[music] Welcome to today's Town of Cadam Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. The date is the 11th of June, 2026. To begin with, we have an important message from the governor of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Miss Fenwick, >> which I will read. >> 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 the 2025 extending certain CO 19
measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law until June 30th, 2027. 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 9454410
conference ID 613 386693 and the pound sign or join the meeting online via Microsoft Teams through the link in the posted agenda. While this is a live broadcast and simalcast on Chadam
TV Exfinity 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 [clears throat] 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. And there are a few procedural steps that I'll go through just as a reminder for everyone. There will be a uh roll call of board members by the chair. Um ask if any citizens or non-board members
participating in the call via the phone only for their name and the last four digits of their phone number for identification purposes. Uh our hearing notice is read by staff Sarah and you or your representatives present the appeal or the application. Anyone in favor of
the appeal or application may speak. Is it five minutes? Okay. Change. Five minute time limit. The chair may read or summarize all letters received by the board. Anyone against the appeal or application may
speak or ask a question. Five minutes time. Five minutes. A time limit for that. Also, the applicant may rebut the testimony. Board members may direct questions to anyone present. board hears any further information. The board closes the public hearing. The board
deliberates. We vote on appeal or the application and all votes are taken by roll call. At the end of the meeting, we close the meeting via verbal confirmation and we note the time of adjournment. >> Thank you. I might add that >> I'm sorry. Thank you. I might add that
votes in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to be successful, you need to have a super majority. In our case, since there are five voters, you need to get four in the affirmative. We need a roll call of all members to approve this form of meeting. And I'll
start with Dave Vich. >> David H.V. And I approve this meeting format. >> Uh Ed Actton, I approve. >> All C simple, I approve this format. >> David S. Nixon, I approve. Virginia Fowl, I approve. >> Steven D. Deborne, I approve. >> Lee Huby, I approve.
>> Okay, first off, well, I should tell you who's voting today. That would be Mr. Beach, Mr. Simple, myself, Virginia, and Lee. We have some minutes. Dave each.
>> Uh, I will move uh approval of the uh minutes for May 7th, 2026 as presented. I will second that motion and vote yes. >> D votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes.
>> And I vote yes. Okay. >> And then uh I will move approval of the minutes of May 21st, 2026. Unless there are any changes uh and he has to offer, I'll approve them as presented.
>> I will second that motion and vote yes. >> Votes yes. >> I vote yes. I wasn't present, so I'll >> Okay. Thank you. All right, Sarah. Our first application, I believe, is 26-036. >> Application number 26-036,
277 Old Harbor Road, Realy Trust, Care of Ken Murphy, PO Box 43, West Chav, Mass, 02669. Owners of property located at 277 Old Harbor Road. also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 15F block 13 lot J2 the applicant proposes to change
alter or expand a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot the t partial demolition of the existing dwelling and non-conforming detached garage and the construction of additions the existing dwelling is non-conforming and that it is located 18.06 06 ft from
the road where a 25 [clears throat] ft setback is required and 13.5 ft from the southerntherly leabut butter where a 15 ft setback is required. The proposed addition will comply with all bulk and dimensional requirements of the bylaw but is considered a substantial alteration and under the second except
clause of section 6 of Mass General Law chapter 48 [clears throat] requires the grant of a special permit. The existing building coverage is 1,617 square ft 14.54% and the proposed building coverage is 1,622
ft 14.58% where 15% is the maximum allowed. The law is non-conforming and that it contains 11,124 ft where 20,000 ft is required in the R20 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General law chapter
48 section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw. Good afternoon the board members. Uh thank you for your time. I'm Ken Murphy from Centerpoint Design representing James and Patricia Wagot at 277 Old Harbor Road. Uh my clients are here to
repres um to add an addition onto their existing footprint and um right now they have an existing garage they would want to take down to finally have a uh an area so they can enjoy their um afternoons and evenings on uh beautiful
Chattam. Sorry. Uh, I just there isn't really any detrimental to the neighborhood as far as I can see. Um, I think we really stuck with the the the look of the neighborhood. We didn't
go beyond the footprint. Um, we met all the the current setbacks and lot coverage. Uh even though the the property is uh pretty non-existing, um I think we still met all the requirements of the board to be able to um uh fit the
the structure of the the addition to match the same details of the the existing property. Now, uh even though it's an antique home, but not that of an antique. So, um, putting the addition on the back on the back end of it to match
the the character roof lines of the existing house was our goal. >> Uh, could you tell us the uh extent and the purpose of the addition, please? >> Uh, it's mainly for to uh have a family room. Uh they have a a dining room now and they have a living room, but the the
Waggots will really enjoy a an area so they can um be able and sit out in their backyard and view their their grandchildren and um keep one single car garage because uh Mr. uh Jim Wag is um of age and he would like to still have a
garage and to tinker in and have you know a number of his projects he would continue to to work on. >> Okay. Could you go through the criteria, please? >> I forgot my criteria list. Uh would anyone have a an >> uhhuh?
We can help you out if you if you approach Sarah give you one. >> Perfect. >> She'll loan you one. >> Y another 150 bucks. As I mentioned before, the the size of the the lot uh including but not limit
to maximum lot of a building coverage and setbacks. We meet all those. Um we're still right under the 15% lot coverage. Um number two, compatibility to size of the proposed structure, proposed structure, excuse me, with neighborhood properties. Um again, we're
not going beyond our setbacks. we are com um meeting the means uh or the requirements of the town of Chadam's bylaws when it comes to law coverage and setbacks. Number three, the extent of proposed increase of non-conforming nature of the structure. Uh well, the ex
the front part is already pre-existing non-conforming, but when we tear down the existing garage uh which is not um conforming, we are making the property conforming. Um the proposed garage and the the uh rear proposed addition
uh suitable for the site. Uh I believe we are suitable for the site. It's it meets uh again the setbacks and I kept with the same roof line as the existing part of the house. I know this board really would like to see a continuation
of the the existing uh main structure of the property. And and I think when I worked with the the Waggots and their uh their kids and and then their kids uh three generations um that was our big purpose is trying to make sure that we
kept the same roof lines and you know um in the details of the existing house because the character on that corner is seen by uh many people of course in Chadam as they drive by. uh the impact scale of of sitting in the massive neighborhood. Uh again, the addition is is smaller than the main part of the
house. Um I think the existing addition that's on the property now uh is not in character of the house. I think we're doing a a great improvement of the neighborhood and the structure. Um that was an addition probably put on probably 20 or 30 years ago that really didn't um
doesn't help with the the the current with the owners right now, what it has to offer. They have a lot of uh existing um uh problems with the the flooring and and the access to the back mud room and there's a laundrymat and it's kind of
dated um you know oldfashioned cabinets that would love to update and be able to have something that's more functional with the space than what's there now. Um what's next here? Uh number six, compatibility with proposed use of the neighborhood use. Uh, I think what the
addition that we're going to be putting on, we're still using pretty much the same access driveway to to get in the back of the garage part here. If you can show the floor plan, I mean, excuse me, the site plan. Um, thank you. Right now, the the existing garage is here and we
will continue to add um keep that driveway there to access the back of the the proposed garage. And here, this is where their family room will be. So when they they can have you know gatherings here in the backyard still as you know this road is um pretty much a highway.
So and in the past they've had people hit their front porch there I think in the recent uh year or two that they just had that replaced. So um it's beginning to sit in the back and enjoy um their you know family gatherings is been their
their main goal um for this addition. Uh impact of traffic and flow. Uh well, I really think that uh the the the floor of the house is going to be much better. If you can show the if you have a um floor plan available.
We added a proposed um access on the side and this is where the proposed family room will end up being. And then they're they're keeping a onecar garage and the height of the garage is a little bit higher because uh Mr. Mr. Wag would like to seal as I
mentioned store a few things above since we will be getting rid of the garage off the side of the property. Um noise and litter I doubt there'll be any noise and litter on the side of the on the back part of the property. You adequacy of utilities and other public services. Um
that's not going to impact this property at all. Uh all the the the connections will be um you know tied into an existing house. >> Um limb 11. >> I don't think you don't need to do 11. Perfect. >> Thank you. >> Anything else? >> That should do it.
>> Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone here today that would like to speak in favor of this application? Also applies to anybody online. If so, let us know. Don't see anyone. I'll read the correspondence.
First, we have a note. This is from Judith Giorgio. She's the health agent for the town. She writes on June 9th, "I have no concerns regarding the proposed addition of this existing four-bedroom dwelling." Then we have a note from Christina
Passet. She's writing for the Department of Community Developments Historic Commission. She writes, "On June 9th, the Chattam Historical Commission found this home to be historically significant, but the changes do not material diminish its
historic significance. So therefore, they did not impose a demolition delay." That's the extent of the correspondence. Is there anyone here today on Microsoft Teams that would like to either A speak against this or B has a question? If so,
please indicate you'd like to join the conversation. Don't see anybody. So, questions from the board. Dave each. >> I have no questions. Dave >> Ed, >> uh just one question. The ridge of the addition looks to be like maybe a couple
feet lower than than the main house. Is that correct? Is that correct? >> Yes. Correct. >> Oh, two feet approximately. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Welcome. >> Paul, no questions. >> No questions. >> I have no questions. >> No questions.
>> Nor do I. Okay. Dave, >> I'll move to um close the hearing, move into deliberations. >> I'll second the motion and vote yes. >> Beach votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. I vote yes. >> And I vote yes. Okay. Deliberations. Ed.
Uh, I think, uh, it's it's a nice addition. I think it's going to fit well. It's it's a couple feet lower than the the existing house. Uh, so I don't think you're going to really see it from 28 at all. And I I think the uh the architecture certainly matches with the
existing house. So, uh, I think, um, he did a nice job and I I think, uh, there'll be many generations that'll hopefully enjoy it. >> Paul, >> I agree. I think it meets all of our criteria. It's certainly not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood.
>> Jenny, >> yeah, I agree with my colleagues and I agree with everything that Mr. Murphy said. Um, it is an improvement to the property, although doesn't need much improvement. It's a gorgeous home and a gorgeous lot. >> Um, but also, you know, I appreciate the
fact that it is a n the home was 1900s and oftentimes these historic homes have smaller rooms on the inside. And so practically speaking, I can see how adding that onto the house as opposed to the detached garage um will increase.
You mentioned, you know, moving a few walls, expanding a little bit. Um the upstairs floor plan I noticed was different and I think that that's a great project as part of this project in in um improving the enjoyment of the space inside. So, I um fully support the
project, agree it is not um uh substantially detrimental to the neighborhood and it's an improvement. >> Steve, >> yeah, I think this is a a [clears throat] great project that eliminates a setback issue by eliminating that garage, but keeping a garage that's attached is probably more
convenient to the family. Um, I think, you know, you're changing the uh the style that uh it was a I guess a mudroom or a laundry room from a a hip roof style to a a you know, subordinate gambrell which matches the house better. So, I think it's overall it's a great
project. >> Yeah, I think Mr. uh Mr. Wag is missing going to miss his garage, but I think he'll be happy with his newer garage. Thanks. >> So, I agree with my colleagues as well. um when we were out there. It's really quite a modest addition, but I think it's going to make a big difference in
the house. So, I approve it as well. >> Thank you, Dave. >> Yeah, I agree with all previous I I wish um all the ones that came for us were as easy to approve as this one. It's a really nice job. >> Thank you. >> Um >> so, uh with that, uh I will move um
approval of um application number 26-036. Um my sense is in this location we would want to apply our all of our usual conditions. Um if so that would be um
that uh all construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neighboring property with permission of the property owner. Uh between June 30th and Labor Day, no exterior construction will be allowed. No work uh should be permitted on the weekends. Construction activity between
8 a.m. and 5:00 PM only. I'll second the motion and vote yes. >> Pete votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. I vote yes. >> And I vote yes. That's a unanimous decision. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. >> Thank you for your board and your time.
[clears throat] >> Sarah Z, no 26-037, please. Application number 26-037 Edund Nancy Mantel Care of Christopher Cannon PO Box 2011 Chattam Mass 02633
owners of property located at 75 Shane Drive also shown in the town of Chadam's assessor's map 15H block 2 lot B40 the applicant proposes to change alter or expand [clears throat] a non-conforming dwelling in a non-conforming lot via the construction of an addition the existing
dwelling is non-conforming and that is located 27.7 ft from the road where a 40ft setback is required. 23.4 ft from the westerly abuter and 22.5 ft from the easterly of butter where a 25 ft setback is required. The proposed addition will
comply with the required setbacks. The existing building coverage is 2,125 ft 19.3% and the proposed building coverage is 2,250 ft 20.5% where 15% is the maximum allowed. the law is non-conforming and
that it contains 11,000 square feet where 40,000 square feet 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 protected bylaw. M >> Mr. Lichfield. >> Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of
the board. Bill Lichfield here on behalf of the Mantel family. The property technically is owned by Nancy Mantel as trustee of a family trust. Uh I represent the family and we are here seeking uh the construction
special permit for the construction of a sun room or garden room in the rear of the property. I know you all went out to the site and you're uh you saw that we're proposing we're staked. We are proposing to basically enclose the
existing patio uh to provide for some additional living space for the Mantel family. Manels have owned this house for I don't know 45 46 years something like that and we have uh other generations coming along and uh we'd like to have as
shown there uh at the on the bottom uh a the ability to construct a sun room. Uh like many of the houses in this neighborhood, um it has uh was constructed n mid mid 1960s and has a
pretty substantial overhang. Well, because most of the overhangs in the neighborhood are less than 2 feet, they're not counted in coverage. But because this overhang is 2 feet and 2
in, it increases our coverage from 15.2% 2% to what it would ordinarily be still non-conforming up to a 19% coverage. So I suspect when you saw that number you kind of said that's kind of large. We're going from 19 to 21 or whatever the
number is. In reality we are talking about a very small addition 125 square ft. So, while the coverage number is higher because of the town's policy on the extent of overhangs, this one is 2
in wider or longer than the norm in the neighborhood. So, I'll go into the criteria as to what's proposed as to adequacy of sight. The site is adequate for the house built in 1964. Like everything in the neighborhood, we have an existing lot size uh street and
sideline setback nonconformity uh which is because the neighborhood was developed under the old R10 zoning. [snorts] I think you can find the site to be adequate for the addition of the small sun room at the rear which meets setbacks. The coverage, as I indicated, is somewhat deceptive due to the
overhang being 26 26 in rather than 24, but that necessitates inclusion of the entire overhang. We're only 15.2% for the house itself. It will remain consistent with the neighborhood if you approve the special permit. As to
compatibility of size, on the third sheet of the handout, all of the neighborhood lots are non-conforming. Uh we are in the mid-range of gross floor area as 13.7% and living area at 164 square feet. As expanded, it will remain
compatible with neighboring homes. It's still a modest home uh in keeping with neighboring properties. As to the extent of increase in nonconformities, as Sarah read in the legal ad, we have four. The only one that will change is coverage uh
by 125 square ft. the footprint increasing from 164 square ft to 1748 square ft. You might do the math and say, "Well, that's not 125 square ft. It's 144." The 19 square ft difference
is because we're no longer have to have to count the coverage, which is going to be replaced by the sun room. So, it's 125 square ft addition. As to suitability of site, this was the second phase of the development of what was an
old dairy farm. All of the houses were built in the mid60s. There are no wetlands or environmental issues. Uh it is a suitable uh site. It's a residentially developed site as it has been for the last 60 years and it remains suitable for the small addition
which will be quite useful to the family but will have no negative impact or any environmental impact. [laughter] As the scale citing mass views and vistas again it was developed under prior zoning smaller lots with generally speaking
singlestory lowscale homes. Uh the existing structure is of a piece with surrounding uh houses. Uh the proposed gun uh garden room sunroom is not visible from the street as you know from having been out there. Uh the rear yard
is heavily vegetated by a very substantial holly tree and is largely fenced. It will remain reasonable as to scale and mass and consistent with the style of the neighborhood. There are no views at issues at issue. Uh the compatibility of use remains the same as
a re residential use. We have town water in a three-bedroom septic. There's no change. The health agent has reviewed. The chair will read her letter. She has no concerns. So, as you know, the issue for you is to decide is whether this
proposed modest addition is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current non-conforming house on a non-conforming lot. The house will remain consistent and compatible with its surroundings. The percentage change again is somewhat
deceptive because of the coverage issue. Uh the overhang and coverage issue. It's actually quite modest. It remains of a piece of the neighborhood of 125 square ft addition. The resulting living area will remain modest at 1748 square ft,
but it's a much needed gain for Mrs. Mantel and her family and the house will remain consistent with the scale and style of the neighborhood. So in light of the criteria and the plans, I think that you can find the proposed change is not substantially more detrimental. I'd
certainly be happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you. Is there anyone here today or on Microsoft Teams who wishes to speak in favor of this application? If so, please indicate you'd like to speak. Don't see anyone. So, I'll read the
correspondence. We have a note from Judith Gorgio, Town of Cadam Health agent. I have no concerns regarding the addition of a sun room at this property. That was on June 9th. And then we have a note. This is from
Ryan and Katherine Johnson. On June 1st, they write, "We are the owners of 39 Shane Drive. We are in support of 75 Shane Drive to alter their property and also 32 Air Lane to alter their property." That's got nothing to do with
this, but it will with our next one. So, that's the end of that. Is there anyone in Microsoft Teams or here and that would like to speak either against this application or has a specific question? If so, please indicate you'd like to speak.
Don't see anyone questions from the board. Paul, >> I have no questions. >> Jenny, >> no questions. >> Steve, >> Steve has no questions. >> I have no questions. >> Dave, no. I just wondered if Chris
Cannon was scouting the neighborhood offering two for one or >> we we did our best to accommodate the boards given the price of gasoline. So, we scheduled it appropriately in that regard. >> No other questions then. Uh, no questions. >> Dave,
>> I move to uh close the hearing, move into deliberations. >> I'll second the motion and vote yes. >> Beach votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> And I vote yes. Deliberations. Jenny. >> Well, thank you, Mr. Lichfield, for
reminding us about the R10, you know, the old R10. And um I was surprised that those were R40s. The the lots are all small in there. Um, and also for the uh explanation for the overhang. I think that that was um makes a lot of sense.
Even without that, I um liked this very much. I think it fits. It's it's a modest um addition to the back. And even though it is increasing the coverage, it works in that property and in the neighborhood more broadly. Um I I felt
like there are a lot of homes in that neighborhood that are very appropriately making small additions. We're going to see another one in a minute. Um to that neighborhood and and that is our criteria. Does it fit in the neighborhood and is not substantially more detrimental? And I don't I do believe it fits in the neighborhood and
is not substantially more detrimental. >> Keith, >> I think it's a very modest um addition that give them a little bit more living area and enjoy enjoyable uh area. So I have no issues with it. [clears throat] >> I agree with my colleagues. I think it
is a very appropriate addition. Um, and I think it's going to make a world of difference. >> Okay. >> I agree with all previous nice fit for the property in the neighborhood. >> And and I agree as well, >> Paul. >> I also agree with my colleagues. It's
certainly not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. >> No. And I I agree. Uh, and I also think it makes a great improvement, frankly, to the backyard. It really does. It gives it a lot more something going on there.
Okay. So, uh I will move approval of application number 26-037. Um when I look at this and the and the the the the size of the project and
everything, I'm I'm inclined to allow speak to allow for construction during the summer months. Of course that means that we have subsequent application coming same issue will be for us. But I I'm I'm whatever the thoughts of the
board are I'm I'm inclined to um do the um the first point and then the hours with respect to summer work but not to um prohibit exterior construction in neighborhood. >> Okay. Uh Ed, what do you think of that?
>> Um I think mind if I ask the applicant if >> Sure. Um what are your thoughts or the applicants? >> I thank you. I explained to uh the applicants that the board customarily imposes a limit on summertime construction leave in the hands of the
board. They have no objection to that. Um I don't I'm trying to remember how is there much offsite parking there? Um >> uh they have a
not a circular drive, an indent in in the front >> as well as the driveway itself. >> Yeah, I I think the size is very reasonable. The only the only thing may be the the pouring the footing in the cement trucks, but that that would be shortterm. Um so I guess I I don't have
any objection to um letting them uh keep vehicles on site and and work through the summer. >> Okay, Paul. I agree with my colleagues. Jenny, I >> I actually think that we should impose
it because it's a small neighborhood. It's not so much the construction in that lot. It's the neighborhood and just chatted more broadly in July and, you know, June, July, August. It's already the middle of June, so they wouldn't realistically be able to start until the height of our summer season. So, I um
but it's such a small project. I could go either way, but I I I'm I would just do it just because of the broader Chadam neighborhood of noise. They're pretty tight in there, too. >> Steve, >> I think I would probably impose the normal restrictions. Um it's a very
tight neighborhood over there. Um small lot. I think it's going to be difficult. So, I I would impose the regular. In fact, you know, if they're acceptable to that, then I think it's appropriate.
>> I agree with imposing the um the normal conditions um with no construction in the summertime. It is a tight neighborhood. There's lots of walkers, there's lots of kids, and it's already mid June, so waiting till after Labor
Day, I don't think is a problem. >> Yeah. And I I agree also to that. So, >> okay. With that said, uh the [clears throat] uh conditions uh that we I would propose would be u all construction activity and vehicles should be contained on site or to neighboring property with permission of
property owner between June 30th and Labor Day. No, no exterior construction will be allowed. No work should be permitted on weekends. Construction activity between 8 a.m. and 5:00 pm only. >> I will second the motion and vote yes. >> And Votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. I vote yes.
>> I vote yes. That's your unanimous vote. Thank you, Mr. Litfield. >> Very much. Okay. On to 26-038. >> Application number 26-038. Charles and Sarah Hile, Care of William G. Lichfield, Esquire, 330 Orleans Road,
North [clears throat] Chattam, Mass 02650. owners of property located at 32 Air Lane. Also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 14H, block 50, lot B34. The applicant proposes to change, alter, or expand a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the construction
of an addition and relocation of an exterior mechanical system appliance AC condenser. The existing dwelling is non-conforming and it is located 31.2 2 ft from Air Lane and 27.1 ft from Shane Drive, 15.7 ft from the southwesterly
butter and 16.7 ft from the southeasterly abutter. The proposed addition will be non-conforming in that it will be located 26.2 ft from Shane Drive where a 40ft setback is required and 8.9 ft from the southeasterly butter where a 25 ft
setback is required. the existing AC condenser is non-conforming and that it is located 21.1 ft from the southeasterly butter. The relocated AC condenser will be non-conforming and that it will be 12 ft from the southeast Julia Butter where a
25 ft setback is required. The existing building coverage is 1,445 ft 13.4% and the proposed building coverage is 1,610 ft 14.9% where 15% is the maximum allowed. the law is non-conforming and
that it contains 10,87 square ft where 40,000 square feet 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. >> Mr. Lichfield. >> Good afternoon. Still Bill Lichfield and
here on behalf of Mr. Mrs. Hy, Chip and Sarah Hy are seated in the audience. They have owned this house for a number of years are spending more time here uh and would like to
sort of plan for the future uh with uh eventual the eventual ability to have one floor living. Uh Chip has had some knee and uh hip problems and Sarah said she's not going to push him in a
wheelchair. Uh so they'd like to have a larger firstf floor bedroom uh with a good size reasonable bathroom as well because and thank you Sarah that's good timing because of the location of the house. This was not one of the
Campanelli uh slab houses. This was built by uh by an Eldridge as a matter of fact around 1965. But because of the sighting, uh, it's on corner lot, so it has set back, street setback from both sides. But it's very
nicely sighted, far back from the road. But because it is far back from the road and angled, it's nonconforming as to the two rear lot lines. And there is really no way uh to put on an addition without
completely reconfiguring the house internally uh [snorts] except for where we're proposing it now. So it is obviously closer to the southeast lot line, the one in the bottom right on that side. But I am happy to report that
the owner of that property is enthusiastically in support of it. it abuts her it's her garage which is next to the uh the proposed addition. She has absolutely no objections nor are there any from several other
neighbors all of whom wrote and as you can tell I didn't write them because they're all different. Uh they're brief too which is another indication that I didn't write them but we'll get to that later. Uh so what is proposed is an expansion of the existing rather small I
think it's something like 11 by 11 uh first floor bedroom to allow the ability to sort of age in place. So the stylistically as shown there uh it is a simple addition matched architecturally to this to the scale or size of the
existing house with two [snorts] windows on the Shane Drive side. uh it'll be set back fairly far from Shane Drive, although still technically non-conforming. So, I'll go into the criteria as to adequacy of site. The site is adequate for the house built 60
years ago. We have the nonconformities that Sarah uh read in the hearing notice, which are true for most of the homes in the old Harbor Pines neighborhood. I think you can find the site to be adequate for the 160 square foot addition which again is designed to
accommodate eventual uh one floor living through a larger bedroom and a new bathroom. The house obviously abuts two streets as I mentioned non-compliant as to both as well as to the sideline but it is unlike many compliant as to coverage and if [snorts] you approve the
special permit it will remain consistent with the neighborhood as the compatibility of size on the third pl third third sheet of the handout comparable lots uh all of the neighborhood lots are non-conforming we are currently the lowest in coverage at
13.4% 4% and have relatively low living area of 1,613 square ft, 900 on the first floor roughly speaking and 700 on the second. As expanded, the house will remain compatible with neighboring houses compliant coverage uh which is
less than many. It is still a modest home in keeping with neighboring properties living areas 1773 square feet which is hardly uh extraordinary as to [snorts] the extent of increase. We have multiple nonconformities including the existing exterior mechanical appliance
system which we are necessarily seeking your permission to relocate. Uh if you approve the special permit, I hope that you do. The addition will be one foot closer to the street. And while it's certainly closer to the lot line, again, the affected butter supports that
change, which is on the garage side of her house. She would have been here, but had a medical, not an emergency, a medical appointment, but she did write. We're also again seeking to relocate the uh non-conforming condenser as well. As to suitability of site, the site is
plainly suitable for residential use. It will remain suitable for the addition of a larger but certainly not palatial firstf flooror bedroom which is without any impact on the natural environment but it is an important benefit for the human environment which sometimes should
be a consideration that of the hy family as to scale sighting mass views and vistas again as as is in the last hearing and as Miss Fenwick noted this was developed as an R10 zone uh when we did some resoning in 1985 it was
upgraded to R40 uh which has made many nonconformities as you are aware but presently we have an attractive and well-maintained full cape with a dormer at the rear. The existing house as I said is angled on the lot but it has a positive impact on streetscape but no
impact on views or vistas. If [snorts] you approve the special perimeter it will remain reasonable as to scale and mass. It's architecturally appropriate and consistent with the house itself. There's no negative impact on views and vistas and that's a very nice rendering. I think that gives you a sense of what
is proposed and how it will look. [snorts] It will have no impact on views and vistas and I think it will have a positive impact on streetscape. The health agent has written that there's no change in the number of bedrooms and she has no concerns. So, as you know, the
question for you to determine is whether this proposed rather modest addition is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current non-conforming structure. The house will remain consistent and compatible with its surroundings. Uh there are currently
nonconformities as the sideline and the street and those will change, but both are typical of the neighborhood in which every every single lot is non-conforming, nonconforming. And again, coverage remains low and compliant. The living area will remain
reasonable at 1,700 square ft, but the addition will uh enable eventual aging in place so-called for the residents. There is, as I indicated, significant neighborhood support, particularly from the most the only affected of butter, who wrote and told the hiles that it she
saw a mistake and she said it will look like it's been there forever. And I think frankly she is correct. Unlike some cases, this is a modest request by a longtime homeowner with an understandable and I think a reasonable request 160 square feet in the only
feasible location to accomplish the goal. One of which is consistent with the goals of the bylaw. Former member of this board who happens to be your liaison often thought about and quoted the purpose and intent of the bylaw. uh
the first of which is ensuring the health, welfare and quality of life of Chadamus residents and this special permit will serve the hiles in that regard. In light of the criteria and the plans, I think you can find that this proposed change is not substantially
more detrimental and certainly be happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you. Is there anyone here today in the audience or on Microsoft Teams who wishes to speak in favor of this application? And if so, please indicate you'd like to join the conversation.
>> Don't see anyone. So, I'll read the correspondence. [clears throat] First is from Judith Giorgio, health agent, June 9th. I have no concerns regarding the addition to this existing three-bedroom dwelling. Then we have a note. This is from
Marie Fulture, I guess, on June 10th. She writes, "We support going forward with the addition. They are wonderful neighbors." That's from Marie and Dick Fulcher at 65 Shane. We have a note from Charles O'Connell.
On June 9th, we wish to communicate to you and the ZBA our enthusiastic support for the requested addition. We reside at 53 Shane Drive, a short distance away. The Hiles plan will have no negative effect on the neighborhood.
We support they're going forward with the addition. That's from Charles and Mary Lee O' Connell. Then we have a note on June 1st. Katherine and Ryan Johnson, right? Were the owners of 39 Shane, we are in
support. I think we already heard from them. And so we uh now have a note from well this is written to the house but
we'll take it to written to us on April 11th. Roberta Kaga at 84 Shane Drive writes the drawings look great. I can tell from the measurements that this is just what we discussed and you state to get a sense of the scope of the project.
Given this is on the garage side of my home, I have no issue at all with the addition. In fact, the drawing makes the addition look like it was always there, which is a sign of good design. Best of luck. Then we have a note from Barbara and Tom
Morarity 31 air June 9th. The plan will have no negative effect on the neighborhood. We support the house going forward with the addition. That's the extent of the correspondence. Is there anyone here today on Microsoft Teams that would like to speak either against
this application or has a specific question? If so, please indicate now you wish to speak. Don't see anyone at all. Questions from the board. Steve.
Um, I don't think I have any. >> No questions. >> No questions. >> Uh, no questions. >> No questions. >> No questions. >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> I'll second the motion and vote yes.
>> Beach votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> And I vote yes. Uh, deliberations. Lee. >> Uh, well, I think this is a a great addition. Um having a first floor primary bedroom is always a good idea
and um with especially with some you know good bathroom space and closet space. Um I think it's a very appropriate addition. It is not substantially more detrimental. And I also want to just um
make notice of um Chris Canon's renderings. They're they're really very helpful to see kind of a 3D image that you can really see what it's going to look like. So, um kudos to uh Chris Cannon and um I will
be supporting this project. >> Dave, yeah, it is certainly not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. It's a it it fits as the neighbor uh wrote it. It's going to look like it was always there. Great project and happy to support it. Ed.
>> Um, >> I I guess my my concern is sort of the big ask of going from 16.7 ft to 8.9 ft and that being even less than, you know,
the the original zoning of 10 ft. Um, but I I guess I sort of understand it. I mean with uh I imagine if that chimney wasn't there they would have slid it forward and uh you would have gotten a little bit more uh
my concern is is is just typically we don't you know allow such an increase in a nonconformity but I don't believe it'll be substantially detrimental and I I sort of see the reasoning behind it. So in this case, I I I
would u I I guess I would allow the the increase and uh understand it and don't feel it will be substantially detrimental and obviously have the neighbors support. So if I was voting, I would vote in the Paul.
>> Yes, I agree with uh with my colleagues comments. I agree with Mr. Lichfield and indicating it's not palatial although they do have a new center high cathedral ceiling which is nice u but it looks like a very good project and one that
will exist that will extend their use of the house which I think is is a great idea so I will vote in favor Jenny >> I'm going to tack on to a couple things so I understand what Ed is saying but I like what you said in the very beginning
Mr. villagefield at the the shortness in the back and in this case the side is at the expense of the extra in the front which is very attractive and I think adds [clears throat] to that corner. So I think from a trade-off perspective I I I'm okay with that. Um I also want to
comment on what Lee said about Chris Canon's uh rendering. So, um, what I like about the side view of the addition is, um, the kind of asymmetrical almost salt box on the side. It's subtle, but
it's there, which echoes the front or the existing house, which is being covered by this addition. So, I I I think that was obviously, you know, intentional on his part, but a great detail that I wanted to comment that I noticed. Um, I also happened to meet
their dog and I noticed that Chris incorporated the dog in that photo. So, kudos to Chris because I met Brewster. Um, well, one of the three dogs today. I think it's um a very attractive product uh project. I think it does meet all of
our criteria. Um, I mentioned this with the previous um home on Shane, which is right across the street, frankly. um that this is an appropriate addition to these smaller homes in that neighborhood and it's so
it does um it's similar in scale to the other projects of which there are many in that neighborhood. Um and so I think it is very much in keeping with um with the neighborhood and not substantially more detrimental. >> Steve, well I think uh like everyone
else said, I think this is a a great little project. Um, it provides a little bit easier way of life. I think if if the air conditioner were a generator um that that produces quite a bit more noise than an air conditioning system, that might be a little bit of a problem,
but it's not. Um, so I think this is a fine uh project. It's very appropriate for the neighborhood, and I don't believe it's detrimental. >> Okay. Okay. Well, I I think I know um based on our last uh one, I think I know how to how to how to offer this one up.
>> Uh so, I will move uh for approval of application number 26-038 [clears throat] uh with the following conditions. All construction activity and vehicles should be contained on site or to neighboring property with permission of property owner between June 30th and
Labor Day. No exterior construction allowed. No work should be permitted on the weekends. construction activity between 8 am and 5 pm only. >> I will second the motion and vote yes. >> Beach votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> I vote yes. Again, that's your name.
>> Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Mr. Lichfield. 26-039, please. Sarah >> application number 26-039 289 Cine Road Nominee Trust Care of Janine Hoy 289 Cine Road North Chattam
Mass 02650 owner of property located at 289 Cine Road also shown in the town of Chattam's assessor's map 12K block 6 lot HC21 the applicant seeks to modify special permit number 24-065
granted on July 11th 2024 which allowed for the demolition of the dwelling ing and the construction of a new dwelling. The applicant now seeks to modify the special permit to allow for an increase in building coverage and approval for the installation of an exterior mechanical system appliance AC
condenser. The approved building coverage was 3,545 ft 8.8% and the constructed building coverage is 3,613 ft 8.9% where 10% is the maximum allowed. The AC condenser was installed
23.3 ft from the northerly of butter where a 25 ft setback is required. The property contains 58,53 square feet in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and 14
and sections 5B and 8D2B of the protective bylaw. >> Thank you very much. Uh good afternoon, Chairman Nixon and board members. My name is Janine Hoy and I'm the owner of the property at 289 C Pine Road in North Chattam. Uh thank you all for your time today. Um I've come here today to seek
modification of special permit number 24065 granted on July 11th, 2024. Um which allowed me to demo my home and rebuild um uh new construction of a new home. Um I would like to modify the permit in two ways. Um would the board
like me to speak to both of those modifications and then questions at the end or do you want to take each one individually? >> Both. >> Okay, great. Um so the first um first item um is the increase in the building coverage. Um when I came to you in 2024, the original approved building coverage
was uh 3545 square ft, which is approximately 8.8% of the coverage. Uh the constructed calculation that came back when we did the asbuilt was uh a difference of 68 ft um 3,613
ft uh which was 8.9%. Um this increase was onetenth of a percentage. Um I am not aware of any changes to the footprint. Um all the inspections of foundations uh were spoton. Um and in my discussions with Tai and Bond who are
the engineers um uh Sean uh Riley had advised me that this is actually very common. Um the only thing that we can point to is that the uh there was a flare on the bottom of the house um around most of the perimeter. Um and the construction of said flare was likely
done to a different pitch than the original plans were. And that pitch, a difference of a couple degrees can account for inches. Um, and inches times the perimeter of the house can easily add up to 68 ft. Um,
so um, given that the amount this amount is minimal and still under the 10% maximum, I would very much appreciate a favor favorable decision on this modification request. Um, do you want me to go through the criteria now or just
all as one? talk about the AC. >> Okay. The second item um is the AC mechanical unit. Um the area where the AC's are located um is a really tight corner of the house. This is an area where the existing home was
non-conforming. Um, and when I came to you for the original permit, you had granted me a non-conforming um, not in this particular spot, but further up in the garage where um, I think the garage is 2 ft within the 25 allowable. Um, these AC units were
originally um, planned to be cited um, east to in an east to west orientation. um which if you show the second picture um uh would make those two AC units go kind of into that side door. Um it became
apparent when the AC units were installed, I I think one of them might have grown to a bigger BTU, so the actual footprint was larger. It became very apparent they were not going to fit in that orientation. Um so they ultimately ended up putting them side by side north to south. >> [snorts]
>> um which c caused a 1.7 foot um discrepancy into that 25- foot required setback. Um I believe that you know the aesthetics of this change is uh not detrimental. Um it actually provides better flow out of
that door. Um it would be actually be into the trim of it and you would be running into it if you were if we were to put it the other orientation. Um it's, you know, the neighbor that's next to me, it's a 1.7 ft difference of where
the unit [clears throat] originally was. I don't think there's any difference in um any uh sound or aesthetics. He actually is up much higher than me, so I don't even think he can see the unit. Um no change to the environment, slopes, vegetation, wetlands, runoff. Um and
visually, no change from the road. You can't see it at all. Um, so as far as the criteria, um, the neither of those two items cause a difference in the adequacy of the site. Um, I
>> I don't think we'll have you go through the criteria. >> Sorry, >> I don't think we'll have you go through the criteria. >> Okay. >> No, thank you for offering. Um, I presume that is your presentation. >> That's it. >> Yeah. Okay. Before we go on to the next tape, I'm going to ask our building
commasar, do you agree with the applicant's uh reasoning for the extra 68, whatever it might be? >> Jay Briggs, building commissioner. Um, that's quite possible that that's the the difference, that 68 ft, that flare
at the bottom of the exterior wall. >> Did you see anything else out there that could be the reason? >> I haven't been to the site, Dave. Oh, okay. I'm >> stuck in the office. [laughter] >> They should let you out now and then. Okay.
All right. So, is there anyone in the audience today or in Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application? If so, please indicate you'd like to speak. Don't see anybody at this time. I'll read the correspondence. Takes care of that. And so, is there
anybody here today or on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak either against this or has a specific question? If so, please indicate you'd like to join the conversation. Okay. Well, how about questions from the board? Dave,
I I have no questions, Dave. >> Uh, no questions. No questions. >> No questions. I have no questions. >> No questions. >> Okay. >> I will move to close the hearing and move into deliberations.
>> I will second the motion and vote yes. >> Beach votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. I vote yes. >> And yes. Okay. And um I I think your explanations made perfect sense. And I believe along that
side there's a uh stone large stones retaining walls where the condensers are and and then it's the budding property is is much higher. So um I could see why someone in the field probably changed those um condition air conditioners
because it just made more sense that way probably and didn't even really think about it. And uh the flare um explanation makes a lot of sense also. And um I certainly don't find either one of
those substantially detrimental neighborhood. >> Well, I agree. I think in this situation, common sense prevails and uh it's certainly not substantially more detrimental than what we originally approved. So I will vote yes.
I agree with um D with Ed and Paul. Um very plausible. You did a nice presentation. It was very clear and um I think that the flare uh is a really nice addition. In fact, when we went and looked at it, we all commented on how attractive that is. So, um, yeah, I
think it's common sense and there's so many details that you have to do with a complete tear down and rebuild that you did that this is so small in the strata of those things to worry about. So, um, I think you you're we are here as a board to give grace to homeowners for
those these kinds of things. So, um, I do not see it at all being detrimental and would support it. statement. >> Um I think the explanations were were reasonable and understandable. Um I don't think there's any sort of adverse impact on on anything and not
detrimental. So >> I agree with my colleagues and and also want to just throw out there that um if it had been presented to us originally like this with these number we probably would have supported it originally. So,
um I I have no problem approving this. >> Yeah. And I agree with all the previous especially with what Lee just said. With that, uh I would move approval for um application number 26-039. I I don't think we need to discuss
conditions at all. Um so, >> no, I already done. [laughter] >> It's already done. >> I'll second the motion and vote yes. >> Votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. I vote yes. >> And I vote yes. That's a unanimous decision. >> Thank you very much.
>> Thank you very much. >> 26- 04, please. >> Application number 26-040. Landing lane number 115 LLC. Care of James M. Nor Cross Esquire, PO Box 707
Chadam, Mass 02633, owner of property located at 115 Landing Lane, also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map [clears throat] 13K, block 23, lot R5. The applicant seeks to replace the existing beach access stairs
under section 4 A3A of the protective bylaw. The lot contains 21,90 square feet in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under MA mass general law chapter 48 section 9 and section 8D2B of the protective bylaw.
>> Good afternoon Mr. Norcross. Things are going very smoothly. >> I hope to continue. [laughter] Uh good afternoon Jamie Norcross on behalf of Landing Lane number 115 LLC which is owned by the uh Pertuchi family. Uh very straightforward request
for this proposal. Um there are some existing timber steps that go down the embankment from the house toward Ryder's Cove and the applicant is looking to replace those with uh stone steps. Um as Sarah mentioned, a special permit is required under section 4 of the zoning
bylaw. And so going into the criteria under section 8, uh the relevant criteria, adequacy of the site in terms of size, uh the property contains over 21,000 square feet. Um the stairs have been designed in accordance with the requirements of the Cadam Conservation Commission. And so we believe the size
of the site is certainly adequate. Uh suitability of the site uh again the site is suitable. The stairs currently exist and have been there for many years. And so the proposal is to replace those stairs to provide continued safe access down what is a rather uh steep
slope towards the water. Uh number four impact on neighborhood visual character. Uh I'm sure you've been out to the site there essentially hidden from view even from the Ryder's Cove uh side of the property. So there's no negative impact on neighborhood visual character. Uh let's see, number eight,
compatibility of the proposed use with surrounding land uses. It's an accessory use to a residential home and a residential zoning district. So it's certainly compatible in that regard uh from being out the property. I noted there are several abudding uh properties that have similar features leading down
toward Ryder's Cove. Uh number nine, impact on the natural environment. Um, again, as a replacement of the existing stairs, I I would suggest the proposal will have no negative impact on the natural environment. I think replacing um timber with stone is actually probably an improvement for the
environment and not using pressuret treated wood. Uh the conservation commission uh Mr. Nixon will read a letter uh from them stating that they will be issuing an order of conditions allowing the project to go forward as conditioned. And so uh based on the above criteria, I do not think the proposed use is detrimental to the
established or future character of the neighborhood and is in fact consistent uh and in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the bylaw. So with that, be happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you. Is there [clears throat] anyone here today would like to speak in favor of this application
or on Microsoft Teams? Don't see anyone. I'll read the correspondence. As Jamie said, there's a note here from conservation commission May 20th. Applicants submitted a notice of intent. The project was heard by the conservation commission on May 13th.
Project was continued to June 24th to make revisions requested by the commission. The project will then be scheduled for the issuance of an order of conditions when it will be conditioned to meet the performance standards under the various things that they use. And that's the extent of the
correspondence. Is there anyone here today or on Microsoft Teams who wishes to speak either against this application or has a specific question? Okay. Questions from the board? Paul, >> no questions.
>> Jenny, [clears throat] no questions. Steve, >> uh Jamie, could you just um describe uh the conservation commission said something about making revisions that
they requested? Do you know what they were and why? >> I don't know the specific revisions, Steve. I don't believe it related to the stairs. There's some other aspects of the project that require conservation approval but aren't don't involve the zoning board. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Me,
>> no questions, >> Dave. Uh, so I'm just I'm just curious, Jamie, because it's not clear to me on the plan, but So what you're talking about is replacing the the landscape timbers >> with with stone. >> Yes.
>> And then it's and then they'll just fix the grade. Not it's not going to change any grades, but they'll there'll be space in between those stones or are they on the flat and with a that >> it's going to match what's there now. Okay. >> We had some discussions with the building department. There was
originally a different design that would have been sort of platforms. >> Yeah. >> That requires grading which you can't do in the So this is basically an actine replacement just with a different material. >> Okay, great. Thanks, >> Ed. No questions. >> I will move in uh move to um close the
hearing, move into deliberations. >> I'll second the motion and vote yes. >> Beach votes yes. >> Chinny votes yes. I vote yes. >> And I vote yes. Okay. Uh Jenny deliberations. >> Um
well I beautiful property uh great project >> uh beautiful property great project uh meets our criteria and uh do not think that it's substantially more detrimental. the fact that it's, you know, you're just basically replacing what's there
already with probably a better material um rather than the wood. Um it's I think it's a good idea and as long as conservation's okay with it, then I have no issues. >> Lee, >> yep, great uh great project. Um great
replacement of, you know, wood that is starting to deteriorate and yeah, meets our criteria. Dave, >> I agree with all previous and as do I. >> Well, >> certainly will not be detrimental to the established or future character of the
neighborhood or the town and will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the bylaw. >> Well said, Dave. >> So, I would move, >> excuse me, I would move approval of application number 26-040.
Um, I think the only condition I think we would want to apply would be all construction activity in vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner to I don't think we need
I mean we could put the timing uh maybe we just do timing as well. So, um, between June 30th and Labor Day, uh, no work should be permitted on weekends and construction activity between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. only. >> I'll second the motion and vote yes.
>> Votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> I vote yes. That's a unanimous vote. And lastly today, sir, we have 26-044. >> Application number 26-044, David Briggs, care of James M. Norcross,
Esquire, PO box 707, Chattam, Mass 02633. Owner of property located at 170 Vineyard Avenue. Also shown in the town of Chadam's assessor is map 10D, block 4, lot D114. The applicant seeks to enlarge, extend, or change a non-conforming dwelling on a
non-conforming lot via the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a new dwelling. The existing dwelling is non-conforming and that it is located 13.9 ft from the Westerly butter and entirely within the coastal conservancy district flood plane elevation 11. the proposed dwelling will
be non-conforming and that it will be located within the Coastal Conservancy District where a 50-ft setback is required. Also proposed is the reconfiguration of an existing driveway and installation of exterior mechanical system appliances, generator and AC condensers. The proposed generator will
be located within the Coastal Conservancy District and the proposed AC condenser will be located 2.4 ft from the Coastal Conservancy District where a 50-ft setback is required. The existing building coverage is 1,276 ft 68% and the propo proposed building
coverage is 1,489 ft 79.3% where 15% but not more than 2,800 ft is the maximum allowed. The law is non-conforming and that it contains 1,877
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 sections 6 and 9 and sections 5B and 8D2B of the protective bylaw. Good afternoon. Jamie Norcross on behalf of David Briggs. Uh
with me this afternoon is Gordon Clark uh the architect for the project and online is Kieran Healey who's the uh engineer uh from the BSC group. Uh I know you're familiar with the property. Uh we were last here in November of 2025 and there were some specific
uh concerns, objections raised by the board members during that meeting. So um Mr. Clark and Mr. Briggs worked on making revisions to the design to try and address those concerns. So given that you're familiar with the property, I'd like to go through the changes, explain those and then I can touch on
the criteria and then address any questions that you may have. So um changes from the last proposal that you saw in November, one of the comments was concerns, objections was uh steepening the roof pitch would provide for a better design. So that's been done on
the revised plans that you see uh before you today as part of the application. A second uh concern was the second story deck uh which has now been removed and so that also assists with uh the roof pitch. So there's no second story deck proposed as part of this proposal uh
anymore. Uh a third item was um size related. So um the overall footprint has been uh decreased. We are now we now have a building footprint of 1,489 ft uh which is 229 ft less than the
prior proposal and only 213 ft more than the existing house which is 1,200 and change. Um, decreasing the footprint also resulted in decreasing the gross floor area. And so, uh, our current gross floor area is 2,471
square ft, uh, which is a 325T reduction, uh, from the November of 2025 plan that you saw previously. Uh, another change is the front porch itself has been modified. It was a little bit, I guess I'd say, busier before. They had
stairs going on each side and railings, but with lowering the height of the uh front porch. Now it's just more of a traditional design with stairs going up the middle and then there are four posts along the width of that or length of that porch.
Um there is also now a uh greater difference in the height between the proposed garage and the main part of the proposed structure. it was closer to essentially the exact same height before, but there's uh I believe a 9 in
difference now. And so that I think that results in um dealing with any potential massing issues by sort of breaking up that visual aspect of the project. Uh I did want to mention that the overall building height, even with steepening the roof pitch, they were able to keep
the overall height uh essentially the same at I think within inches of the last proposal. though it's not increasing. Uh I think it's increasing. It was 28 ft. It's 28.2 now from the November proposal. So even with the steeper roof pitch, uh the overall
height as measured from lowest adjacent grade as we're required to do because we're in the flood plane, uh has not changed significantly. Um just some dimensional aspects I did want to touch on before going into the criteria. So um we don't meet the
conservancy district setback u because the property's in the flood zone. So, it's impossible to meet the setback for the conservancy district. The proposal before you does meet all sideline setbacks and the street setback and it is located further away from the street and the sidelines than the proposal that
you saw back in November. Uh we are now just over 30 feet back from Vineyard A and that 30t is measured to the steps going to the porch. So, if you go to the porch itself, it's another few feet back from the street. So, we're a significance difference away from the street setback. Uh, as it relates to the
setback on the south, the side of the property closest to the garage, we're over, I think, 67 feet away from that setback line. Uh, the deck in the back, uh, the current house is 13.8. We're actually improving that setback at over 18 ft. And again, that's measured to the
deck, not to the house itself, which is probably another 10 or so feet further away from the setback. and we are over uh 26 feet the house itself set back from uh the lot line to the north which is an improvement from the existing
house as well. Um and in one item I did want to touch on I meant to mention during the gross floor area uh review with those numbers one of the butter letters was correct. There was a typo on A3 of the architectural plans had the gross floor area calculation uh it was
uh carried over from a prior version. So the correct numbers were shown on I believe it's A7 which is the last page of Mr. Clark's plans. That is a comparison uh between the prior design which is shown on the top of that page
and the current design which is shown on the bottom. And to the right of those uh designs you see the um calculation for gross floor area and a table there. So the bottom right are the numbers that we're dealing with today. And so, um,
it's, uh, that total for gross Floria adds up to the 24,471 square feet. So, it was a typo on page A3. It wasn't meant to be deceptive in any manner. It was just an error in terms of the plans. Uh, building coverage. So, in one of the
letters, and I know it reads, "Wow, we're at 79% of the lot coverage." So, you think we're building some hotel at the property. And again, that's because about 1,800 square feet of the lot is actually outside the uh flood plane. So that's all that counts toward our
building coverage. The lot itself is 15,000 square ft in size. So if this property I know it is, but if this property was not in the flood zone, the total footprint could be as high as 2250 ft under the zoning bylaw. So 15%. And I understand these rules are different
because we're in the flood zone, but I think a comparison and trying to determine the size of what we're proposing versus the size of the property itself is really looking at the overall size of the lot. 15,000 square ft and we're at under 1500 square ft. So we're well below what would be allowed
if this wasn't in the flood zone of 2,250 ft. So I don't think it's um again characterizing it as a large structure in terms of uh building coverage I think is really a mischaracterization when you look at the actual size of the building in comparison to the actual size of the
lot and the lot again is 15,000 square ft. Uh moving along to the criteria uh number one adequacy of the size of the site uh including but not limited to maximum lot building coverage or setbacks. Again, we believe the site is adequate for the proposal. As I just
mentioned, we meet all dimensional setbacks irrespective of the conservancy district, which we are unable to meet uh impossible to meet because we're in the flood plane. And we do meet the height requirement of the zoning bylaw. Uh as I also mentioned, the house is now set back over 30 feet from Vineyard A. And
again, that's measured to the stairs, not to the porch or to the house itself. And while our building coverage, again, that number of 79 square feet I think is um a bit misleading, we're really at 10% if you look at the actual lot size at
1489 square ft of building footprint. Uh compatibility of the size of the proposed structure with neighboring properties. I'd say the proposed home is compatible in terms of size. Uh many of the homes along Vineyard Avenue and the surrounding areas were originally built in the 1950s. Uh but a number of them have been renovated or rebuilt in the
last 20 years. I provided a uh as the last page of my handout, it's a gross floor area comparison and our gross floor area number uh is certainly consistent with the other homes in the neighborhood and in fact there are a number of homes that are quite a bit larger. Uh suitability of the site
including but not limit to impact on neighboring properties. Uh believe the site is suitable for the project and the u construction can be completed completed excuse me without any negative impact on the neighboring properties or the natural environment. uh you have a letter from uh conservation commission.
They approved the prior design which was actually larger. Uh we will have to go back to them for an amend amendment to the order of conditions but we don't foresee any issues there given that we've actually reduced the size of the disturbance within the conservancy district. Um, and there's also a letter from the planning board uh that they
approve the new driveway that's located within uh the flood zone, which requires planning board approval. And we are actually removing uh somewhere north of 400 square ft of uh existing gravel area. So, it's going to be a smaller disturbed area for the driveway. Impact
of scale setting and mass I suggest is no negative impact on neighborhood visual character. Um the building height is increasing from the existing. A lot of that is to meet flood plane requirements in terms of we have to come out of the uh flood zone uh in order to have a flood compliant foundation before
you start your finished space above. Uh the proposed design in front of you today I say is traditional cape and mitigates the additional height and mass for the use of dormers on the second floor and by the fact that the m the house will meet all street and sideline setbacks. Uh as I mentioned at the beginning the applicant has increased the pitch of the roof, decreased the
width of the dormers. I did forget to say that actually that was one other comment. uh objection raised by members was that the prior design, you can see it on the uh front elevation here, that dormer on the second story ran essentially the entire width. So that's been brought in. The dormers on all
sides have been shortened in width to provide some space between the edge of the dormer and the edge of the roof line. So you can see on the comparison there how it looked previously versus now. Um, compatibility of the proposed use with neighboring uses, single family residents in a residential neighborhood.
We're certainly compatible. Uh, method of sewage disposal, source of water and drainage. Uh, it will be connected to town sewer. You have a letter from in your file from Judy Giorgio. It is connected to town water currently and will have appropriate drainage. Uh, no negative impact on traffic flow and
safety. No issues with noise and litter. The property will have all necessary utilities. We are not a formula business. Number 12 is applicable as we are in the flood plane. So uh first part of that criteria a the extent of lateral expansion proposed uh the proposed structure will will represent a lateral
expansion of 213 square ft as the additional footprint of the home will be slightly increasing in size. Uh I suggest the expansion is necessary as the applicant is unable to use the basement area for any living area or the placement of mechanicals which now must be located above the above the flood
plane on the first or second floor. B under section 12 uh the extent to which lateral expansion impacts the impervious area of the site. Um I would suggest the lateral expansion will have a negligible impact on the imperous area of the site. As I mentioned other improvements to the
site uh specifically the reduction in the size of the gravel driveway by north of 400 square ft and the use of a flood compliant foundation offset the 200 odd square feet increase in the u building footprint.
Uh so again based on that I I I know uh Mr. Clark, Mr. Briggs went through the comments, concerns, objections and and tried to come forward with a a revised design that uh addressed those and I don't believe what we're proposing is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and be happy to answer any
questions. >> Thank you. Is there anyone here today or Microsoft Teams who would like to speak in favor of this application? Don't see anyone. I'll read the correspondence.
First, we have a note from the planning board, town of Chattam, June 9th. The location of the property at 170 Vineyard A is within the residential R20
zoning district as well as the conservancy and flood plane overlay districts. This request for comment from the ZVA is the result of the applicant's need to obtain a special permit from the ZVA. According to the ZBA request, the
applicant seeks to enlarge, extend, or change a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the demolition of existing dwelling and the construction of a new dwelling. The existing and proposed dwelling are both located within the conservancy district. Also
proposed is the reconfiguration of the existing driveway within the conservancy district, which the planning board offered comment on in November 2024. The proposed location of the driveway within the conservancy district has not
changed for this review. After review of the requested driveway for the above referenced application, the board voted 500 to send a positive recommendation to the ZBA for the location of the driveway
within the conservancy district. The board requests that two conditions be added to the approval which states that the driveway be constructive of permeable material and in a manner which permits the unobstructed flow of water
be placed be added to the ZBA review findings. Planning board members suggested the ZBA also have the applicant resolve the building square footage discrepancies between the plans prior to acting on the special permit.
members voting in the 5000 request where so on and so forth. Then we have a note. This is June 9th. It's from Judith Gorgio, the health agent for the town. Our records indicate that this property contains an existing four-bedroom dwelling. Their proposal to
construct a new fourbedroom dwelling is acceptable. However, approval is conditioned upon connection of the property to the existing municipal sewer system. Please note that the property was previously uh ordered to connect to the sewer
system and compliance with that order remains outstanding. Therefore, sewer connection must be completed as part of this project and prior to final approval. Now, we have a letter. This is from Barbara Mlean, 235
Vineyard Avenue, stated June 6th. As a resident of Vineyard A, I for over 60 years. I'm writing regarding the proposal of property change at 170. There have been previous plans proposed for this property, the ZBA is wisely turned down. The scope of the proposal
is definitely too large for the current lot, and the actual exterior of the house plan does not fit in with the existing character of the neighborhood. When the property was first sold and an entire year went by with no activity in the existing house, it was obvious that the owners had little regard for its
appearance. I was so upset to see it go into disarray that I personally contacted the owner to voice my displeasure. And he assured me that the situation would not continue and the measures would be taken to clean up the property. A year went by, nothing happened. At some point, initiative was
taken to clean up the property. That that only happened once and months later. The property remains a mass of vines, weeds, tall grass, and who knows what else lurks amidst the debris. The current proposed property change looks more like a rental property than a
single family dwelling. I strongly express my displeasure for the current proposal and respectfully request that his permit be denied. Then we have a letter. This is from Tom Bonavville,
150 Meadow View Road. stated June 9th. I've received a your letter concerning the application of David Briggs for a special permit to allow for the demolition of the current dwelling and the construction of a new review. The material provided online,
found the data regarding living area and gross area confusing and inconsistent from one drawing to another. I encourage the board to look carefully at drawings A3 and A7. They both show a front elevation of the proposed home. in the bottom diagram on A7, but each offers
vastly different square footage amounts for the home's living and gross area. At worst, this presentation is deceptive and at best it is sloppy. The board and we nearby residents who are trying to arrive at a fair opinion on this project deserve a clear and consistent
presentation what is being proposed. I'm afraid this continues a pattern of shoddiness and disrespect for the impact of this project on vineyard a in general it nearby neighbors in particular who have had to look at the rundown overgrown derelch house for years now
and for that matter the zier itself who for now may have to spend an inordinate amount of time deciphering what is being presented here presented I think this version of the application should be rejected out of hand until it's cleaned up and made clear internally consistent
easy to understand. Even if that is done, this proposal will remain grossly non-conforming in a number of ways. Granting a special permit is an accommodation, not a right. That accommodation should be earned in part on the merits of the proposal, but also on the behavior and the attitude of the
applicant towards the neighborhood he proposes to live in. I think this application fails on both accounts, and I [clears throat] order the board to ultimately reject it entirely. Then we have a letter. This is from
Larry Palmer Mertton, 50 Horseshoe Lane, June 9th. I asked the board to consider why the owner, attorney, and architect of the proposed structure has submitted a third development plan for the property with few material changes continues to be unacceptable and
numerous criteria. Some possible reasons to consider include the following. One, the owner significantly overpaid when purchasing the property is hoping to quote unquote wear down the ZBA to gain approval to bail him out of a self-made financial conundrum at the expense of
the town's building standards, environment, neighborhood integrity. Two, perhaps the owner hopes to leverage an argument that a precedent was set when a large addition was approved and built across the street. However, the circumstances of that project were very
much different in many ways, including that the lot size was much larger. The project was also in addition to existing structure with consistent architecture. It was not an attempt to subrejate the neighborhood and community. Three, maybe
the owners or represent are ignorant of the reasons for limiting development in a flood plane or for the environmental standards. Why is a five- bedroomedroom house worthy of being considered for a structure covering 79% of buildable area? The answer is arrogance. Next, it
seems likely the owner and his representatives were not listening to the neighbors who have clearly expressed, "Please involve us and please clean up your property. Mold the lawn. No maintenance has occurred since it was purchased three years ago." The owner also was not listening when a ZBA member characterized the prior
design design as ugly because few meaningful changes have been incorporated since prior designs. The proposal itself is also shoddy as evidenced by the inconsensus data that is presented. The building height over the garage has been removed and the font
used in diagrams is essentially unreadable. I ask that the ZBA avoid being worn down by the arrogance of the developers team, but instead to raise the bar for adherence to establish town standards and cone. It is suggested that the ZVA limit any structure on this
property to three bedrooms, 2 and a half baths, a maximum of 2,000 square feet, and height consistent with the current structure. [clears throat] Then we have a note from the conservation here in Chadam, May 20th. Applicants submitted a notice of
intent on October 10th, 2024. The project was heard by the conservation commission on October 23rd, 2024 and December 11th, 2024. On November 12th, 2025, the project was issued an order of conditions when it
was conditioned to meet the performance standards under the wetlands production act and also the town of local wetland bylaw. On June 1st, we received the following note from Judy Patterson. Judy's address is 119 Vineyard. I'm writing to express
my extreme displeasure with a proposed dwelling in my neighborhood. The new proposed plan is hardly any different than the other two plans presented, which the ZVA ZVA wisely turned down is still way too large for the lot. Once again, does not fit in with the character of the neighborhood. In
addition, is being located in the Coast Conservancy District. I believe the last time this was before the ZBA, the chairman suggested to the attorney handling this that it may be a good idea for the owner to talk to property owners nearby. This has not been done, nor has
the owner made any additional attempts in the several years he has owned the property to clean it up. It continues to be an eyesore in the neighborhood and continues to rot with overgrown vines and grass everywhere. The owner has not appeared before the ZBA the multiple times this has been presented, which
suggests he doesn't care about the neighborhood and what he'd like to accomplish. I respectfully request this permit be denied again. And some pictures that were submitted with this. And that is the extent of the
correspondence. I would now ask if there's anybody in the audience or on Microsoft Teams who wishes to speak. Yes, ma'am. >> Please microphone. >> Thank you. >> My name is Allison Carr. I live at 116 Vineyard Avenue. I have written in the
past about this project. And to credit the architect, it does seem to be a little bit better. My big concern here is that we seem to just have a concept problem. taking a 1950s fourbedroom house
and those bedrooms are way too small for a modern dwelling and turning it into a five- bedroomedroom house with accompanying bedrooms and one of which is a seems to be an ADU. It's too big. Um to paraphrase my father
who was an army sergeant during World War II, we're taking 10 pounds of house and trying to shove it into a 5B bag. And while we have reduced the overall square footage some, we're still at 9 and a half pounds trying to go into this
bag. It's it's a it's a delicate lot, it is on a street that has thus far managed to resist mansionization, although it's happening around us. Vineyard Avenue has really kind of stayed clean with this. And I would encourage you to really
encourage the owner, encourage the people working the concept to pair it down. Five bedrooms, it's going to be hard to fit into this small, sensitive space in a modest neighborhood. Thank you. >> Is there anyone else who would like to
join the conversation either here or on Microsoft Teams? Don't see anybody. So, did you want to have any rebuttal the previous >> Just very briefly, just to cut on a couple points. Um, first to start, uh, I
might be getting worn down, but we're not trying to wear down the board. We know better than that. So, we can assure you that's not our goal. Um, I would disagree with the concept that we're grossly non-conforming. uh for one I mean again obviously the conservancy
district but all other metrics we conform with under the zoning bylaw meet or in fact improve on a number of setbacks as I mentioned um and the fact that I would disagree with that we've made few material changes um I understand our f our first proposal was
not wellreceived and that was vastly different than what you see today and I think what the plans today are also significantly different than what you saw before and And I understand people say it's too big, but you look at the numbers and it's it's 1,489 ft for
footprint. It's 2400 and change for gross floor area, which is comparable to the neighborhood. And the neighborhood has all different types of styles and designs, bigger homes, smaller homes. And I understand it's different and it's uh replacing what's there now. But I I
don't think see how it's it's this massive home when we meet all these metrics and and we meet a which is difficult when you have to measure from uh lowest adjacent grade in the flood plane. It's tough to meet that for height. Uh and we meet that even with a
steeper roof pitch. Uh I think as noted on uh Mr. Heel's Kieran site plan. If we were measuring from average adjacent grade, which is done everywhere else except the flood plan, we're at 23 and change for building height. So again, to say it's this massive structure that
it's overwhelms the site when we meet setbacks, um we're under the building height. Um again, looking at the lot size, we're we're underneath what would be allowed again if it wasn't in the flood plane. I understand it is in the flood plane. And then just touching on the flood plane aspect, it there is an expansion,
lateral expansion. I I would suggest it's minor in size that it's um compensated for with the driveway reduction with the um flood compliant foundation and we're also not dealing with the velocity zone. It's not an area like Little Beach where there's flooding and wave [snorts] action and everything else. I mean, this is in the flood zone
based on elevation. Uh the water's across the street. So again, I don't think it's an issue where there's going to be continued flooding, but again, it's that's the elevation. we have to address it and that's those are the requirements we have to meet. So again, you've spent enough time on this. I appreciate that and happy to answer any
questions. >> Thank you. Okay, questions [clears throat] from the board. Steve. >> Um I guess the one question I have is that in the letters that we received in particular, the one from the board of
health, um they refer to the proposal to construct a new fourbedroom dwelling is acceptable, but and yet there's five bedrooms on all the drawings that we received. So did they receive something different? Why
why is there a discrepancy in the number of bedrooms between what the board of health is approving and what we're looking at? Uh >> her letter is incorrect. There's five bedrooms. Um I spoke with Judy Giorgio earlier today and we are eligible to add
there's four bedrooms currently. We're eligible to add a fifth bedroom as proposed based upon the sewer connection when that happens. >> Okay. Okay. Um I think that's it for now. Thank you, >> Lee. That was actually my question as well.
Um because it was unclear. Um so for right now I think I'm going to hold off but if I think of anything I'll get back to you. >> Okay. Fine. Dave. >> Yeah. Uh Jeremy, I just want to clarify. Um [clears throat] we're hearing a lot of different um opinions about this proposal, but
I I believe you said in the the numbers on in reading the ad that what you're seeking to increase you're increasing the footprint by 213 square feet. Is that correct? >> Just double check that before I answer.
Yes. Uh we're going from uh what is 1, 276 square feet for for footprint. We're proposing 1,489. >> Right. So that's 213 square feet in in in the of an increase in the footprint.
>> That's correct. >> Okay. Um [clears throat] Okay, that's all I had. Thanks, Ed. No questions, Paul. >> So, let me just pursue that a little bit. Uh, so you have an expansion, a
lateral expansion of 213 square feet in a flood zone, a flood plane. What's driving that? >> Well, a lot of that uhund what is it? 80 Gordon >> 180 ft. >> 180 square feet is the porch is the
[snorts] covered porch. Sorry, I'll rein them amend. Dave, 180 square feet to porch uh results in a significant portion of that. And it's just trying to it's very difficult to
design a home that meets the exact footprint of what's there now. Um and so there's a a slight expansion. As I mentioned, you can't put mechanicals downstairs. You really can't. There's a garage space, but it can't be used for any other area. So some of that has to go on the first and second floor which
sort of which results in expanding the footprint. I mean can you could you make it to meet the exact size of what's there now I suppose but I don't see how that 200 square feet and 180 of that is the covered porch is creating any environmental concerns relative to the
flood zone >> but overall you're going to a five bedroomedroom home in a flood zone right >> connected to sewer. Yep. >> Okay. I don't have any other questions. Uh Jamie, I had a couple. >> Mhm.
>> Um number one, what's the height of the existing house? >> Um Karen can confirm this. I believe it's 24.4. >> Karen, do you have that number exact so I don't misspe?
Um, I believe that's it. I'm just looking for the number right now. The existing house. The peak elevation was 31.9 and the um the grade was at 7.5.
So that's 24.4 was the existing height. Okay. Uh thank you on that. And um the coverage Jamie bothers me greatly. Why did you have to go up? I mean, 68% which
is what we're dealing with now is a lot. And to make it even more so and go up to 79%, I I I haven't heard a good reason
as to why that's necessary. So >> again, the restrictions from the flood plane are such that it's difficult to match that existing square footage and have the mechanicals and everything else where you have to put them on the first floor. You can't put them in a basement like a traditional home where you could
then use that space for something else. So is it impossible? No. Um do I think the flood plane coverage numbers are a bit unfair for a property like this? Yes, I do. Uh if you're looking at size again the size we're 1489 square feet I
understand your coverage numbers but there should be a view of the flood plane percentage I understand that but what is the overall impact on the property in terms of visual character well it's a 15,000 foot lot and you have a building footprint of 1489 10%. I mean
those you've had several today that are significantly higher than that those get are in town all the time. So if from a zoning perspective, what is the impact on the neighborhood in terms of the size of the structure? It's it's 10% of the lot. And so uh roundabout way of
answering your questions, I guess yes, there could be a possible way to design it to it meets the exact footprint. But why? Again, it's numbers, but it's not creating this enormously large structure that's out of proportion with the lot or the neighborhood.
>> Is there a number that you think would be too much? Well, it depends. [laughter] >> Okay. That wasn't >> of course. Yeah. I mean, of course, something's too much. But if you're looking at at the numbers, again, I understand the flood plane percentages
and it throws it out of whack, but if you look at the size of the lot and the size of the home, and you're at 10%. I mean, that's that's uh consistent with the neighborhood is consistent with other properties and other projects. So, I don't think that's really out of line in terms of what they're asking for.
Jenny questions. >> Most of my questions have actually already been asked, but the depth of the house when I'm looking at the before site plan, after sight plan, it's pretty much the same. Correct. >> Be it's the same. >> Okay.
>> Uh it's just um cited a little bit differently. >> Gordon, if you want to come up, you can address that. He's got to speak on the >> u the main body of the house is still 26 by 30. >> Okay, >> that hasn't changed. >> Okay.
>> And if you subtract the deck, we've only increased the footprint of the house by about 129 square ft. >> So, the actual footprint of the house on the property minus the porch that's on
the front has only increased 129 I mean, yeah, 129 square ft. So, it's it's dimminimous really. Um, and like Jamie said, it's only 10% lot coverage if you didn't have to take into account the flood plane.
>> Okay? >> So, it's not a if you look at the if you look at the house right now, the current house when you go on the second floor, you have to be on your knees to look out the windows. >> So, to say that it shouldn't be higher than that, the the it's not even legal
on the second floor. this 6'10 head height. When you measure from the floor to the ceiling, it's only 6'10. Doesn't even meet code >> on the second floor. >> On the second floor. >> So, >> because the current house, that second floor is really a dormer. It's not a
>> Yeah. Yeah, it is. And the dormer is, you know, it does have a slope on it. >> Um, it's very cottage-like, but most of the houses in the neighborhood are much larger than that. So, it's not really, I don't feel it's really out of proportion. and the the uh
the items that were addressed by the board when they told us that we should increase the roof pitch. Um I was cognizant of of the height of the house and trying to stay under the 30 ft. So I think I got a little overzealous and trying to flatten the roof pitches to
keep it far below that. Um, but in steepening the roof pitch, raising it up a little bit and reducing and and changing that warmer pitch to four, I think greatly improves >> the look of the house. So, if you weren't comparing this in a flood zone
and you were looking at this house on a standard lot with a 10% lot coverage, which is what the public perceives when they drive by, they don't know it's in a flood zone. You can't tell. Um, it is I realize that is the criteria and and you
have to abide by that. But the house itself in there I I feel would be a vast improvement to what is there now for sure. And it is a very traditional design. And this isn't our first time we've designed a house in Chattam. So we're not trying to do something that's
really out of character for, you know, Cadam or the neighborhood. And it is traditional roof pitches. It's a 1211 roof pitch on the house. The trim is, you know, traditional in in style and how it's addressed, the shingles on the
side of the house and so forth. And I think if the house is approved, it will be, you know, uh it will be a a positive uh improvement for the neighborhood and they will mow the lawn then. I apologize
for that. And so the ceiling height on the first floor and the second floor, >> pardon? >> Ceiling heights for on the second floor and the first floor. >> Uh the ceiling height on the second floor is 7 foot6. It says 78 to the plate, but when you subtract the
sheetrock >> and the strapping it's 76. It is just 8 foot slightly under that. When you subtract again, the sheetrock gets to the plate >> on the first floor. >> On the first floor. So eight. So, we tried to get a little bit more ceiling
height cuz even on the first floor of the existing house, I think it's 7 foot4 is very low. >> Okay. >> So, we were just trying to we're not trying to make it a McMansion. We're just trying to bring it into more into compliance with what traditional houses that are built now are using.
>> All right. Thank you. That's all I have. >> Okay. Um I will move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. I'll second the motion and vote yes. >> Uh Jenny votes yes. I vote yes.
>> I vote yes. >> And vote. Yes. >> Okay. Deliberations. Lee. >> Okay. Well, there's there's a lot here. Um I will say that um I appreciate the changes that have been made. I like the
front porch. I like the traditional design and the dormer that's been shortened. Um I think that you have listened to us regarding that. Um I will say I still struggle I struggle
with criteria number five for the massing and basically attribute I feel like you're right it's not a big house but it looks big. It looks big mostly because of the garage edition.
I think if that could be subordinate to the main house like like the house is now. Although what you said about the current house that has that has really kind of messed us up in terms of we look at that and
it's basically not even legal the second floor. But we don't know that if we're looking at it. But now now we do. But the fact that that's that's a house you wouldn't even build today. Um the the current house. So I guess I
guess I am still just struggling a little bit with the mass of the addition. Not the addition, the garage edition. Um I'm assuming it's a full full onecar a full car full twocar garage.
>> No, it's a onecar garage. >> The one car garage. Okay. Jordan, you got to you got to use the mic if you're going to talk. >> We reduced we and there are efforts to reduce the size of the house and the square footage. The original garage that section of the house that has the garage
under it was 22 feet wide across the front. We reduced it down to 196, which is really undersized. So, it barely fits. It won't fit a Suburban or anything like that in the garage. So we did that so that we could try to shrink
the house as much as possible. Um and and and so that the proportions of that right now it's only 19 foot6 wide. >> Okay. >> So it's not even the true proportions. It is a small onecar garage. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. Um,
well, I guess I I guess what I'd like to say is if [sighs] if you would consider, and you don't have to answer this now, but if you um and the owner would consider making the garage edition only two
stories. You have the garage and then you have the great room above it. And that would just step it down. I know a lot of people like to take advantage of the, you know, downs slope, but that would step it down so that it would be a little bit more subordinate to the main house. Unfortunately, you wouldn't get
your fifth bedroom. Um, but that that's that's my my one request. Um, and my other request, it has to it's not has to do with the house, but it has to do with the whole project is the maintenance. I mean, it
doesn't have to look perfect, but it needs to be maintained. I think that would go a long way with the neighbors and their thoughts regarding this whole project. So, um, those those are my two cents. [snorts]
>> I I would like to see you go back to the drawing board just one more time. Could I mention one thing about the garage that that section of the house? It it currently above that the garage in other words the garage if we keep the garage under
if you put a roof on it it still is going to be in other words if it matches the roof pitch we don't really have a a third story on it. It it really is. You could you wouldn't want to put the roof down at the level of the Do you know what I'm saying? Because that if you put
that the roof the If you picture it now, if you look at the elevation, I don't know, it's not on there, but um if you put this part of the house, the gable down here, it's really going to look strange. So, this is really only, you know,
that's a single story and that's really a story and a half. Now, if we we could remove the dormers. Um, but it's really only a story and a half. I mean, I could reduce the height of the this a little bit, but I think it would look, you
know, I understand what you're saying, but I think that that would really not look very well. >> Okay. I appreciate your your uh expertise. I'm not an architect, so but it's just it it just it just seems to be
a very big garage edition. Um, but the numbers the numbers don't say it's a big house, but visually it looks like a big house. >> Well, the garage looks big because the
house is small. >> Dave Beach. >> [clears throat] >> Well, uh, >> it's okay. >> I I hear um, first of all, I I think that
that they have you've responded very well to at least the comments I had about the previous iteration. And I think that you've done it in a way that has made this look
much better and much more traditional. Roof pitches and stepping the the um um dormers in and all the I mean it it looks and and eliminating that little um [clears throat] you know the porch over
the deck that vast improvement. I I think it I think you've responded very well with respect to all of those things and um I'm hearing what what Lee's
saying. Um, but I don't think I'm I'm not as concerned um as as she's expressed to be with the massing because [snorts] at a certain point I think you're just you're really talking about the dormers on the garage, you know, and
I don't think that that's enough and the and those dormers are are well proportioned and and they look fine. And so I don't think that uh if you if you took those dormas off well then you you and had a onestory
you know a room there with perhaps a cathedral ceiling or an attic space or something. I don't think you've really reduced the apparent massing >> the window the window height of those the window height of those in those dormers in the garage. They're only 5
foot eight. >> Please sit down. Okay. So you sit down. Thank you. So anyway, and and they have made they've made efforts, I think, to to address at least most of the concerns that we expressed um in the last time
around. They're I don't think ever going to please the many of the neighbors. Um, but it's this is not it's not a lot 200 some square feet of which under 180
square foot porch of an increase in in footprint is not a large increase. Um, and yes, we're in the flood plane here, but one of the things about that is we know that what's going to get constructed is going to meet the requirements, the foundation
requirements of the flood plane. Uh the house absolutely as it exist needs it needs an upgrade. I don't think anybody's questioning that. And so I I just really I be I'm very be fair
hardressed to say that this is substantially more detrimental than what's there. I think that it's I think it's a reasonable uh and and would look in terms of style and size and comparing it to what's there. I I
think they've done a great job and I I will support it. I think that it they've they've constrained it. They've moved or they've done they've they've done a lot and um I I think uh they deserve to in my judgment get a special permit. Ed.
>> Um well, the the applicant hasn't been a good neighbor and um now he he's paying the price quite honestly. Um I feel he has made substantial changes.
I feel the the plan. It's a traditional cape with a with a with a farmer's porch on it and hopefully someone's gonna be on that farmer's porch and it's going to get along with the neighbors. Um
I I don't want to see that that that porch removed. I think it's an architectural detail that works well and you know uh I don't see this being substantially detrimental to the neighborhood. It's a classic
cape. I feel the applicants um has listened to us in respect to what we've asked for um and if I was voting I would be in support of the project. >> Paul
Uh well, I [clears throat] think the uh this project has been through an extended number of hearings uh as you are well aware and uh we've gone through I think three different iterations of the potential house here. Uh and in that
sense uh A7 uh is a good showing of the difference between the current proposal and the last proposal. um not necessarily going back to the first proposal, but um the the concern I had from and I
I expressed it the last time around is the expansion of the house in the flood plan and um we're going to from a 68% coverage to a larger coverage. Um, and I think if this
were not a flood plane, uh, that kind of an expansion could be possible. But, um, I have trouble with, uh, as was explained, the deck plus 129 square feet,
uh, to increase the coverage. So you come back to criteria five and to uh criteria 12 with respect to the extent of lateral expansion and I think that it just needs to be a smaller house or a
smaller uh building overall. Uh so that's my impression at this point. Jenny. >> Yeah. I um what we look at is well, let me start with I too appreciate the changes that
you've made throughout the process. This is the third time here, but what we are really tasked with looking at is what's there now and what's being proposed here in your final proposal. Um and what you're proposing is four and a half feet
taller than what's there now. it is um albeit you've made significant increases into the large increase to the building coverage in a flood plane, you're still 70 17% in the flood plane. I know you've mentioned several times if it weren't in
the flood plane if it is in the flood plane. It's 100% in the flood plane. So 17% increase is um in the flood plane I I still think is is a lot. I appreciate that. the comment about the porch. I think that that is a very attractive
element and it's unfortunate that that's so much of that increase, but if you could get that down more that that would be and then I think the massing I think what's I agree with Lee that it's the second story on the subordinate part of
the house. The current house has the step down. And I'm not saying you have to build exactly what's there before, but that is part of what fits that sloping topography nicely and what makes that uh garage proposal seem tall to me
as well. It is a little bit lower than and you'd lowered it even more this time than the original house. But I think what's thrown me a couple times is Sarah, could you pull up A79, and maybe it's just, you know, look at
me the way I look at these, but um Okay. So, when you look at the white space w between the uh the left-hand side, the garage side and the main house, okay, you're when I keep seeing it at first when I'm looking at it, I
see that white space between those two as being white space, but it's not. It's a roof. It's a roof line. And I think that the taller roof line of four and a half feet taller, you know, the the main house and that roof line going across, albeit it is dropped down and connecting
to the garage that has those dormers, that is to me the mass that we're that I see. It is just taller and um it it the footprint is really not a whole lot different. Um but that is what I'm
seeing. If that could be, I think to Lee's point, reducing that roof line, almost making it look like it wasn't a roof there. It was just a separate just a a singlestory connection from the garage to the main
house or a little bit taller and getting rid of those dormers at the top and having that really be a garage. That would really reduce a lot of the mass this seeing through the house. That is what I think I just see when you if you
colored in the roof instead of it being white and it was a color. That's a pretty big block. And that to me is is is the mass that I see when I really examine it. And I but I do appreciate and acknowledge the in
the the reductions that you've made. I just I just don't think that they're quite enough. especially the um uh criteria for me criteria one was what I talked about a lot last time and the time before um you only have 9%
buildable upland so a house of that size the five bedrooms with a foot and a half from the maximum height allowed in Chadam is is a big house um on that on that lot when you just really don't have the coverage and I think the increase of
17% um increase in the lateral expansion of of the flood plane is too high. >> Well, I didn't get to go the things that have been mentioned particularly by Paul and Jenny
uh and Lee. I would double down on the massing is too much. But you know what's missing here, Jamie, is I I read four very long letters. And
some of the points Yeah. But some of the points really ring true. There's not a single neighbor that wants us. No one. And despite what was suggested
to you before about meeting with neighbors and and somehow getting them on board, it's very difficult, I think, for us. And we're here to protect the neighborhood. Well, if the neighborhood is against it, you know, it's kind of
throwing stuff in their face by saying, "Well, yeah, but you'll like it, or maybe you won't like it, or you know, whatever it is, that it's just not the way to do it. I think the suggestions about making
things smaller, making it fit, don't run over that 68%. Don't, you know, throw a couple hundred more feet. I think it has to be dialed back. And I really would urge you
the next time around to make sure there's letters in here from neighbors and support. Would you like us to vote? >> Uh uh, no, Mr. Chairman. I would ask for a withdrawal without prejudice, please.
Um, I would move to um um um >> Grant Grant the No, I I would move to uh accept the uh the request for withdrawal >> without prejudice. >> I'll second the request for withdrawal without prejudice >> and a vote yes.
>> Jenny votes yes. I vote yes. >> And I vote yes. >> And I vote yes. >> All right. Thank you for uh your reference. So, uh I don't think there's anything else to talk about today. So,
I'll move adjournment. >> I'll second the motion to adjurnn and vote yes. >> Votes yes. >> Ed votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> Votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> I vote yes. And Sarah, the official time is >> 5:08 p.m. And
>> that's it. Good night.