh work within the laws that exist the colonial access laws the town bylaws all these various things and that's and I think and clearly that's what's led to
this design being the way that was it was done with the with the private beach line and all the various ious things and and the inability and to do just extend the staircase without it needing a variance. all the there just being
squeezed in so many ways. And um I think as Lee pointed out, having the catwalk there is it's you know, it's that it's designed to be minimally invasive to the marsh and be a
a place that can be used for access to get over the marsh. Now, as far as the understanding agreement between the owner of the property and the other ease holders of the easement,
um yes, we are kind of dependent on there being goodwill and and and and then the agreements and people get along and and so more than one property owner would be
able to use it and maybe all five would be able to use it if it's in place. I also could understand why for insurance purposes they they they may not want that agreement in in you know a legal format. um you know there's
all kinds of complicated issues here but ultimately what underlies it is that and you know believe me I've seen this in in my own experience the the the draw to the use of the water the you know our
water resources is powerful and and so you know this this eastman exists and it's there now and you know as I was looking at it with Mr. burns and things, you know, I think having the staircase there is is a is an improve very much an
improvement over over climbing down that bank to get there. And I think that whether whether that catwalk gets used by one person or six people or you know I I I don't see the the
downside in allowing the catwalk to be there. It's it has to meet the requirements for for sure longshore access. It's has to it and and you know it seems to me the objections I'm hearing are coming from the fact that well it's only
going to be for one person. We don't know that. But we do know that the design it's been designed to meet the standards and is not going and if it gets put there it's not going to be more problematic for the marsh than what's exists. Now,
are people maybe still going to walk across the marsh? Perhaps so. But, you know, if if with a with a enlightened, if you will, property owner, then the property owner can say, "Use the path. Use the catwalk. I don't want to see
you. I don't want to see you walking on on, you know, but that's the easement is there and people are going to use it." So, I I don't I don't in weighing it all, I don't think it's it's a I think I would approve it. Thanks, >> Ed. >> Um,
typically something like this, um, it would be pretty straightforward for me to to approve, but the fact that you have to traverse along the bottom of the bank to get to the catwalk and there's no agreement
between, you know, the whole neighborhood to use it. Um, that's the one thing that bothers me. the um if I was voting, you know, I I would want to see some type of a legal document that all of the association can
use it and that would, you know, for me mitigate the fact that you have to transfer us across the bottom of the uh of the marsh. So that that would be the um one way to get a positive vote from me,
>> Paul. Well, it is it is uh a bit on the complicated side. Um but um you know, overall we approve catwalks for individual property owners on a fairly
frequent basis um without any provision that they're going to be used jointly with other people. Um so if you look at it from that viewpoint uh it's an application by a property
owner for a catwalk um that would be used solely property. I don't think it improves the issue of whether there is uh crossing of the uh
salt marsh by other people with access to that easement. Um but um I'm not sure that's a problem that exists and pre-exists this whole thing and I'm not sure it's one that we necessarily can require this particular
homeowner to correct. Um, I don't like the concept of a wink and a nod. Um, that, oh, don't worry about it. You know, it's not really an official uh use easement because we don't really
want that to be ostensibly required because you're going to end up with insurance problems. Um I mean you can solve the insurance problems by getting insurance u and uh and then uh setting
forth the the provisions that the neighbors have the use of it. Um but I think ultimately the question becomes is this a good location for uh an elevated stairway? And it seems to me that that
should be primarily decided by the conservation commission and not us. Um it is within our purview. But um there is a benefit even if it's only one family that is not going to be trooping across the salt marsh. Uh so from that
viewpoint um I could uh I could approve the location um and uh leave it up to the conservation commission to make a determination as to whether that is in fact an appropriate location for an
elevated st uh stairway uh on the oyster pond. Well, from my standpoint, um, you know, what Paul's argument was that that rings a bell with me to some degree about, you know, it's improving
the path over the salt march for one person or one family. The business about an agreement for everybody. It's not going to happen. And if the property sold tomorrow, you got a new person and all that. So, I think we just have to say
it's not going to happen. I mean, I if I owned it, I'm not going to do that. And the this insurance question is guess what fans, if you own it, you're responsible. I don't care what kind of an agreement you know, I mean, that's just a bunch of baloney. But my big
objection is compared to what we have now where the only path is way up at the top of the property line. I think there's a fence there if I'm not mistaken as a to moving that path down to making a new one at the at the bottom
of the coastal bank to me is is a crazy idea because you're here's the salt marsh and you're walking along it. Oh well, let's go down here. Let's go down here. it it you're just inviting trouble by allowing that to happen and the
catwalk to happen. It it's not great the way it is now. But I can't see that we should be trying to solve that problem with a catwalk for one, two, whatever it
might be. It that's over the salt marsh. I So I'll be voting no. Okay, Mr. Bradley, you've heard what's happening up here. What do you want to do? Well, the uh I'd like to explore some of the suggestions that the board members
have made with the client. So, a continuence would be appreciated. >> We're getting you a date. We're getting you a date. Stand by, please. Thank you, >> Mr. Riley. How long will you need?
>> Oh, I would say less than a month. That gives you plenty of time to hand it over to your senior partner, too. I Something tells me that's what's going to happen. Okay. >> Would you like March 12th or March 26th?
>> Well, March 12th. Yeah, we're just getting ready for St. Patrick's Day. >> March 26th. Just just to clarify if I could for a moment where where would the conservation commission be uh with respect to this issue if we were to hear
it on that date? >> Um typically the conservation commission will not issue the order of conditions until after the zoning board has >> right >> rendered their decision because they want to make sure that the zoning board doesn't say okay we want you to move the
catwalk 8 feet to the left or something like that. They so they want to know that zoning has finalized their process before they issue the order of conditions. >> Okay. So, we won't have any further input from conservation commission. >> You will not I can seek for further
comment if the board wants me to. >> Um but >> no, we're going to we'll be in conversation with the conservation commission because we're currently scheduled to be there at their next meeting. So, we'll be talking with them. >> Okay. So, I move to continue this
hearing until March 26th, 2026. >> There's a problem with that, Randy. >> Oh, >> the 26th. >> Um, >> you won't be here. >> I will. >> Oh, you will. >> But, uh, >> I think you told me you won't. >> Well, I told you I wouldn't be there on the 12th. >> Oh, >> I will be here on the 26th,
>> but uh, it really should go to the first date in April. >> Okay. >> When? >> First date in April. >> April 9th. >> April 9th. I move to continue this hearing till April 9th, 2026. >> I will second the motion and vote yes.
>> Yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> Steve votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Well, >> okay. >> I'll go. >> All right.
All right. Let's see. Sarah, where did we move to? We moved to 26-003. Please. >> Application number 26-3. Gene and Anna Patel, Care of Laya Warner, PO Box 1249,
Sandwich, Mass 02563. owners of property located at 12 Clark Meadows Way, also shown in the town of Chadam's assessor's map 5B, block 19 C, lot 13C. The applicant proposes to change, alter, or expand a non-conforming dwelling in a non-conforming lot via the construction
of additions, decks, and the installation of exterior mechanical system appliances. The existing dwelling is non-conforming and that it is located 28 ft from the Coastal Conservancy District. The proposed addition/d decks will be non-conforming and that they will be located 24 feet from the coastal
conservancy district where a 50- foot setback is required. The proposed exterior mechanical system appliances will be non-conforming and that they will be located 40 feet from the coastal conservancy district where a 50ft setback is required. The existing building coverage is 1,697
square ft 11% and the proposed building coverage is 2,30 ft 14% where 15% is the maximum allowed. The law is non-conforming and that it contains 15,022 ft of buildable upland where 20,000 ft is required in the R20 zoning district.
A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5 via the protective bylaw. So before you begin um as I understand it you have not gone in front of conservation yet. Is that correct? Yeah. >> Correct. >> Uhhuh. So uh what we'll do today is you
can make the presentation and we would have questions from the board that would give us some idea but we will not go into deliberations or make a decision. So as long as that's fine with you. >> Yes. Um, so it' be a continuence is
essentially and then you'll hear what >> Yeah, that's right. Says and >> so if you'd like uh you can just ask for a continuation now or you can make the presentation and we can ask you questions if we want. >> Yeah. I'd prefer to do the presentation
and you can questions. >> Okay. Go ahead then. Please introduce yourself and the floor is yours. >> Yes. Uh my name is Laya Warner. Um, and I'm representing the homeowners Jatine and Anna Patel. Anna is here. Um, so
they have they currently um have their home as a seasonal home um and they're looking to move to Chadam uh full-time um eventually in the next few years. And in order to do so, they're hoping to make these modifications that'll help um
support the change um which I'll outline in a moment. But I just wanna if you Sarah if you could go to the site plan because I want to show the significant constraints that we're dealing with. Um so we have a lot of uh
setbacks that are going into the property and that include the 50 to 100 foot wetland setback. Um the 200 foot river setback and the obviously the 50 foot conservancy district setback is covering almost the whole lot. Um,
so right here is the 50 foot conservancy district setback covering, you can see covering almost the entire lot. Um, here is the 100 foot wetland buffer
setback and here is the 200 foot river uh setback. And then obviously we have a paved road in between uh Salt Marsh area and uh
Kako Cove Creek and the house. So, um, and before I go into it, so we're not proposing anything that's out of scale with the existing house or the neighboring properties. So, for context, our existing gross square footage is 3600 square ft. Um, and they're
proposing increasing it to 4,200 um, which is a 600 foot square foot increase. Um the most comparable lot is the neighboring lot which is 400 KCO Cove Road which is the property directly
to the west. Um our lot is 0.56 acres. Theirs is 0.57. It's 300 square ft bigger. Um and their gross square footage is uh roughly just over 6,000 square feet. So, for context again,
we're just proposing 4200 square f feet and there's several other properties on the road that are similar, but just to reiterate that we're not trying to go out of scale with what we see around there. Um, so our if you if you don't
mind going back to the 3DS now. Okay, perfect. So um so first and foremost I want to say that we maximized the square feet that we had within the existing footprint before we even thought about
going outside the footprint. Um so we did so by adding three dormers. So you can see um that we had uh two shed dormers in that third here. These two dormers are new and then
this dormer is new. Um and uh we weren't able to get the the program that we felt was missing from the project was a formal dining room. Um they currently don't have that.
in their and they don't have the ability to convert any space in within the footprint to that um and they don't have a dedicated primary bathroom. So that was the scope that we are missing and we that's why we're proposing a 12x 21 ft addition which you can see here. Um it
is uh it is smaller than or it doesn't increase the building height. in uh shorter than the rest the main gable of the house and it's done in the same architectural style um with a few aesthetic upgrades you know flying rakes
things just added trim things that just will increase the curb appeal nothing significant um um and then uh the other main goal that we had that was um outdoor deck space
outdoor space to enjoy their view. They have a beautiful view of Kako Cove Creek, but they don't really have any space outside to enjoy it. Um, so if you Sarah, if you don't mind zooming into this picture just while I I just want to show the
existing of what um yeah, the one at the bottom. I just want to show this deck right here. So, they have an existing 10 by 12 deck that's actually shared with the front door of their house. This is the only door they have to their house other than the garage main door. So, um you
can't really put a lot of outdoor furniture on that. It's not really usable as an outdoor deck because we have to keep that space clear for people getting in and out. Um especially with with it being the only door to the outside. Um, so what we're proposing, and now you
can scoot back just so yeah, those two images are perfect. Um, so what we're proposing is a deck that projects six feet from the face of the building that goes the full width of the house. So obviously the existing uh area would be
just dedicated for circulation and the rest would be so that they could use it. Um the only place where that projects a little bit more um and it's for screening and aesthetic reasons so that we don't have a freestanding hot tub
eyesore because you'll be able to see potentially see that from their neighbors can see that and people driving by. So, it projects a little bit more just so they have a little catwalk around it um to mask uh a hot freestanding hot tub. Um
so, in the same vein of wanting that outdoor space, um they have an existing sun room right here and we are going to use that whole space. We're going to convert it to flat roof and we're going to have the rooftop deck. And we're proposing um increasing
it by 10 ft to cover that existing front door area so that they have so that we were able to minimize what we were asking for out here so that we can have as much as we can over twothirds of existing footprint and one-third
additional. But it also provides um protection from the from rain and elements for the front door and provides a little bit more of a wayfinding uh feature of people know where to go when they get to the house because I did a once around the house before I knew
where to go in. Um and then um the if you go up to the upper two. Yeah. So, um, the the same thing with wanting just a little more outdoor space, be able to enjoy their
views. We're proposing a a 4 foot6 deep canal levered balcony over the existing uh over the garage over what is existing gravel driveway. Um, and then lastly, they wanted to um
provide a second means of egress to their second floor. So, and the place that they could do that that was uh least visible from the street was to to the west side of the property um so that
it was hidden from most people driving by unless they're on um Clark Meadows. So, um um so overall we're just trying to increase their functionality to be able
to move here full-time or and um they want to get more outdoor use as they really have a beautiful view and just aren't really able to enjoy it. Um from an outside standpoint and um also looking to increase the the curb appeal
in this. Um, and I want to say that, you know, they intend to only build off season and, um, there is enough space on the property to put all construction vehicles during construction, so there won't be any impact to, uh, cars passing
or neighbors going to the beach. Um, and I also want to say that, um, on the south side of the property, um, you could see it on the site plan. I don't know if you want to jump to that real quick, but um we're proposing a dry well. So all runoff from the existing
house, which right now just drains directly to grade, would go into a dry well. So we're we're taking care of a water runoff problem that currently doesn't have a solution. So the impact of the water runoff of the addition is
really not going to cause significant impact because we are dealing with it in a better way for the entire house. Um and so anyway I I that's all from me.
>> Okay. um our criteria, you know, I I think you've touched on some, but um just quickly quickly review it and you know, ones that you don't think you addressed, you should do now.
>> Okay. Um so the adequacy of the size of the site, I addressed that. um the compatibility of the size of the pro proposed structure with neighboring properties. I believe I addressed that. Um the extent
of the proposed increase in non-conforming nature of the structure use. So um it in terms of the non-conformity of the lot, we can't do anything without it being non-conforming. So anything we proposed
here is increasing the nonconformy um because we are projecting more into uh these significant setbacks that are on the property. Um unfortunately there wasn't way around that and that was why we tried to really maximize what we did within the footprint before we even
thought about going out of that. um uh the suitability of the site. Um so impact on neighboring properties. We've there's um one neighbor that it could
possibly impact and it is uh um hold on 382 Kako Cove Road and they wrote a letter in support of the project. Um, and the impact I I touched on the impact
on the groundwater or the um the water runoff uh the storm water runoff um the vegetation wetlands and we're going to be working with conservation. We're willing to plant, you know, um whatever
they feel is appropriate to offset what we're proposing. Um so the impact of the scale sighting and mass on the neighborhood. Um so we do not feel that we are impacting the
scale. We're our proposal is um is not as tall as the existing structure um with the exception of the Koopa but I believe that there is an exception in the zoning that that doesn't count towards the building height.
And then um the adequacy of the method of sewage disposable disposal um and we are not proposing adding any bedrooms and um and board of health I believe wrote a
letter saying that they have no concerns um impact on traffic flow and safety. Like I said we're going to have we're going to be able to house all the construction vehicles. So, we do not anticipate any impact on the traffic. Um, the noise and litter, we're only
going to be uh building uh during off season. Um, and then no, not on the weekends either or strictly and strictly ending at 5:00 p.m. Um, the adequacy of the utilities. Uh,
we believe these are adequate. The only thing that we're adding is a uh proposed uh mechanical equipment should the um should the addition need that um and
uh the visual impact on the neighborhood. >> I I thank you. >> Oh well. Oh, okay. Sorry. >> Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone here today or on Microsoft uh Teams that would like to speak in favor of this project? If so, please uh indicate
they'd like to speak. Seeing none, I'll read the correspondence. First, we have a note. This is from Crystal Keon. She's the wetlands permitting
coordinator. So she writes from um well we have received a notice of intent application that will be heard on February 25th. That's the conservation. Yeah. Judith Giorgio writes on February 9th. I have no concerns regarding this
proposal. There will be no septic increase or encroachment on the septic system. Then we have a note. This is from William Ray and uh he gives a real estate address on February 11th
writes, I was recently made aware of a proposed project. I am very familiar with that area as I've sold several homes as well as having friends who live on Koko Grove and Island View Lane. I lane I have spent quite a bit of time on Koko Cove Beach while visiting friends
as well as using the kayak ramp. After reviewing the project, I would be in support of the changes that are being proposed to the property. They seem to be consistent with neighboring properties and do not adversely affect the ability to enjoy Coco Beach. I think the additions and renovations add quite
a bit of character to the house that would be quite pleasing to passers by. Then we have a note from Kurt and Debbie Carberry, 382 Coal Cove Road, February 7th, writing in support. They're wonderful neighbors. surely love Chattam
take great pride they took the time to explain the project to us in detail and based on our understanding we feel strongly their proposed expansion will have no negative impact on the neighborhood on the contrary believe the project will enhance not only their property but also the surrounding homes and overall character
and we have a note from Beth Barry 79 Atwood Lane and Cadam February 6th writing to share my support as a seasonal resident who cherishes the charm and beauty of Cadam, especially its stunning venes. I believe this project is a thoughtful and beneficial
enhancement to the neighborhood. After reviewing the architectural plans, I'm impressed by how well the design aligns with the character and scale of the surrounding area. As someone who visits Koko Cove and other Chattam beaches, I appreciate that this project will not negatively impact the coastal environment. Additionally, the modest
addition and tax ensure there will be no added strain on the existing septic. Project like this amplify how mindful redesigns can evaluate elevate a property while preserving the unique integrity. Thank you for consideration.
Then we have a note from Cynthia and Brian Casey, Jack Thomas and Rory Casey and they're all at 444 KO Cove January 22nd. Uh where the owners of 444 fully support the request. It'll be uh they're
good neighbors. They keep their lovely home in great shape and are respectful. They are thoughtful of very highly of our little Coco Cove community. We understand they are requesting expand the home fully support it. Uh and that's that. Is there anyone here today on
Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak against or has a specific question? Gentleman in the back. >> Brian Phillips, 374s Road. Uh my first question is, is the hot tub uh one of like the above ground removable hot tubs? >> Yeah.
>> Okay. And my second question is, is the the main purpose for this expansion in the coastal resiliency zone is for a dining room and a bathroom? >> Uh yes. >> I really hate to be a smart Alec or sound like a smart, but where do they go
to the bathroom and eat now? So, they don't have a formal dining room and they have a eat-in kitchen. So, but they have a large family and so they're hoping to be able to just make it something that is more conducive to being able to have their family and
friends. Um the other thing is they it's is a fourbedroom home. They have two bathrooms. So, they are able to use the bathroom right now. But um it's but comparable to other properties. Um you know it having a primary bathroom is not
unheard of um nor as a formal dining room. >> Okay. Um so I guess you know point I'm kind of make is like we've made more of a charge you know recently understanding you know the importance of the environment coastal resiliency zone. Um, it's like I kind of feel like you need
like a really good reason and it seems like there's just kind of too much of an expansion still in a coastal resiliency zone for this project. Thank you. >> So I I just want to say their whole home is already in that zone. I know. >> So yeah, so to be able to not do
anything to their home is difficult. So there and like I said, we tried to do everything we could within the footprint before the thought of going out was even considered. So, it's 12 by 21. We're only doing crawl space
foundation because we don't want to dig any deeper than we need to. And we are adding the um the uh dry well. So, that already the off the storm water that is just going to grade and not draining
well is going into a dedicated area and so it's it is improving that aspect. >> Okay. So, I do understand the challenges because I see a lot of these um here about not being able to, you know, being in the coastal resiliency zone.
>> Um there's just a lot of they hear my spiel every time they're building something coastal resiliency zone about, you know, being bad able to mitigate. They're actually is going uh I went to a meeting where they're going to be expanding these zones. Um, so I mean it just seems
like there needs to be like some sort of overwhelming need to build in these zones for me. I don't know you, you know, these are the guys you got to talk to. But so >> I think we're getting into a different area. Mr. >> All right. So I guess for those reasons being built in a coast resiliency zone, I'm against it. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you. All right. So what we're going to do, I'm just going to go around. If any member has a question or a comment, they will make it now. Okay? No need for you to reply. These are just giving you a heads up for the
continuence. So, we'll start with Mr. Beach. >> Well, this is the job. This is one where I needed my snowshoes when I was out the other day, but I don't have snowshoes. I'm on Cape Cod. Um I um I mean I I I don't think they're I
mean I I'm impressed that they are they've they're seeking to use the existing structure as much as they can be before considering doing the expansion. I like their reasoning they're doing offering a lot of improvements with what they have to work
with. Um, I think that I I find that the um the architecturally uh as I see it anyway, I think that the um
what they're proposing is an improvement over the existing building and looks like it springs from and and and honors the existing building and would look fine in the neighborhood. uh and uh they have
support of um various neighbors. Um uh I I think it's I think it to me it looks like a very good project and I could support it. >> Yeah. Ed. >> Um well, I'll be interested to see how how you do in conservation. Um
the one question I guess I have is the necessity for that set of uh elevated staircase up to the second floor. Um, you know, there's a lot of, uh, push back in town regarding, you know, seasonal rentals and things like that
and, uh, so, if you could address that. >> What do you mean seasonal rentals? >> Um, vacation rentals, uh, having a separate set of staircases, >> like if it was trying to be converted to an ADU or something. >> Um, not necessarily an ADU, but just,
uh, increasing the amount of bedrooms and and having a separate access. Oh, >> your answer to that could be it's just for safety. >> Um, but I would just if you could think about think about that. >> Um, other than that, uh, you know, it's
a it's a modest increase. Um, I think the scale and mass will fit into the neighborhood and, um, I wish you good luck with conservation. >> Thank you, >> Paul. I had some of the same concerns as Ed
did in terms of the uh elevated staircase on the back side. Um it is on the back side which helps but um I'm not greatly enamored with that. Uh other than that uh it's a very confined area and they've
attempted to conform as much as they can to a lot of those restrictions which has been very nice. Um so I think those are the extent of my comments right now. Yeah, >> Randy. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, um I think it's very attractive and I I can't imagine having any problems with it, but
I just want to point out so before you had talked in your u presentation about the extent of an increase in a nonconformity. So, what we're seeing here is you're getting four feet closer to the conservancy district. So, that's
your increase in nonconformity. Did that sound right? >> Uh yes. Yeah. >> Yeah. Because you're supposed to be 50 feet, right? And now you're 28 and with this project you'll be 24, right? >> For which part are you talking about? Because there's a lot like you talking about for the
>> I guess the deck. >> The deck. Yes. Cuz they're Yes. >> So they're not I just just to clarify for for Brian and for anyone else listening. So you're not in the coastal conservancy district. You're just a little closer than you're supposed to be. That's all.
We're in the 50 foot setback. Yes. Coastal, but not >> but you're not in the >> No, correct. >> Yeah. So, there's a difference. I mean, because we get plenty of applications that are squarely already in the coastal conservancy district. Okay. Sounds good. Bye, >> Jenny.
>> Yeah. Um, Llaya, first of all, Laya, I wanted to say you did a great job and uh on your presentation, and I I really like this page the most. I really like how echoing what um Dave Vich said about you can see the original home and how
you're making improvements but but it's definitely visible the original structure and and the improvements are are attractive. Um I uh I do to to add a little more to what Randy was saying and
uh maybe in in a little further rebuttal to what Mr. Phillips was just talking about. um you're in an R20, >> which means that you need to have 20,000 square ft of property and you have you have 24. Now, some of that is not buildable, right? That's your total lot,
but your buildable upland is 15,000 square feet. It's about 65% of what you really need and and you outlined all that in your site plan. So, um I just wanted to point out that a lot of times we we don't we don't see that and and to Ry's point, they're really pushing it. I
don't think you are. I I see a 3% increase in building coverage. So, your footprint is where it is. And I can't change that. And And you are asking for a little more for the space. But that's why I like this page because you can
clearly see it's this portion of the house, which is frankly modest. It's 600 square feet. I don't care what you're using it for. I I think that that's reasonable. That's my opinion. Um, and then lastly, I would say I think you're making an improvement with the dry with
the drywall. And so you're, yeah, you're asking for a little more, but you're also offering something um to mitigate that. And then lastly, uh, I do agree with Ed. I think that the stairs detract from the attractiveness of the house, and they frankly add some mass to the
house. Um, that I just think with the big balcony that you have on the top- which makes total sense. I I don't I don't like the stairs either, frankly. >> Steve, >> um I guess first thing I'd like to say, I appreciate you having the uh sort of
the before and after on the same page at and at the same angle so you can you can get an idea of what's actually changing here. I I like the way that that's drawn. Um I'm not crazy about the stairs. I have some notes here. They seem a bit overpowering for something
that may occasional be only occasionally used um as a secondary egress. So maybe you can just redesign something else there. Um other than that, oh you might want to uh what what's the material that the the
patio is going to be used made out? >> Uh it'll be permeable. >> Okay. Yeah. >> So it's it's important I think that you call that out. >> Yeah. Uh you know >> Yes. Um it's not Yeah, it's pvious on the site plan. They have a P >> there for >> As long as you call that out and
everybody is aware of that, I think that's a good idea. Yes. >> Other than that, I think you're off to a good start here. So, good luck. >> Thank you, >> Lee. >> Yeah, I agree. I think it's a um it's you've been very thoughtful with this.
Um I I think um using the original structure uh as much as possible is is really important. Um, I'm in agreement with my colleagues regarding the back staircase. I mean, if there's any way you can redesign and put the staircase
inside, I'm a huge fan of two staircases in a house. Um, don't know if that's possible, but I would uh I would like that. Um, I not sure if you need the Koopa. Um, but in general, I I don't I think
it's a great project. I do not think it will be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. >> Thank you for mentioning the Koopali. Uh, Koopalas are great on barns. They really are. You know, when you have cows and, you know, get the air out on a
house like this, I'd like to see it eliminated. Outside of that, I have no other questions. So, >> uh, Sarah, do we have a date? >> Um, if >> this could be continued to >> Well, you conservation had said you're
going to be heard the 25th of February. >> That's what they said. uh they had some questions that our wetland consultant has to respond to and it requires uh just some further clarification on our site plan and so I don't think that's going to be able to be returned to them
tomorrow which is when they need it. Um we just got the comments back today. So >> 25th I think the next meeting >> which would be their meeting of March 11th. So, we if you're able to do that, we could have you on the 12th or the 26th, whichever works for you. March.
>> Um, let's stay the 12th. >> Okay. I move to continue this hearing till March 12th, 2026. >> I'll second the motion and vote yes. >> Randy votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> Votes yes. >> I vote yes. And thank you very much.
>> Thank you, Randy. >> Move to adjourn. >> Yes. All vote yes. >> Second it. >> Second it. >> Everybody can vote. >> Vote yes. >> Votes yes. >> Uh Ed votes yes. >> Randy votes yes. >> Eddie votes yes. >> Steve votes yes. >> I vote yes.
>> I vote yes. And the official time is >> 6:16 p.m.