Heat. Heat. Welcome everyone to today's Town of Cadams County Board of Appeals meeting. The date is July, is it the 8th or 9th? July 9th. Where did time go? Welcome everybody. Uh to start the meeting, we have a few
words from the governor of Massachusetts, Miss Fenwick, please. Please note this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly hereafter for scheduled and on demand viewing on any smartphone or tablet
device. If anyone else is recording the meeting, including the use of AI note-taking apps, please notify the chair. Pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28, 2025 signing of chapter 2 of the acts of 2025 extending certain CO 19
measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law until June 30th, 2027. This meeting of the Cadam Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted in person and via remote participation. Every effort will be 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 508-9454410. Conference ID is 350-514089
the pound sign or join the meeting via uh online via Microsoft Teams through the link that is posted in the agenda. While this is a live broadcast and simalcast on Cadam TV, which is on Xfinity channel 1072, despite our best
efforts, we may not be able to provide real-time access, and we will post a record of this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible. In accordance with town policy, the public may speak to any issue, hearing, or business item on the agenda during the meeting when you're recognized by the
chair. >> There are a few procedural steps that I'll go over. We have a we begin with a roll call of all board members. Uh we ask if any citizens and non-board members participating in the call via a f the phone only for their name and the
last four digits of their phone number for identification purposes. The hearing notice will be read by our by staff Sarah Clark. Uh over here to my right the our principal permitting officer. you and your representative um prevent
presents your appeal or your application. Anyone in favor of the appeal or application may speak up to five minutes. There's a 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 minute time limit on that. Also, applicant may rebut testimony. Board members may direct questions to anyone present. The board hears any further information and then the board closes the public hearing and then the board deliberates and then the
board will vote on the appeal or application. All votes are taken by roll call. In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the granting of special permits, variances, and appeals require a supermajority, meaning you need four of the five voting members to approve
the application to succeed. Okay. Voting today will be Ed Actton, Paul Simple, Dave Nixon, myself, and Lee Hvey. At the end of the meeting, uh we will at the end of the meeting, we'll close the meeting verbal uh via a verbal
confirmation and note the time of adjournment. >> Thank you. So, we need a roll call to approve this form of meeting. I'll start with Ed. >> Ed Actton, I approve of this meeting format. >> Paul C. Simple. I approve of this format.
>> David S. Nixon, I approve. >> Virginia Fenmick, I approve. >> Steven D. Deborne, I approve. >> Lee Huby, I approve. >> First thing is we have some minutes. >> Yes. I'll uh I'll move to adopt or
approve the minutes of June 4, 2026 as published. >> I actually have some comments to that one. >> Okay. >> Okay. on page two of these minutes twothirds of the way down uh where it says he uh right right before it says
correspondence read into the record two bullets above that um I want to edit quite a bit of that bullet. Okay, it starts with he stated that the sidewalk was reviewed by the traffic engineer and which analyzed three
things. What really the way it really should be stated is that he stated that sidewalks were reviewed by the traffic engineer which analyzed different sidewalk options along meeting house road.
Okay. So that's the first um change. Then it should be two options one and two. Option one was the sidewalk on the west side and if we could add of meeting house road and then option two was
sidewalk on the east side and we should add of meeting house road. Okay. And then the next bullet says Mr. Singer stated that the proposal would be for the pathway and instead of along meeting house road, it should say within
the property to the rail trail is the safest um access and most economical. >> All right, I will move my uh I'll amend my motion to include those corrections.
>> Okay, we need a vote. Ed, >> second. >> I second. >> All right, I'll vote yes. >> Ed >> Ed votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> And I vote yes. Okay. And then uh June
11th and then we have um minutes of uh June 11th, 2026. I have one addition to that and that would be in the roll call of the vote. I was present and believe I said yes with respect to that but it's not included in the minutes. Um so with
that change I would move to approve the minutes. >> Okay. >> Ed actton approves. >> Paul says yes. >> Second. >> I second. And yes. >> Yep. Ed said yes. That Paul >> I said yes. >> Okay. Jenny >> says yes.
>> Le said yes. I say yes. Okay. Good. So Sarah, let's begin with application 26-049, please. >> Application number 26-049, Robert and Lisa France, care of Connor Walsh, 20 Rascal Rabbit, Unit 1A,
Marston's Mills, Massachusetts 02648. Owners of property located at 43 Marian Lane. Also shown on the town of Cadam Sessor's map 15, block 29, lot G6. The applicant proposes to install an exterior mechanical system appliances AC
condensers 18.3 ft from the easterly butter where 25 ft setback is required. The property contains 21,200 square ft in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under master law chapter 48 section 9 and section 8D2B of the protective bylaw.
>> And uh do we have Mr. Wall here? Uh My name is Connor Walsh, uh vice president of engineer at Comfort Solutions, uh located in Marson's Mills. Um the idea is to have the uh mechanical
systems as seen on this um drawing. uh the closest one in the front of the house 18 uh about 18 and a half feet away from the abupment the neighbor's property. Um, these units were actually
installed already. Um, after correspondence with uh Jay Briggs, um, who originally told me that the abupment was 15 ft. As you can see in the photos, um, there
is woods, you know, between the two properties. You cannot see the units from the street at all. Um, the units themselves have a decibel rating.
Um, no more at full speed than a running refrigerator, so there won't be a noise issue at all. Um, do you have any questions? Oh, we could. Is that your presentation? >> Yes.
>> The criteria sheets are up there if you wanted him to go through the criteria. >> Uh, yeah, I think you need to go through the criteria for us. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Jay.
Some don't apply, but you can figure that out as you go through it. >> Uh, adequacy of the size of the site in terms of the size for the proposed use. Um, I think the property itself is like
22,000 square ft. Um, there is, you know, adequate space in my opinion between the abupment in the rear of the home. um suitability of the site for proposed
use. Um it is the ideal spot to have condenser locations um away from the homeowner's windows, away from the homeowner's uh bedrooms um
and directly across from the neighbors driveway. impact on traffic flow and safety. Um, it has no impact on traffic flow and safety. Impact on neighborhood visual character, including views and vistas. Um, like I said previously, um, you
cannot see it from anywhere besides Mr. Fran's property. Adequacy of method of sewage disposal, source of water and drainage. Uh, this does not apply. Adequacy of utilities and other public services.
This also doesn't apply. Uh noise and litter. I talked about the decibel rating. Um you aren't going to be able to hear these at all. Um the highest on like a 105 degree day would be that of a running
refrigerator. Um typically you won't be able to hear these units at all. compatibility of the proposed use with surrounding land uses. Uh the uses to fully condition the home.
Um it's a more we put in the heat pump system because it's a more economically friendly system than the oil uh an oil propane electric resistance system. So it's only going to have a positive impact on the land.
impact on the natural environment including slopes, vegetation, wetlands, groundwater and water bodies. Um the systems themselves are mounted on composite pads um which are level with the ground um
they're also mounted on snow stands to be above the snow level um of the town of Chadam. it's there's going to be pretty much no impact on the natural environment. Um,
as you can see in the photo, it is, you know, a relatively flat surface. We test the systems for leaks. So, there won't be any refrigeration leaks or anything like that going into the groundwater. Everything the everything has been adequately tested. uh the
impact on the neighborhood and town visual character of any formula business establishment the impact of um the visual character I mean >> like I said previously >> this doesn't apply to you so that's okay >> great
>> you know that's a storefront and what you might have for sale you know that >> all right fair enough >> all right well thank you so that would be your presentation Okay. Is there anyone here today or on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor of this? If so, please indicate
you'd like to join the conversation. >> Don't see anybody. >> Noond. >> No correspondence. Is there anyone here today or on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak against this or has a specific question? Now would be the time to indicate you'd like to join the
conversation. Don't see anybody for that either. Okay. So, let's go to questions from the board. Ed. >> Yeah, you may want to go back up there. Sorry. Uh, so
it sounds like you perhaps thought the setbacks for this property were 15 feet instead of 25 feet. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um, and
it sounded like you had said maybe Jay had suggested that it was 15 ft instead of 25 ft. >> We had a correspondence on the town portal. >> Okay. You have any comments? >> JBriggs, building commissioner. I do believe that I did say that the setback
was 15 and 25 thinking this was in the R20. >> Gotcha. I think that I clarified or corrected that situation within a day at the most. I don't know if the units were already installed or not. I don't recall. >> Okay. >> But there was some confusion. >> Okay.
>> All right. Thank you. No, no further questions. >> Paul, >> I have no questions. >> Jenny, >> well, can I pick up on where Jay just left off? Do you recall that conversation with Mr. Briggs that way? Like he called you the next day. Did Did
Had you already installed them at that point? I >> I do. Yes, we had. >> So, you installed them the day that you talked to them? Basically, >> basically. Yes. >> Okay. All right. Um, were these replacements to anything existing or they were they new a new
site for the house? >> New. >> Okay. Um, was there any consideration to the back of the property? I walked the property and it was it's very large nice lot. um level back, you wouldn't have needed a
special permit. Was there consideration of the back? >> Honestly, this the left side of the home was ideal for the homeowner. Uh was the spot that we had agreed on. >> Is that because the gas line is there or why? Why was that an ideal spot? Do you know?
>> Just because it's out of the way. >> Okay. Um Okay, that's all I have. Thank you, >> Steve. Um I just want to clarify um were there two units installed? >> Say uh one more time.
>> Were there two units installed? >> Yeah, there's two condensers. Yep. >> Okay. So the application is written in such a way that it sounds like there's one. So there was there was two that >> there's Yeah, there's two condensers. Yep. >> And they're
it seems like they're both uh within the setback. Yeah, they're both within 25 ft, >> correct? >> Okay. All right. I just wanted to clarify that because it sounded like there was only one that was installed. All right. Thank you, >> Lee. >> No questions.
>> So, um, you were notified a day later, correct? That the information should have said 25 ft. >> Yes. >> And in that one day, you'd already installed the whole thing. To be honest,
I I wasn't actively refreshing the town portal portal to look at the correspondence. >> Uhhuh. Uhhuh. Um, >> so, >> so when you were informed that it was
not in the right spot, did you give any consideration to moving it to where it would be? If we were to move these uh systems at this point and at the point where we were on that day, it would have cost us, you know,5 to$10,000 to do so.
>> Okay. Okay. Thank you, Paul. I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> Need a vote on that, Ed? >> I second. Vote yes. >> Paul votes yes.
>> Genie votes yes. And you already voted yesterday and I would uh Yeah, Ed, I'll um I didn't mean to skip over the seconding, but if you'd second, >> so it' be Yes, I second and then you vote. Okay, >> got it.
>> All right. Thank you. Just to make things. All right. So, deliberations. Let's start with Lee. >> Well, I I understand the rationale um be for putting them where you put them. um
and you know the little confusion sometimes it happens. So I don't actually have any issues with the condensers being there. >> Thank you >> Steve. >> Um yeah I guess I you know the I guess
to your advantage there is quite a bit of vegetation between your applicant's house and the one next door. Um, I kind of wish that there was more effort put into um
redesigning this so that they weren't where they are, but they are there now. And it does sound like it might be a hardship to try to move them. >> Certainly. >> Excuse me, Steve. We have a noise. >> Was that shut off? >> Shut up.
>> Okay. Um, >> was that you? >> Oh, okay. Thank you. Sorry. >> No, no, that's fine. I mean, I guess I would have liked to seen them someplace else, but they're already there now. There is vegetation between you and the neighbor. Um,
and there is a, you know, there was maybe some misum communication between you and uh, so I guess I would be okay with where they are. It's not ideal, I don't think, but they're there. Thank you, Jenny.
>> Yeah, I agree. It's not ideal either, and that's why I asked the question about your why you even chose to go the special permit route when there's a really ample room in the back. Um, so
I mean, oftentimes when we receive these applications, it's because the homeowners really don't have a choice. And uh there's the setback for a reason which is you know noise and views from
your neighbor. So I'm I agree with Steve. I'm a little torn, but I'd like to hear what my colleagues have to say. >> Paul, well I think the only cover that he has right now is that there was an initial indication that uh of a different set
setback, but it was corrected almost immediately. And uh I guess I'll I'll accept his representation that the installation had already been made um as an explanation for that. I'm not going to assume that he's being dishonest with
us. So uh on that basis, I would approve the application. And um I agree with Paul and I understand someone who uses the portal, you don't necessarily check it every day for for messages. So, um just a misunderstanding
and uh uh no correspondence from the neighbor and it seems like it's pretty vegetated back there. So, um I think um I think I'm okay with this one. >> Yeah, I I take a different tact. You know, I feel that um
the confusion and all that kind of stuff, it it just um they should not be there. They shouldn't. And They are, but that doesn't mean it's acceptable to me.
Okay, Paul. >> Uh, I'll move to approve the application as submitted. >> Ed seconds and votes yes. >> Ball votes yes. >> Lee, >> I vote yes. >> I vote yes.
>> And I vote no. So that passes four to one. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Okay. Sarah, the next one we have is 26- 050, please. >> Application number 26-050,
St. Christopher's Episcopal Church, Thomas Catrell, 858 Queen Road, Harwitch, Mass 02645. Owner of property located at 625 Main Street. Also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 14E, block zero, lot 41A. The applicant proposes to
install an exterior mechanical system appliance AC condensers within the coastal conservancy district where a 50-foot setback is required. The property contains 33,965 ft in the GB1 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass Gender Law
Chapter 48 section 9 and section 8D2B of the protective bylaw. >> Who? Okay. Welcome gentlemen. Please identify yourself. >> Yes. Uh I'm Dick Chaser and this is Tom Katrrol. We're members of the um facilities committee at St.
Christopher's Church. I noticed it indicated that Tom Catrell is the owner. No, he's not the owner. Um >> well, maybe he'd like to. >> Yeah. What's the rent you're getting anyway? >> Okay. And thank you for putting the nice picture of the church up at the beginning. I appreciated that.
>> You can thank Sarah for that. >> Thank you, Sarah. All right. Um we're seeking permission to add three heat pumps. Today's heat pump day, I guess, as replacements for aging gas f gas fired furnaces. One of them has already failed and two are on their last legs.
Uh, in order to preserve the look and feel of the building, it's necessary that we install these compressor packages in the rear of the building and hide them with a privacy screen and plantings. The garden and the church are itself within the 1% probability flood zone,
requiring your review and consent. Uh the installation is as shown has this unit meeting the town requirement of being 2 feet above the base flood elevation of 11 ft MSL. Um and let me go through the checklist.
>> Yeah, the ones that apply we don't have to worry about uh things like uh >> in other words, >> we don't plan to change it from an Episcopal church. Okay. >> Yeah, but technically uh there's more than four or five of those. And so uh
you can just kind of >> Okay. Well, the adequacy the units are nestled uh and this is most important I think against the south wall of the building which gives us a 36 ft back from the property line. Um and it reduces the garden by only a small
amount. They're no closer to the property lines than any part of the building and the HBDC on uh May 7th approved that location. I think you all know St. Christopher's Church. There aren't many places on the church that are not visible from Main Street and we
want to preserve that. We're very proud of the of the view that we give to St. Christopher's. So, as you can see, they're being nestled in the back. What doesn't show there is a privacy screen that will go in front of them and then the garden plantings that will u kind of
hide that. The garden area itself is not visible from any place uh off the property because of the hedge and uh other uh plantings. Um but it's a place for people to come and relax during the
day. Uh and it's a memorial garden as well. Um so it would be preferred that we don't mount them in the flood zone. However, we can't do it because of visibility in other places. um impact on visual character. Um as I
just said, it's not visible from any other place. However, meeting all these criteria means it's going to stick up a foot higher than the privacy um uh screen that we have. And we would like you to consider allowing us to lower it
by one foot to be only now it would be only one foot above uh MSL I'm sorry over the uh base flood elevation which by the way is above the floor level of the church.
Um as far as um as far as sewage disposal, there's no changes. utilities. Obviously, we're going to reduce the amount of natural gas. That's one of the missions that the church has is to reduce the fossil fuel and the and the uh carbon loading by
that. And that's why we are moving to heat pumps. Um and that of course requires us to put units outside. Uh currently we have solar panels on the church. We generate electricity. We don't utilize all that electricity all
the time. And by going to heat pumps, we will better utilize uh the electrical power that we generate. Uh I'd like to say we have an objective to have zero impact on the environment, but uh I'm afraid at least with the current
technology, we're not quite there, but we're going to keep looking at it. That's for sure. Sound levels. As you heard before, these units are specified at 52 dB, which is about a light rain or a running refrigerator. Uh, three of
them. It doesn't add up exactly, but it'll be around 60, which is still probably not even detectable um at the property line at any time and certainly not in the summertime. Um,
and um I guess So, I ask your consideration and we're here to answer any questions you might have. >> Okay. Thank you. Um um that's an interesting ask that you made about lowering on foot. I don't think we can
do that. That's a more of a conservation thing. Oh, okay. Jake, is that something we could do or No, >> no, I can't do it either. It's uh building code appeals board. building code dictates that the equipment has to be two feet above base flood elevation. >> Okay,
>> thank you. So, >> sorry about that. >> Well, no, you can look, there's no harm in asking, you know, that's okay. >> That's okay. Okay. Um, so is there anyone here today on Microsoft Teams who wishes to speak in favor of this application? If so, please indicate you
want to join the conversation. Don't see anybody. I will read the correspondents. First is from town of Chattam, HBDC. That's the historic business district commission. They write on June 24th.
On May 6, the HBDC met and rendered the following decision. The commission voted five zip zip approving the AC compressor and heat pump installation. That was signed by Chantel Gilkenny, who's the secretary for that organization. Then we have a note. Uh
this is from the town of Chadam and it's from the conservation commission. They write the applicant has not submitted any applications for permitting. The project will require an administrative review when the project
will be conditioned to meet the performance standards under the wetlands protection act and the town of local wetland bylaw chapter 272. The applicant has been notified of the conservation permitting needed and will be applying for the permit. Did you apply for that?
>> Yes, yesterday. >> Okay. Yesterday. >> Yesterday. Yeah. >> Okay. Well, at least you did it. Okay. That's when I >> Well, the letter was written July 8th, so that was prompt. Yeah, I know. Okay. So, uh now is there anyone here in
Microsoft Teams or here that wishes to speak either against this application or as a specific question? If so, please indicate you'd like to join the conversation. Don't see anybody. So, we'll have questions from the board. Let's start with
Jenny. >> Um, thank you. So, uh, a question for you about Sarah, if you maybe want to pull to this slide. Uh, I noticed there were a couple of other heat pumps that you already have on the sides to the
right of this new site and over to the left. So, you're been using them and introducing those splits for a while. >> Those splits were put in um about 15 years ago. >> Okay. >> Um, no, I like I like where it's nestled. I appreciate the um sensitivity
you have to aesthetically how it's going to look there. The gardens in the back are beautiful. And you have the memorial garden which is very special. I was curious to know what is the room uh that it that they will be blocking that basement room. >> Yeah, that is um of course that's a
belowgrade room. Yeah. >> Uh it was a youth room until youth disappeared and currently it's being used as as storage. >> Okay. >> Uh it will be a youth room again. And if
you notice on the layout, we have some additional space in there u because uh it may be necessary to uh tuck another unit back in there. So what we what particularly Tom did the drawings here
tries to show that this is the full extent um that might ever occur as we come back. Right now, we're just planning on the three big units that are in there, but as you can see, he's planned on hiding u the rest if we have to put a smaller unit in for that youth
room. It does block the window. Um that's a non-opening window. >> Um >> yeah, >> we still get daylight, >> have to go somewhere. So, uh Okay, thank you for um Oh, wait, one more question. So that this one with this one foot height that you were hoping to get, is
this rendering accurate that at that maximum height it will be below that upper window? >> Yes, it is. Okay. Yes. >> Even at the height that you have. >> Yes, that's as close as we can show. Um the the top of a sixoot fence is going to be about one foot below that.
>> Okay. Thank you, >> Steve. I have no specific question. Lee. >> Um, so when we did our site visit, there was a wooden structure. Is that did that basically what it's going to look like?
>> That's we built that so we could have our discussions uh with our congregation and with our officers at the church of how big it's going to be and where it's going to go. >> Okay. It it was creating visuals. >> Yeah, it was helpful. It was a helpful visual. Thank you. That's it.
>> Sure. Ed, I have no questions. Paul, >> the visual was helpful, but I wouldn't suggest you into the furniture business based on that. Uh, it it's interesting to me that you have to raise this to avoid flood problems, but you've got a window that's below it.
>> Yeah, that is interesting, isn't it? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> We're just hoping 1% is far less than 1% probability. >> Okay. >> The church was built, of course. I mean that part of it goes back into the 1970s. So >> um the flood plane was nowhere near
there in those days. >> Okay, good. Um I think uh it's a very private area, very quiet area, so uh this should not be a problem at all. >> I have no other questions. >> Okay. And I have none. Uh Paul,
>> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> Ed seconds and votes yes. >> All votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. I vote yes. >> And I vote yes. Deliberations, Ed. >> Um I have no issues. I I don't think
it's going to be detrimental in any way. It uh uh seems to make sense the the location and um it certainly has to meet the flood plane. So um I would be voting in the affirmative. Paul, >> yes, it certainly is not going to be
detrimental to the established or future character of the neighborhood and the town and it will be found that the uses involved is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the bylaw. So, I will vote yes. Jenny, >> well, I want to echo what Paul just said, so I don't have to say that, but I
wanted to just add that I um I thought you did a very nice presentation and um appreciate the thoughtfulness that you've put into the placement and uh you know, it's uh it is a beautiful back area. You don't have a lot of other
options and um you're taking great care to to to do it very well. So, I I think it uh is not substantially more detrimental, >> appreciate that. Thank you. Yeah, I don't believe it's detrimental at all. It sounds like you're trying to do the right thing for the environment and save
some uh some fossil fuel. Um the only thing you may have to do is get some taller arborites or something, but uh I think it's a good project. >> They do grow pretty fast. >> Yeah, I think this um makes a lot of sense and I hope it does the trick for
the church. >> So, I'll move to approve the application as submitted. Um, I don't know that we're going to need any conditions. Uh, when do you plan to do the installation? >> Uh, we're we do start that probably in late September.
>> Okay. >> We planned on doing it in the spring until we ran into the flood zone set uh question. And um we didn't want to do anything over the summer besides that getting heating contractors here in the
summer. They're busy fixing air conditioning that uh is not working when folks show up. So, >> I'm not sure I see a need for any conditions. I'll move to approve the application as submitted. >> Ed seconds and votes yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. I vote yes.
>> I vote yes. That's a unanimous decision. Thank you, gentlemen. >> Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. On to 26-051, please. Sarah. >> Application number 26-051, Sydney Realy Trust, care of William G.
Lichfield, Esquire, 330 Orleans Road, North Chattam, Mass 02650. Owner of property located at 23 Woodcover, also shown in the town of Chadam's assessor's map, 11D, block 32, lot 4A. The applicant seeks to modify special permit number 23-041
granted on June 8th, 2023, which allowed for the construction of an addition. The applicant now seeks to modify the special permit to allow for an increase in building coverage and the construction of a new accessory structure garage/poolhouse. The GR the proposed garage/poolhouse
will comply with all bulk and dimensional requirements of the bylaw but is considered a substantial alteration under the second except clause of section 6 of Mass Law chapter 48 requires the grant of a special permit. The building coverage approved under special permit number 2341
was 1795 ft 10.6%. The constructed building coverage was 1,800 square ft 10.7% and the proposed building coverage is 2,485 ft 14.7% where 15% is the maximum allowed. The
law is non-conforming and that it contains 16,870 ft where 20,000 ft is required in the R20 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass Law chapter 48 sections 6 and 9 and sections 5B and 8D2B of the protective bylaw. Mr.
Lichfield. >> Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Bill Lichfield here on behalf of Julie Moore, who is in the front row to my right. Uh with her is our architect, Dana Cohen. Uh you will recall, I think, that we were here three
years ago. At least several of you will recall. Uh but first, I want to explain the tent. Um that was actually set up uh as you know things have to be staked two weeks before the hearing and given the heat over the 4th of July weekend that
was set up as a courtesy for this board for your site visits. Uh actually it was set up because today happens to be Julie Moore's birthday and uh there is a an event planned uh later because we don't
yet have a pool and we don't yet have a pool house and we hope that uh we will after today's hearing. You will recall that a couple of years ago, three years ago, we were in front of you for some very small additions to the house, uh, and also for the garage with a
one-bedroom, not uh, guest house because it doesn't have kitchen or cooking facilities. Um, and at the time you suggested because town sewer was not yet on Woodcover or on Pawn View, uh, that
we wait until that happened. In January, I confirmed with Tom Bar of our DPW that yes, it was finally going to happen and we uh went forward with our plans. There are technically two aspects to the petition today. First, the house the
addition to the house was five square feet more than was allowed uh well below the 15% maximum. So we simply are here to as a technicality to legitimize that additional five square feet but more
importantly uh to construct a garage and thank you. I was just going to ask you to do that. Uh as shown there on the left hand side in that rendering which uh Dana did of what is proposed. We want to add shutters to the house. Uh and we
want obviously to build the garage twocar garage with uh identical trim or matching trim to what is there what is proposed. Um I will get to the changes that were made uh since the proposal for
that building was in front of you in 2023. But the critical issue was that at the time uh we didn't have the eligibility for the new bedroom and you suggested to us that we come back once sewers are u
in the works and they finally are. So I'll go into the criteria and then talk about the changes and why we think this is appropriate under our bylaw as to adequacy of site including building coverage and setbacks. We have a midsized lot in a neighborhood where
most of the lots are non-conforming. We have coverage of 10.7% which is at the lower end of the uh neighboring properties. Certainly the house or the site is adequate for residential use as it has been in the 90 years since the
house was first built. I think you can find the site to be adequate for construction of the pool house which is a small connection to the garage or an addition to the garage and the garage will have living space above. It will meet all height, setback, and coverage
requirements of the bylaw that it is is it it is a Borland. This is a Bjorkland hearing because the proposal is completely compliant as to all of our zoning requirements. As to compatibility of size in the third page of the
handout, as you will see again, we have an average size lot with a relatively low footprint. We're in the mid-range of gross floor area and living area. If you approve the special permit, coverage at 14.7% will comply with the 15% limitation.
We're below that. It is certainly not inconsistent with the neighborhood. Uh the gross floor area and living area increase, but they are lower than some and will remain compatible. as to the extent of increase and nonconformity as car Sarah indicated in the hearing
notice we are nonconforming as to lot size and setbacks for the house but there are no changes to the house so if we approve the special permit there will be no increase in nonconformity uh whatsoever rather the garage is
totally conforming it is 48 48 feet a little bit under 48t back from the house we're only from the street rather we're only 25 ft is required. 42 feet from the rear lot line where only 15 ft is required and the pool itself is
completely compliant. So that's the proposed pool. So that's not before you today as the suitability of site impact natural environment. The site is suitable for the house uh for the existing house and I think you can find to be suitable for the garage. It is
well outside of the conservation commission's 100 foot jurisdiction from the top of the coastal bank which is on the other side of wood carver null. It is without impact on the natural environment and it's a scale citing mass views and vistas. Again, there's no
change to the exist existing structure which has been modified many times over the years. Um the streetscape on wood wood carver is almost a misnomer. Uh it is, as you know from having been out there, basically a one lane private way
uh leading down to the handful of houses down at the end. Uh but we have cited the proposed garage to comply with both the zoning bylaw and the neighbor uh to whom uh or to whom we granted a view easement and also neighborhood views.
The garage and the pool are outside of the view easement and they're far set back from the street. If you come down wood carver and null, you'd have to look kind of sharply to your left to even see it, which I don't think most people ordinarily do. And of course, the few
houses beyond it, uh they're looking down at Oyster Pond anyway. The scale is in keeping with surrounding properties, especially in a neighborhood which is undergoing uh some change and some redevelopment as the compatibility of use. We have an access a garage is
inherently an accessory residential use as to adequacy of sewage and water. We have town water and a title five. And again, Mr. Bar confirmed in January that installation of sewers on the street was finally moving forward. Uh the health
agent, the chair will read a comment from the health agent and she acknowledges that with sewer we would be allowed to have the to apply for and to get the additional bedroom. as to traffic flow and safety. It is not exactly a thorough affair, but certainly
a garage is a useful thing to have in terms of cars, noise and litter and utilities are not at issue. What is at issue, as you know, is whether the proposed construction of uh this garage
and pool house toward the rear of the lot, which will provide significantly greater utility for the homeowner, but also meets all current zoning requirements, whether that is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current structure
on a non-conforming lot. Again, by way of background to refresh your memories, we acquired a portion of a neighboring lot to allow for a garage in 2023. When we were here before you, you made several suggestions which have been
heated. We lowered the ridge of the garage. We reduced and the footprint and shifted the footprint as well. And you asked that we wait for the sewer project to move forward and that is finally occurring. Uh, and again, just so that
you know, the bedroom itself will still require both connection to town sewer and water and sewer commission approval. The garage itself, as Dana has designed, is attractive. I think you can find it incorporates traditional elements, the shutters and the cedar shingles and the
trim details to match the house. Again, the ridge of the garage is two feet lower than that of the main house and set far back from the road. I know that sometimes one member on my left often asks about you know whether it's truly subsidiary to the main structure and it
is it's set back further than the house as well as being lower than it. It is also Mr. Chairman completely Koopilafree. Uh it >> I circled that in here. I thought you might have. Uh, again, we've reduced it in size from that which was proposed
three years ago. And the additional but modest living area without cooking facilities above the garage will allow for guest and family use, but also privacy for Julie and her guests and family members. So in light of the criteria and the plans and particularly
in this location, I think that you can find the proposed garage particularly as modified uh which meets all bulk and dimensional requirements of the bylaw. I think you can find that it's not substantially more judgmental the neighborhood. Julie, Dana, and I would all be happy to answer any questions
that you might have. >> Thank you very much. Is there anyone here today on Microsoft Teams who would like to speak in favor of this application? And if so, please indicate you want to join the conversation. Don't see. Oh, sorry. Yes.
>> Afraid you have to go to the microphone. You're on TV. And if you were wearing a hat, I'd make you take off your hat and all that kind of stuff. And how are you, Anna? >> Good afternoon. Um, my name is Anna Clark. I am a friend of Julie Moors and
I have um seen the work that she has done on her home. She is um a very conscientious attorney who uh is um uh very conscientious of the impact of anything that she does particularly on
her neighborhood and her neighbors. Um many of her neighbors have approached her and approached her friends to say that they are in support of this project and uh rest assured that this will be done in a completely um tasteful as well
as um compliant way. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor? I don't see anyone. I'll read the convers the uh correspondence first from Juth Giorgio. She's a health
agent here in Chattam. She writes on June 29th. The proposed plan includes additional septic sewer flow for the property. The plan shows a connection to the public sewer which would accommodate the additional bedroom. However, the
availability of sewer service for this property must be confirmed with the sewer department. Then we have a letter. This is from Jonathan and Julie Bartlett, 55 Pawn View Lane. July 6th, we are neighbors.
We have seen the thoughtful building plans that Julie has developed and we are writing in support of her application to your board for a special permit. In the past, we've watched Julie attentively plan and beautifully execute previous home renovations. We appreciate her efforts to make improvements and
comply with the rules. We're excited to see the completion of her current project and know it'll bring great value to the neighborhood. We hope that the board of appeals will approve this request. Now have a note. Uh this is from Jean
Allen and Kevin Strother. 103 Kelly Lane July 6th. We own the property 103 Kelly right around the corner. We are writing in support of our application to construct a garage with room to allow for some additional living
space. We are close abuters to this property and fully support Julie and her request which will have no negative consequences for our neighborhood. Julie is a great neighbor. Prior home modifications have been tasteful and in keeping with the community surroundings. From what we understand from the legal
information, the application meets all requirements of the bylaws of the adjacent streets. So we see no reason not to approve it. We urge the board of appeals to grant the special permit. That's the extent of the correspondence. Is there anyone here today or on
Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak against or has a specific question? If so, please indicate you want to join the conversation. Don't see anybody. So, we'll have questions from the board. Let's start with Lee.
>> Thank you. Um, I just have a quick question regarding this the total area of the lot. 16,870 square feet. Is that with the addition of the lot next door? Okay.
>> It's It seems bigger to me. >> Um and um that's it for right now. Thank you. >> And and if I could, I appreciate that observation. It does. and and there are some other lots which are actually
larger which are not all build don't all have buildable upland but they they appear smaller uh but it does have a in other words there's significant room and plenty of room for it in my opinion. >> Thank you. Ed,
>> the the ridge height of the garage looks to be is it about two feet >> two feet two feet below in the ridge. >> So it should look subordinate to the to the rest of the house. Um no no other questions. >> Well,
>> I have no questions. Jenny, >> so I had the similar question that Lee did because when I look at the maps online, you know, this I guess this is outdated because >> that is old. That is incorrect >> because it's showing it as a square lot and it's obviously very long and um so I
I I thought there was I was missing something as well. So this is outdated. That lot was purchased. It's now part of the whole and that total is 16 is under 17,000. >> Correct. >> Okay, great. Thank you, >> Steve. >> I have no other questions.
>> I have no questions. And thank you about the Koopa. And I'm sorry, we seem to have missed our misplaced our birthday party invitations, but uh >> depending on the outcome, Mr. Chairman, you perhaps can stop by on your way home, but that's up to the
>> Well, we might need to have a a tester for the cake. You know what I mean? Okay. Paul, >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> Ed second and votes yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. I vote yes. >> I vote yes. Okay. Deliberations. Paul.
>> Clearly not more substantially detrimental to the neighborhood. I mean, it's going to look very nice and it's a great setting and as you say, the lot looks much bigger than it actually is, I guess. But it's it's a nice setting,
>> you You know, I think one of the reasons why it looks longer is because the southeast corner is only 5.8 ft from the property line. So, and that was pre-existing non-conforming. So, that's not before us today. But that is why it
looks so long because we don't have the house centered in the, you know, the original lot. H. However, that's irrelevant to today's hearing. And I think what's been proposed um has been uh thoughtful. It's it's taken a few years to figure figure out the final
details. Um and it's very attractive. It's quite lovely and I think um I believe it meets our criteria. So I would support it. >> Steve, >> um well, I think this is a good project. It meets all the criteria. It's under
the the building height. It's under the uh setbacks. I think it's uh not going to be detrimental whatsoever to the neighborhood. In fact, it's probably a great addition. Um, good luck. Happy birthday, >> Lee. >> Yeah, I I agree with my colleagues and I
um also want to point out this rendering which is very well done and gives you a great perspective um you know with the new shutters and what the the finished product will will look like. And it it looks it looks really nice. And I especially like the landscaping because
I think that will help this lot because it is kind of open. Ed, >> I agree with my colleagues. I think it um certainly not substantially detrimental to the neighborhood. It
looks uh to be thoughtful and um should uh you know, once it's built, I I imagine it's going to look like it's been there for forever once it's done. >> Yep. Yeah. As Mr. Litfield knows, I'm a great fan of garages, so uh I find this
to be more than acceptable. You know, I was I what what fooled me about the lot, I think, was the driveway of your neighbor. The ones runs through the the lot where the pool's going to go and and when you're looking at it, say, "Well, h so where's the property line anyway?"
And it we figured it out. But anyway, that's the way it is. Okay, Paul. >> Um I'm going to move to approve the application as submitted. I guess the question would be what's the plan for construction >> post Labor Day. So that limitation would not be a problem. >> All right. And I'll move to approve the
application as submitted with our standard conditions, which would be I can find them. >> Sarah to the rescue. >> All construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or in a neighbor's property with the permission
of the property owner that between June 30th and Labor Day, no exterior construction will be allowed. No work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8 am and 5:00 pm only. >> Uh Ed seconds and votes yes. >> Paul votes yes.
>> Jenny votes yes. Lee votes yes >> and I vote yes. That's a unanimous decision. Happy birthday and congratulations. >> Thank you very much. Okay. 26-052, please. Sarah. >> Application number 26-052,
Robert Fitzpatrick, 68 Diane Drive, Chattam, Mass, 02633. Owner of property located at 68 Diane Drive, also shown in the town of Cadams, Assessor's Map 6C, block 76, lot G12. The applicant proposes to install
exterior mechanical system appliances AC condensers 7.5 ft from the Westerly butter where a 15 foot setback is required and within the coastal conservancy district where a 50ft setback is required. The property contains 81 8,100 square ft of land area
in the R20 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 9 and section 8D2B of the protected bylaw. >> Mr. Fitzpatrick. Well, hello. Hello folks. Uh, Robert Fitzpatrick, 68 Diane Drive. Um, back in December, our uh,
HVAC uh, furnace failed up in our attic and um, we had to have we had an emergency uh, repair essentially required. Uh, our contractor determined that the unit was unrepaiable. So, um, we decided to install a heat
pump system uh, as we were at the time were running off of space heaters to prevent the home from freezing. So, uh, we installed two condensers outside where there was a previous condenser for the AC system. Um, you can see them
located, I guess, in the blue there. It's kind of hard to see. The red is where there was an existing AC condenser. Um, so I'm asking the board for I guess approval after the fact and I apologize for not knowing about the
permit special permit required for this installation nor was our contractor unfortunately. Um, so the location uh uh the format here adequacy of uh the site uh essentially as I said before it was right next to
the location of the uh the previous condenser. Uh there really was no other area feasible. Um you can see to the right of the condensers there's um the gas meter right there. Uh we couldn't put them there where the that's a
garbage container. We couldn't put them there because the new code says you can't have them so close to the gas meter where we had the previous condenser. So that's why we we moved them to the left side. Um it's a very small lot. there was no other place to put them other than perhaps I guess in
the front of the house somewhere which really wouldn't be I guess would be objectionable. Um number two, sustainability uh of the site. Uh once again these are like previous condensers. They're Mitsubishi units very quiet. Uh I think
quieter even than the previous condenser that we had. Um impact on traffic. I guess that's not applicable. Impact on the neighborhood views. um not an issue. Uh several neighbors offered to write letters of you know uh uh
acceptance for this, but I told them I didn't think it was necessary. Maybe it is. I don't know. But uh there has been no u issue as far as complaints on from any neighbors about view or noise. Um sewage disposal not an issue. Utilities
uh noise once again quieter than the previous unit. compatibility of surrounding site I don't think is applicable impact on natural envir natural natural environment uh again these are more energy efficient than the previous system that we had so
trying to do the right thing there um impact of visual character again um that shouldn't really apply so I guess I'm asking the board today for your um approval and in um hindsight and I appreciate u your uh understanding that
we kind of did this under a dire emergency in the cold weather coming that we experienced last winter. Thank you. >> Okay. 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 want to join the conversation. Don't see anybody. I'll read the correspondence which is a note from the conservation commission here in Chadam June 22nd. They write applicant has not submitted any applications for
permitting. The project will require an administrative review when the project will be conditioned to meet the performance standards under the wetlands protection act and the town of Chadam local wetland bylaw chapter 272. Uh that's the extent of the
correspondence. Uh did you want to comment on that? Uh, I guess I'm unclear what the next step is. >> Okay. Well, if you uh check uh later on with Sarah. >> Okay. >> Uh she can explain what you need to do.
>> Appreciate it. Thank you. >> The letter might have just come out yesterday. I'm not too sure when. Yeah. >> All right. Uh very good. Is there anyone on Microsoft Teams or here today wishes to speak either against this or has a specific question? If so, please raise
your hand. Don't see anybody. So Paul, would you >> I have no I have questions. >> No questions. >> Kenny, >> no questions. >> Dean,
>> um just for the record, can you um tell us why that spot was chosen and not maybe somewhere in the rear of the house? >> Uh we have a deck in the back of the house. um there's really no place you could put it and right after that the
land slopes right down and you're essentially in the marsh. >> So there's a topology issue. >> Yeah, there's no there really is no other feasible place other than I think I mentioned uh at the very front of the house which I think is objectionable to certainly to me it would be and I think the neighborhood.
>> Sure. All right. Thank you. >> Welcome. >> No questions. >> Uh no questions. Okay. I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> Ed seconds and votes yes. >> All votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. I vote yes.
>> And I vote yes. So uh Steve >> deliberations. Um well you know I guess we have another situation where this is um you know post installation or at least we got a very good mockup of where you wanted to put the equipment. Um and it sounded like it was a bit of an
emergency. Um, you described a topology issue in the back. You wouldn't want them in the front of the house. So, this is probably and and there was an existing unit in the same general location. So, >> um, we didn't get any letters from the
neighbors complaining about it. So, I I think it's it's fine. >> Great, Lee. >> Yeah. Um, I'm okay with this as well. Um, I think it is a good spot for it. Um, it's out of the way. uh and I you know I I understand the situation
regarding um the installation. So I don't think this is um substantially more detrimental. >> Thank you. >> Ed, >> I agree with my colleagues. >> Well, I also agree with my colleagues >> and Jenny.
>> So this is why site visits are so helpful. Um, and this is also why we always say there's no such thing as precedent. Um, because we see, you know, every property is very different. And as you know, we heard earlier today two applications for
AC units um that are here before us because they don't meet something. Now, your situation and your site is different. And that's why I made the comment about no such thing as precedent. So the previous applicant, not the church, they did have another
option, which is why the board, you know, was kind of challenged in our deliberation with that one, but they did receive grace from this board to keep them there. Um, but your ask is actually, you know, I mean, you have a 50-foot setback. You your options were
very limited, much more limited. um and you had an emergency situation. But for me, more important is that you're in a flood plane and you have limited options. Um so I do not have a problem with this um uh request and I would support it.
>> Thank you. >> Yeah, the u if well you heard what I had to say about the first uh applicant uh that doesn't apply to you at all. you had to do it and where you put it makes
sense to me. >> Thank you. >> Uh to me there's no argument >> or >> options >> a better way to do it. Right. So, okay. Uh Paul, >> I'll move to approve the application as submitted.
>> Uh Ed seconds and votes yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> And I vote yes. That's a unanimous decision. Thank you very much. Very >> good. Thank you folks. And so check with Sarah, >> not today, but and she'll lead you down
that path. Okay. >> Yep. Thank you very much. >> All right. Very good. >> Okay. 26-053 and 26-054. I think I'll have you read them both because really they're one and the same.
>> So, one is for the addition, the other is for the apartments, >> right? >> You want to do them together because >> I do I think the presentation will be together. Correct. >> Ideally, that would be preferred for me as well. Not a problem. Thank you. I appreciate it. Application number
26-053, Cadam Productions LLC, care of Victoria Clark, 1234 Chestnut Street, Newton Mass, 02464, owner of property located at 776 Main Street, also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 14E, block 37,
lot 56. The applicant proposes to change, alter, or expand a non-conforming commercial structure, Washington Taylor House, on a conforming lot via the construction of additions. the existing structure is non-conforming and that it is located 10.7 feet from Main Street where a 25 ft setback is
required. The proposed partial second floor and additions will comply with the dimensional requirements of the bylaw. The existing lot coverage is 11.8% and the proposed lot coverage is 63.2% where 70% is the maximum allowed. The lot
contains 116,143 square ft in the GB2 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law Chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B veh of protective bylaw. Application number 26-054 Chattam Productions LLC care of Victoria
Clark 1234 Chestnut Street Newton Mass 02464 owner of property located at 776 Main Street. Also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 14E block 37 lot 56. The applicant proposes to construct two residential apartments incidental
toal to a commercial use in the GB2 zone which requires the grant of a special permit. The lot contains 116,143 ft in the GB2 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law Chapter 48 sections 9 and sections
3C 4C4 and 8D2B of the protective bylaw. >> Welcome back. How are you? >> Um I'm Victoria Clark. I'm with Chattam Productions. Uh thank you for letting us do these applications together because as you said it makes the most sense particularly how we submitted our
application. So uh the Washington Taylor House is in the GB2 zone as it exists right now. It is a 3,548 ft house that sits on timber surrounded by a brick skirt. So there's no foundation, there's no basement. And so
we are looking to put an addition that is 1,592 square feet onto the building. Um the reason this addition sounds very large is because the second floor of the Washington Taylor House is as it exists
right now is 1,216 ft and the first floor is 2,332. So it's 1,000 ft less. So, the bulk of the addition, 1,224 ft of it, will be added to the second floor, which is allowing us to create a
second apartment on the second floor, which is what we would like to do versus the first floor. We're adding 368 ft kind of to square off the property because our goal with this structure is to create four commercial uses as well as two apartments for residential rental
use upstairs. Um, that's our overall goal. That's the general vicinity. In regards to criteria, the adequacy of the site, obviously, the site is quite large. We're in the business zone, so we're lot coverage rather than building coverage,
but as you've seen from our site plan, our majority of our site coverage comes from required parking that we're required to put. We are still in preliminary site plan discussions. We had our pre-application with the site with the planning board uh a few weeks ago and since then we've been working
with Clark Engineering to solidify our site plan to take the board's feedback as well as confirm all the grading, the drainage and all the other required items that we're that we have to do to make it work with such a large space especially with a lot of parking. Um
compatibility. We think this structure because it's a mix of commercial and residential, it is similar to many of the mixeduse buildings in our area, particularly our neighbors at 752 Main Street as well as 782 Main Street. Both have commercial on
the first floor and residential on the second floor, and they're similar in size to what we're proposing. Um, the extent in the proposed increase in non-conforming nature of the structure, the front of the structure is non-conforming. The addition is at the rear. We don't think that increases the
non-conformity of the front of the building, the suitability of the site um in including not limited to neighboring properties, natural environments, runoff, etc. We're working on our drainage particularly because we know that runoff to neighboring properties is
as right now this build this site has a lot of varying uh grades. So that's something we're really working on to make sure that all runoff will be contained. That's why we haven't gone back to the planning board yet because we haven't solidified the best way to do so. Um the impact of scale sighting mass
on neighborhood visual character including views and vistas. Um the streetscape view of the Washington Taylor house will not change. Um we got the uh designs approved through the HBDC. We are matching the existing trim,
materials, colors, all of that so that it stays, it can be restored to its original look and present much better than it currently is. Um, compatibility of their proposed use with neighboring uses. Obviously, the GB2, the town's goal right now is to keep the business
zones business. And so we think that proposing commercial on the first floor as well as residential units for rent on the second floor is what the town wants right now and also makes the most sense with the comprehensive plan that people have been putting forward for the business zone particularly this stretch
of main street. Um adequacy of method of sewage disposal source of water and drainage. Um it is connected to town sewer and water. Obviously we haven't figured out all of the connections yet. That is something that Clark Engineering is still working through. Um impact on
traffic and safety. The planning board did request that because we are changing the access point of this property from Main Street to Deep Depot Road. They requested that we do a traffic study for our when we present our
site plan like our official site plan to the planning board. So that is something we have scheduled with a um an engineering company that does so. So that'll be presented when we go in front of the planning board. Noise and litter will maintain all trash on site and we
do not believe obviously there'll be a noise increase right now because there's nothing on the site but there we think it'll be that similar to a normal commercial structure with residential um adequacy of utilities. The property is currently served by existing connections to national grid and Eversource and they
will continue to be served by those connections. Um, we're not proposing a formula in business, so we do not believe that should be an issue. And then we are not in a flood plane. So, >> okay. And then let's switch to
>> the apartments. Okay. >> Yes. Okay. So, similarly with the adequacy of the site in terms of size, you are required 10,000 square feet of buildable upland per apartment. We are only proposing two apartments. This the lot has over 100,000 square feet. So we
think this is an adequate size to propose two residential apartments on the second floor. Compatibility of this uh suitability of the site for the proposed use. As I said before, many of the neighboring properties in the GB2 have apartments on the second floor of their commercial structures. So we think
it is compatible and suitable impact on traffic flow and safety. Similarly, we because we are we will address that with the planning board through the tra what the results of the traffic study is and what they would like us to do that way. Um adequacy of methods of sewage
disposal source water drainage. We are connected to town sewer and water but we are still in the process of determining the best plan of action for drainage so that we can contain all water on site and not have runoff to our neighboring property. specifically were very aware of Veterans Field next to us and how
right now the slope runs downwards there. That's something we're trying to make sure that it stays enclosed and separated. Um adequacy of other utilities similar we have as I said before we have national grid and Eversource connections that will remain.
Noise and litter um litter will be contain there'll be trash on contain all trash will be contained on site. We have plans for dumpsters etc. and noise. We do not think it will be that much of an impact for two apartments and some
commercial structures. Um compatibility of the proposed use with surrounding land use similar. It is a very common use in the GB2 and we think it is the best use for this property particularly based upon what the town is encouraging
in this neighborhood. Um impact on the natural environment. We don't think it will have a an impact and then impact on the t neighborhood and town visual character or of any formula business. We're not a formula business. But I do think overall taking steps to revitalize
this property through commercial use and landscaping will kind create a much more inviting look to the property overall and improve Main Street particularly to kind of correct what currently is a bit of a eyesore and a problem.
>> Thank you. >> I'm glad you said that, not me. >> Somebody had to. >> Okay. Um before we move a little further, I think it's u while it's not part of these two
applications, but everybody wants to know what the future of the theater building is. So while you don't have to answer the question, I want to be fair, but you know, we're we all risk being
stoned because we're not doing anything about the theater, you know, bring back the theater and all that kind of stuff. So tell us what your plans are for the theater, please. We're kind of doing it through phasing projects because we obviously have initial designs for
certain things and right now we're proposing a restaurant at the former theater structure. But obviously until we get other approvals, the site plan, zoning for this property, we haven't pushed our architects and engineers to move forward with finalized plans because we know as as we've seen in
previous experience with this town, it's not worth investing our our money if we're going to get shot down eventually. >> Well, hopefully you'll have a better time with this than you've had in the past. Yeah. Right. And and we feel the same way, too. Yeah. Um, okay. Well,
thanks. I just want to ask that question because it's asked of me all the time, >> of course. >> Oh, let's go back to today's two applications. So, board, um, we'll we let's break them up. I wanted the one presentation so that we understood how it goes together.
So, we'll take number one. We'll take 26-053. And uh I'll see if is there anybody here that would like to speak in favor of 053. That's the change
in so forth. Not the apartments. That's the next one. That's 054. Uh either here or in Microsoft Teams. Anyone wish to speak in favor? Okay. Uh then I will read the correspondence.
First we have from Judith Judith Giorgio, our health agent. She writes on June 29th uh after reviewing the site plan. I have the following comments. A designated dumpster enclosure with dumpsters placed
on a concrete pad should be provided to serve the retail, residential, and restaurant uses. They have been ongoing issues with rodent activity along this corridor. So properly contained and maintained waste storage is important.
Next point, sewer flow calculation for the proposed development, including the retail spaces and any restaurant issues should be reviewed and approved by the sewer department. Then we have a note. This is from the HBDC.
On May 6th, the HBDC met and rendered the following decision. Commission voted five zip zip approving the addition to the theater. Then we have from the planning board on June 24th.
The planning board held a pre-application conference for site plan review for the entire development proposal on June 8th. Planning board will review a future site plan review application once submitted utilizing the planning board site plan review kite
criteria as set forth and such and such. The ZBA request for review and comment of the above reference ZBA application prior to the hearing date on June 9th for has come in between the planning board pre-application conference and the
site plan review application submissions. The board notified the applicant that this application reviewed via a public hearing and requested a site visit prior to the hearing. The planning board review process which includes a request for comment for us
will include and then there's a quite a bit of work. The applicant proposes to change alter expand a non-conforming commercial structure on a conforming lot via the construction of additions. Existing structure is non-conforming and then is located 10.7. It's the same
words we have, but um you know there's nothing there's nothing different here. The planning board will conduct a more thorough review of the project once the site plan review application has been submitted. Have you done that yet? >> No, we have not. We're we're wait we're
work we're working through some things but also the traffic study is something we're trying to get scheduled and we're at the whim of engineering companies to get that done. >> Okay. All right. Then uh we have a note from Kenneth and Jill Price. They live
at 22 Post Office Lane and Chattam. On July 3rd, they write, "We're writing this letter as a butter to the projects listed in the above reference application numbers. And we are writing in response to the notice and so forth. We write to oppose the relief requested
by the applicants and applications 26-053 and also 26-054. The special permits that are requested should be denied. No zoning relief should be granted for the following reasons. One, the proposed projects are inconsistent with the current use of the
neighborhood and should not be allowed to materially alter the current neighborhood. Two, the proposed projects are inconsistent with the current charm of Chattam as a whole and should not be allowed simply because they lay in partially commercial areas. Three,
recent projects in our neighborhood have already begun to deteriorate the historic nature of the area and these further pro projects should not be allowed to continue the deterioration. Four, in our experience, the current building inspector is unable or unwilling to address the zoning and
building issues that arise when projects are provided special permits and or zoning relief. Then we have a letter that's uh on the Chattam Ford um uh stationary. It's from
John P. Madden Jr. Uh he writes on not too sure when. Well, we got it on July 6. I John Madden, the owner of Chadam Ford. We are directly across the street uh and are quite pleased that the property was purchased by an established
and wellrespected real estate development company. Clearly, the proposed project would be an improvement over what exists there now. The addition of two apartments would help with the existing housing shortage and be a benefit to the town. I fully support the proposed project of 776 Main Street and
I'm quite confident the finished project will be an improvement. And that's the extent of the correspondence. Did you want to comment on Mr. and Mrs. Price? I I'm not sure what they mean by it is not
what the town is encouraging in this area primarily because we're proposing to create apartments which is something the town has talked about needing and we're turning the Washington Taylor house into commercial space which is by
right what the GB zones were created to do. So um those are my comments. >> Okay fine. >> Okay. Yes. So now I'm asking if anyone here or on Microsoft Teams would like to
speak either against this or has a specific question and Mr. Phillips. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Uh Brian Phillips 374 Orleans Road. Um
again, I just kind of feel this is a tragedy how this project has been handled. And yes, is it an eyes sore now, but you know, it's I kind of feel like the buildings were let to go into disrepair so they could knock them down and, you know, build something new,
which is, you know, I think you have to agree with me if you've seen the last hearings because they wanted to demolish both of them. um you wouldn't let people change our lighthouse or our windmill and this is a very historic property. You know, again, I'm very discouraged about what's going
on with it. And I think the majority of the community is um I don't think you should grant any special permits for any of these residential apartments or adding on to it. I think it should be restored, you know, uh in likeness. That's all I have to say. Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you. Uh others? Yes. Yes. Hi, Terry Angelotti. Um, I live at 751 Main Street. U kind of catty corner from that and yes it is as everybody has said it's an eyesore from being there in that situation. One of the things I was con
I'm not sure if I understand, Craig. They're going to demolish the whole property for this. >> So that's wrong. >> Oh, no. >> Okay. >> No. >> What is that? >> Do you want me to explain? >> Yes, please. >> Um, so we are not demolishing either of the structures. We're just putting an
addition on the back. So the HBDC approved the So stylistically it will look the same. We do have to gut basically strip it down to the uh framing and rebuild it and put new clapboard shingles etc. But
the structure is not being torn down whatsoever either of them. >> But the commercial part is going to be in place of the where the >> where the house was the first >> or the play house or whatever. >> Oh no the this is in the Washington Taylor house. So it's in the front building. So it was not where the
theater was. It was where they had >> the students stay. So it is structurally as it right now as it is right now laid out like a traditional single family home but is not used as a single family home and cannot be used as a single family home. So we'll have to gut the
interior of it but the exterior will not obvious obviously there'll be an addition on the back which will change it slightly but it's not being torn down if that clears it up. The other comment I had was about the traffic flow. I know uh she had commented about they haven't
really done that, but that is really close to that light that's right there. That's kind of a always really a um >> Yeah. I I think what >> conundrum there if you will. >> I think what Miss Clark indicated, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the
entrance for parking is going to be from depot. It is not going to be from Main Street. >> No. Yeah. But you're going to have to get to it from that. People are coming down Main Street before they get to when they get to the light, they might turn there, right? Is that going to be the
>> flow? >> The flow >> or the idea of the flow? >> You got to get on to Depot Street one way or the other. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> So, that was my comment. >> Okay. Is there anyone else here today that wishes to join the conversation?
Okay. >> Where is he? Okay. Oh, okay. I don't see anything there, but Oh, maybe over there. Okay. So, we have online uh Mr. Clark. >> Good afternoon. How are you doing?
>> Fine. Please, I just wanted to I I was I was raising my hand because I wanted to clarify before you asked Victoria that question. But yes, when we presented to the HBDC, it was very was made very clear to us that they did not want to see any of the
buildings torn down. And that's what our final plan shows. We are restoring the exterior of the building to the period. So, the Washington Tea House, we're going to take the existing trim off of it. We're going to match it and restore
it to exactly what you see there today. Okay. So, there's no nothing's being demolished as far as the shape of the structure not being changed. which is just the proposed addition in the back which again is not in a
beside the existing structure being non-conforming similar to the house uh that was approved two two sessions prior to this today it's the same same condition and there were also a couple of other letters from our butters that
were speaking out in positive did the board not receive those because we have them the They copied they copied us as they sent them >> and I'd like to have those read into the uh record also. But >> uh I read everything in our file on this
now on 053. >> Is there anything different? >> Those are the only two that I received. >> So this this is it. Mr. >> I think he's thinking of how the applications were separate. the letter from Matthew Cole is I think what he's referring to and that's in the that's I
think that's the confusion is because even though we presented them as one application they are certain letters were only for like one versus the other I guess is >> okay yeah >> so it's there if if they have both letters if they have the letter from Matthew Cole and they have the letter from Eden Eldridge and they're going to
read them in the >> second application then that's fine but yeah we had the four different >> we had the Matthew Cole letter which we'll read on the second app. Uh don't have the other one we mentioned. >> That just that just means it must not have he said he was mailing it. That just probably means it didn't arrive in
time. That's fine. >> All right. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Okay. Um so, we've heard from everybody, I do believe. So, again, we're still on 053. So, questions from the board. Let's
start with Steve. >> Okay. Okay. Well, there's one point I don't know if I need to make I I don't know if it's important or not, but the letter that we got from HBDC >> Mhm. >> refers to the theater and we're not
discussing the theater. >> That's correct. >> So, I don't know if we should accept this letter from them. >> Um, >> so as the liaison to the HBDC, I didn't write this letter, but they did review and approve the additions. Um, I can show you the plan that I I'll share it
on my screen because I have it on my computer. Um, this is the rendering and specifically looking at just the Washington Taylor House. They did review and approve both applications. >> Um, it may have just been an error in
the letter that was drafted, but they it does show the rendering of >> the Washington Taylor and the former theater building. >> Right. Okay. I just wanted to I didn't know >> fully approved no conditions. >> Okay, very good. So, um and this is
maybe some questions that they may they may have asked you. I I don't know. Um, but considering that the first floor of this is now going to be commercial space, are there any plans for any particular changes to the lighting um or
signage in the future or anything like that that >> So, we haven't um done a full lighting plan for the site yet because that's also required for the planning board. Um, regarding individual commercial uses signage, they'll have and lighting,
they'll have to go back to the HBDC for their own signage. So, we didn't preemptively do any of that. >> So, you're not getting involved in that? >> No. >> As part of this? Okay. And it sounds like um you expect to do some sort of um restoration of the building as well as a
renovation by adding the additions. Is that correct? So, what what we see today is going to be the what we're going to see in the future, but maybe slightly improved, hopefully improved. Okay. I believe the only difference is on the
second floor. If Sarah pulls up the renderings, the HBDC um had us put dormers on the second floor because right now the way the ceiling is sloped, those bedrooms and living spaces that we have proposed wouldn't have natural light if we did
not put dormers because they're only the way the ceiling the ceiling height and design. There's only windows on the front of and back of the structure. So the dormers is the only big change to what you would see now, but otherwise it'll be the same. >> Okay. All right. Very good. Thank you,
>> Lee. >> Okay. Well, I think I've finally gotten my head around this. Um because I I actually thought your proposal was what I see on
the site plan which includes the old theater building as well. But what we're talking about right now is the >> Washington house main the the old house in the front of the property. >> Yes. >> That's all we're talking about. >> That's it.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Um, and in terms of the it's it's it's confusing and a little bit misleading in that you talk about the proposed lot coverage,
which includes whatever renovation you're going to do to the theater in sometime in the future, as well as the potential parking lot. That is because so GB2 it's not building coverage it's lot. So that's just the way the engineer has calculated
it. I believe the proposed building coverage of the two structures is 11.8% of the total. So the two structures together the footprint the new proposed footprint is about 2% of the lot coverage of just the front structure. Right. >> Cuz it's >> that's why I'm confused.
>> Yeah. No I understandably. So it's it's hard to because it we are just coming in front of one building and obviously we're not going because the site plan shows everything. We're not going to remove the other structure. It gets complicated and >> I I think I understand now. Um so um
okay I I I think that's as long as I understand exactly what I'm looking at for this application. Even though it says a lot of the other stuff in it, I I understand. I I guess I would like to just focus on the Washington Taylor house right now
um and the two apartments that you're proposing and not and didn't and I wish I didn't have all this other stuff is basically what I'm trying to say. Thanks. I I guess uh my question is is you're you're still working on grading for the
site and drainage. Um but grading for the site determines your your height and um so I don't know how we evaluate that to or approve something
if we don't we can't determine what the height of the structures are. So the we're working on the grading and more so the parking lot and the walkways that lead from the parking lot to the front buildings just because there is as it exists right now a dramatic drop off.
It's pretty much settled but which is why as you can see on the site plan the steps into the commercial spaces right now do not meet code. So they'll need ramps to go up into them which is something that was something we were working on with David. But the building's height as it exists now is
below 30 ft. and the new ridge is below the existing building, so it won't be above 30 feet. >> Um, I don't know if I agree with that >> just because it's
uh grading after when you're finished with a project around the building that will deter actually determine the height. >> Jay, >> Jay Briggs, building commissioner. Um, they do propose a building height for that Washington Taylor house for 24 ft 7
and 1/4 in. That's their proposed height. So, I know they have to take finished grade into account, but >> as long as they meet that, I guess >> it could be. Yeah, there could be some variation there. Yeah. But >> so, as long as the your grading final
grading plan math works to calculate that height, you should be should be they should be okay. Can I address that? Sure. >> Yes, Mr. Clark. >> Yes. So, uh to answer your question, yes. So, David Clark's calculations are
taken off of the new elevated grade for getting access up to those entry doors. So, the existing doors into the Washington Taylor House currently are a couple of steps up. we have to make them handicap accessible. So if you look at that site plan, this is why it's
complicated because the site plan can't be completely developed until we know exactly what's going to get approved because it changes the requirements of parking and other things based upon what we get approved. But you see the you see the Washington teal house and you can
see the series of walkways um to the west along Main Street and on the east side facing towards um the laundromat in the
liquor store property. Those walkways he's added those in and he's changed the grades on those. So he has taken that into consideration. The only grading that's not finalized is the grading at the rear parking lot. So his calculation
of telling you the ridge height on this building is based off of these design elevations. Okay. >> Okay. Thank Thank you, >> Paul. >> Well, let me just follow up a little bit. uh
why not present uh both buildings at the same time >> just something we decided to face just >> I'm just thinking also I I think Sarah has a a better answer >> um as proposed based on the site plan
that they've provided in this application the theater building former theater building does not require ZBA approval none of the uses all of The proposed uses are by right. It meets all the setbacks. So there is no trigger for it to come to the board of appeals at
this time. >> Okay. So uh I guess in in my mind I'm trying to think how the uh the development of the theater building impacts uh the site itself within the context of
what we're looking to approve. Um, I did look at the uh uh planning board hearing uh and they raised a lot of issues that um I would have raised in their context and probably would have raised in
connection with with this hearing uh because of the impact on the field, you know, the athletic field, but also uh the grading and and the drop off from the upper level of the parking lot down to the buildings. Uh so all of those
things are sort of swirling around in my mind at the same time I'm trying to uh uh evaluate this proposal. U my inclination is to say that uh I probably don't have any problem with the overall
proposal but I'm a little uneasy going forward without having uh the ability to look at what the both buildings would be and what the fa site would look like when it's completed. So that that's my uh that's my overall
thought um for you to consider. >> Okay, Jen. >> Okay, you can add me to the number of people that are confused. Um so I've heard you say both buildings.
I've heard you say uh part two will be the other building. Um is is 768 the other building that you're talking about? 768 >> is the one we're in front of you right now. >> 776. The hard the problem is the
buildings both had separate addresses. >> Oh, sorry. The um buildings originally had separate addresses when we bought the property since then. they or the buildings were have always been identified as separate properties but it has always been referred to and assessing as 776 which is why when we
presented the application we presented it applied for it as 776 Main Street Washington Taylor House. Yeah, >> it is confusing because Clark Engineering has both addresses on the separate buildings, which had hypothetically we known that was going
to be the case with the site plan, we would have applied for this as 768 to kind of clear up any confusion. But that is now an afterthought that would have made all of a lot of the questions disappear. >> Well, that is very helpful because I I that's what I was struggling with the
whole time. Like how is 768 fitting into this? because um okay so so there is not really a part two because the theater building as Sarah just said doesn't need to come to us is that right so this is it for us >> yes >> okay see I thought too that we were then
going to hear 768 at our next hearing so that's where I was confused I I do think the site plan is very difficult to interpret so you know our in our our print is even smaller than that this is sort of zoomed out for the corner and we're seeing all of it but Um,
so if if we're confused and we have all of this paperwork, there could be that some of the town folks, so that's what they're not responding to in their letters because they they don't fully understand either. Um, okay. So, that was those were my um main questions.
Just to confirm, there is no entry to any of this from Main Street >> driving. No, there'll be still walkways from Main Street to the entrances, but cars, no entrance from Main Street. >> Okay. So, all of the vehicular traffic will be uh in behind all of this and
through depot road. Okay. So, there are some trees on the front, which I would which is 768, which is really 776. Okay. Right. And it looks like um you know you're not going to be able to
probably keep that dog wood, but would is there any possibility of keeping there looked to be two I don't know I think they were maple trees that really kind of anchor each end. They're far enough away. They're not in the way of the but the fact that they are sort of um and this isn't really a zoning thing,
but I just wanted to mention that I think it'd be nice to see if we could try to save those just the two. You know which ones I'm talking about? >> I I do. That's something we can look into. We um have hired a landscape uh landscape architect for the project and that's something that we can mention to
them. >> And the reason I mention that is because they they are you know they're large. They're not really large but but there is a main street aspect to the front of this where shade trees are nice to have and to take them out and put in something that's you know fraction of
that size would be I think a missed opportunity. So, I mean, it's out of our lane, but I just wanted to make that comment. I appreciate that. That's something we can take to our AR, our landscape architect. >> Thank you. >> Well,
I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> Could I just um ask one question of Sarah? >> Sure. Sarin, can can you correct me if I'm wrong on this, but if we were not to seek this addition on the Washington
Taylor House and not seek to put two apartments, which the town has been saying for the past couple years to us that they would like to see some rental apartments, then we don't have to bring this project in
front of the zoning board or this Washington Taylor House either. Correct. Uh, correct. So, if you just restored and did all commercial uses, it would just be site plan approval through the planning board >> and no zoning board requirement.
>> Thank you. >> Okay, Paul, I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> Uh, Eds and votes yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. I vote yes.
>> And I vote yes. Okay, let's start. Ed. >> Um, conceptually, I I I like the plan. I I think it's an improvement from what we've seen. I like the idea of the apartments. Um,
I feel like HBDC has, you know, done a good job and, um, my o overall thoughts on the project is, uh, I think it's going to certainly be an improvement. Paul.
>> Well, my thought is that I would like to see what the planning board is going to uh require with respect to the site and the lighting and the uh impact on the neighborhood. Um and uh I don't see a
reason why we can't wait for that information to come in before we actually vote on this particular uh application. So, um, I I would like to defer it if we could, >> Jenny.
>> Um, so I I like the mixed use that's being proposed in the GB2. Um, and you know, being retail and also um apartments. Agree with what you've said, Victoria, and what uh Mr. Clark has just
said. It is what we have heard over and over that the town wants some additional housing. So that's what they want right now. Um the fact that you are not tearing it down that may have been a misconception as well uh in some of the confusion and are restoring it and
historic has made some specifications and you're doing that. You're taking off the trim. You're having it uh custom mill work created based on that. Um, so there there's uh something to be commended for uh efforts to restore what
is um what the town really sees, which is 768. And that um I think is um it it is very a very positive thing that I see this as being uh an improvement to
what's there with um the effort to keep that historic home or keep the historic property. And I I really think that that is um what you've proposed incorporates all of that from what I
understand. And so I I'm supportive of it. >> Dave, >> um well, I'm glad to see that something there's finally some movement on this property because it's been a long time and there was it was going to be, you know, phase two of a different project
and now we're talking about it being phase one. So that's that's good. I'm glad to see that something's finally being done with that property before it falls into much more decay. Um, I'm I'm not sure the zone the planning board isn't waiting to hear from us
partially to see what what we're planning to do and if we're going to allow this addition to happen. So, they may be waiting for us as much as we might be waiting for them. So, um I wouldn't be opposed to moving ahead with this project, the restoration project
and the and the um addition. I think it's a good idea and to see something finally happening with that building, >> Lee. >> So, I agree with uh with my colleagues. I like a lot about this project. Um I
like the mixed use portion of it. I like the restoration of a historic structure. Um and I commend you guys for, you know, making the effort and really, you know, doing it correctly. Um, and I did also
watch the planning board's committee regarding this whole proposal, and I liked a lot of what they had to say, too. They had some serious concerns about some aspects of it, and I think they're on the right track with guiding you guys as to what um might make the
most sense. So, I I'm in favor of it as well. I mean, I do think it's an improvement. Um, and I like the apartments and if it's restored, I think it'll be a nice addition to Main Street. >> Yeah, as far as I'm concerned, um, it's
time. It's time. It's time to do something. And I I wouldn't want to back off on this and have you revert to saying, well, okay, we won't do the addition and we won't do the apartments. I mean that that's really going backwards when you are offering to go
forwards and uh so I hear what Paul says but um I don't need to wait. They'll take care of it themselves. Um and what they decide on the theater as we've said
really isn't our our concern. So uh Paul I'll move to approve the application as submitted. I guess the question would be what conditions if any we need with respect to uh the construction.
What what are your plans as to when you actually would go ahead with this? >> It wouldn't be any time until much after Labor Day because we still have to submit a month in advance to go in front of planning, get final planning approval, >> get um construction full construction drawings done. So it wouldn't
construction wouldn't start until after Labor Day by any means. There's obviously plenty of room on the site to to contain vehicles and so forth, right? >> Um All right. Well, I'll just move to approve the application as submitted then.
>> Ed, how do you vote? Well, we need a second >> and then >> Ed uh seconds and votes yes. >> Paul. >> All right. Paul will vote yes. I second. Jenny >> Jenny votes yes. I vote yes. >> And I vote yes. Okay. That's on
application 053. That's a unanimous vote. How about that? Huh? Okay. Now, let's do the second part, which is the apartments. >> Yes. And that was as mentioned, uh, Mr. Cole.
Uh, this is Matthew Cole, 782 Main Street. We're writing in support of the proposed construction project. We are the owners of the neighboring pro property at 782 and directly above the site. The applicant took the time to thoughtfully
review the project plans dated April 21st and show us the improvements they plan to make. We believe the addition of two residential apartments will be a positive benefit to the community. Given the ongoing housing crisis in our area, these units represent a welcome
opportunity to help meet local housing needs. We are confident they will be in high demand and serve as an asset to Cadam. Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. We respectfully support the application and the proposed project.
So um questions on 0 54 any this is the does anybody does anybody have any questions? Okay Paul >> I'll move to close the hearing and move
into deliberations. >> Ed seconds and votes yes. >> I'll vote yes. >> Jenny votes yes. I vote yes. >> Okay. And I vote yes. So Jenny, how do you feel about the departments? deliberations. >> Oh, deliberations. Yeah. Um,
>> uh, I I I think that that I like them. I think that they are um I think the clerks have listened to our feedback for a long time and I think that this is uh their proposal is reflective of a mixeduse GB2. Um, and the town does need
housing. So, um, I I like the apartments. Steve, >> I think it's a a good use of that uh that property. There'll be some activity there that there isn't any right now and we need some housing and I think it's going to help out with that. So, I think
it's a good idea. >> Link, >> I agree with my colleagues. >> Ed, >> uh yeah, I I agree as well. I think um that is what GB2 is for mixed use and I think it's going to be a a nice addition
to to Main Street. >> Paul, >> I also agree with my colleagues >> and I certainly do. >> All right, I'll move to approve the application as submitted. >> Edens and votes yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. I vote yes.
>> And I vote yes. That's two unanimous votes. >> Only took six years. Well, we know you look is today your birthday because the previous lady was her birthday or something like that. So, >> no, but thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate it. >> Thank you very much. And your presentation was wonderful. So, thank
you. >> Well, I think we're going to take a fivem minute break. So, folks in the production booth, five minute break, please. Thank you. All right, everybody. Hello. Hello. Uh,
we're back. We're back. And again, to the folks who were here two weeks ago, we had to pull the plug on you. I apologize again. It's not going to happen tonight. Well, I don't think
we could have lightning or God knows what. I I shouldn't say that, right, Mr. Norcross? I think we need to read a few things first. >> Sure. Application number 26-042 Queen Chattam LLC care of James Morcross
Esquire PO Box 707 Chattam Mass 02633 owner of property located at 70 Queen Anne Road also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 13E block 15 lot 14. The applicant seeks dimensional variances from the buildable upland area requirements for five additional rental
units and two additional staff/managers apartments. A dimensional v a dimensional variance is required under Mass General law chapter 48 section 10 and section 8D2C of the protective bylaw under application number 26-043. The applicant proposes to change alter
or expand a non-conforming hotel/rest on a conforming lot via the removal of the restaurant to allow for the renovation of the inn to create five additional rental units and renovation of guest house number one to allow for two additional staff/manager apartments. The
existing in is non-conforming and it is located 20.7 feet from the road where a 40 foot setback is required and 23.5 ft from the southeasterly abutter where a 25 foot setback is required. Guest house number one is non-conforming and that is located 14.2 feet from the southwesterly
of butter where a 25 ft setback is required. The structure contains 34 rental units plus staff/manager apartment on a lot containing 57,848 ft of billable upland where 112,000 square feet is required. The proposed
five rental units and two staff manager quarter apartments require an additional 35,000 square feet of buildable upland area. The building coverage will remain non-conforming at 8,891 square ft 15.4% 4% where 10% is the
maximum allowed. The lot contains 65,512 ft in an R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law Chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw. These were continued from June 25th, 2026.
So Jamie, um I guess we'll start with you telling us any new developments or whatnot and then we have a new letter to read. >> Yes. >> Um so the floor is yours.
>> Thank you very much. Uh for the record, Jamie Norcross on behalf of the Hijar family who is here again today in the audience. Um just to start and not really gerine to the application but just for the knowledge of the board there have been some articles that were in the news recently about a dispute a legal dispute between two prior owners
of the queen and in just for the knowledge of the board I think it's important to know that that does not involve the Hajar family in any matter so you knew that going forward. Um so I guess the benefit of a continuence is we had a chance to um go over some of the
initial questions that we had. So, I just want to touch on a few points and I I imagine there'll be some more questions from some of the members who didn't get a chance two weeks ago. Um, under the variance criteria, as you know, there's a three-part criteria. Uh, and one of which relates to the shape of the structure, uh, the lot or the
structure not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located. And one thing I did not mention at the last hearing is the fact that the building we're talking about has a a gross floor area in excess of 20,000 square feet and it's located in the R20 zoning district. Now, I know this board
deals with um large homes from here to from time to time, but that that is exceedingly large for a structure within the a residential zoning district and one that can only be used for the current use uh as operated today or it can be some form of residential structure. Um, second piece of the
variance criteria, another item I wanted to mention related to uh, substantial hardship is that because of the scope of the renovations that the Hajar family is going to undertake at the property, it triggers accessibility requirements uh, under the state code. One of which is to
have two accessible guest rooms at the property where none currently exist. And so while it's not impossible to modify existing rooms to make them in compliance with the accessibility code, it's exceedingly difficult. Uh
extensive work including uh modifying the rooms, uh loadbearing walls, etc. Extremely costly. And so part of the proposal, as you know, are the two accessible guest rooms located on the main floor of the end. And even if they modify existing guest rooms, they may or
may not meet all of the accessibility requirements, in which case you'd have to seek additional variances from the uh accessibility board. But the two rooms that we were proposing absolutely meet all the criteria of the accessibility board and they're tailorade for guests who have accessibility issues and need
rooms such as these. So again, I think the inability to construct those rooms and the old restaurant kitchen space, I would suggest uh creates a hardship to my client. Um, one of the issues that was brought up related to the buildable upland requirement uh and how we are
short of that, as you know and have heard, it's uh 3,000 square feet under our bylaw for each rental unit, 10,000 square feet for each employee quarters. Uh so according to the bylaw we require 35,000 square feet of additional buildable upland which of course we do
not have. What I think is missing from the calculation in this instance is any credit for the removal of the restaurant because the bylaw doesn't have a buildable upland requirement for a restaurant use. And so if the intent of the buildable upland requirement is to
control or limit density or intensification of a property, from a practical perspective, it seems that five additional guest rooms in lie of a 50 seat restaurant is going to represent far less of an intensification of the property than currently exists. But the
fact of the matter is there's no metric under our zoning bylaw that provides us to say, "Yes, you're the five additional guest rooms and the two managers or employee quarters requires 35,000 ft of additional area, but there's no metric to say, well, a restaurant requires x number of square feet." And I think from
again from a practical perspective looking at it and the intent again I assume was to limit and control density. We're removing a restaurant use. There's no metric for that, but the overall impact on the property is going to be far less than currently exists. Another issue that was discussed was parking.
Um, and we've discussed this extensively with the Hajars and even with the additional five guest rooms, um, they're confident that the parking can be contained on site in an appropriate manner. They have discussed with uh
Chadam Valet as u the option of providing valet services for the property and Chattam valet said absolutely we can manage uh cars on this site there's no need to take them off and so the Hijars have explained to me because they have extensive experience
in this industry that busiest times for this type of establishment are July and August as you probably expect and Thursday through Friday they don't get um a lot of week-long stays uh they have a twoight minimum as opposed to some of the other establishments in town that
have a five night minimum. And so they're willing to engage a third party valet company or use employees to set up to do valet during the the peak season. So really the the summertime, Thursday through Sunday, they would have valet
service available for guests and in in uh the event there's a need to um assist with parking for guests. Um, I I think it's also important to mention on the parking requirement,
the current use um actually requires 10 more spaces than the proposed use because we're removing the restaurant which uh requires I believe it's 12 or 13 parking spaces based on the number of seats. And so even with just not looking at just the
numbers with the overall impact, the N is able to far better control parking with just an end use than it is with a restaurant use. Uh all of their guests have reservations. They know when they're coming. They know how long they're staying. There's check-in times. There's checkout times. With a restaurant, you're dealing with a
situation where people show up for dinner. They don't have a reservation. They show up to use the bar. You can't control that. with an end use of which they have a great deal of experience, you know, and have a knowledge of how many cars are coming to the property and when they're coming. We also discussed with the Hijars, they use a
uh oh, one week prior to check-in, they call it an un onboarding system. They reach out to the guest, find out any particular needs, etc. And as part of that, they can make a determination through um the onboarding system, does this particular guest need a car or not? So again, they'll know, yes, these
guests are coming and saying room five, they're going to have one car. Uh room four, they're using they're flying into Hyannis airport and they're taking an Uber. They're going to understand that and they're going to know that ahead of time. So you don't have the surprise element that may be encountered or likely is encountered with a restaurant use
um off season. Um and Monday through Wednesday, they don't anticipate being at full capacity. And so the existing parking um well with the proposed additional spaces and probably the existing parking is more than sufficient to satisfy their needs. So they don't believe valet is required during that
time period but again they're happy to engage valet during the peak season to accommodate a time when they may have full capacity which would be a good problem to have. And again they're going to know when they're going to be at full capacity so they can prepared for the guests and for the parking issues so that they can solve them before any
problems arise. Um, in an effort to further reduce parking concerns, the Hajars have reached out to nearby property owners to secure um, we'll call it a license or a lease for five to seven cars. There's a letter from the owner across the street. I guess I would
disagree with his statement that I said they had an agreement last time. I think I said they were talking, but regardless, they uh, they remain talking and uh, Mr. Hajar uh, sent him a license agreement to review. Haven't heard back yet, but that is a possibility. I also spoke with Ron Rdnick who owns uh 46
Oyster Pond Furlong which is just down the street uh the the road in between the Queen Anne Road and excuse me the Queen Anand in and the Village Market. It's the warehouse building down there. There's a great deal of space behind that building unused and he said he's certainly willing to engage in a lease agreement for five to seven parking
spaces with the Hijars. Again, they're confident that cars can be m maintained on site, but that would just provide a buffer and some additional protection perhaps for the board to know that they are willing to have that in place if the unforeseen event arises and they're
unable to accommodate cars on site, which again we don't anticipate to be the case. Um, so that would be the remainder of the presentation and then happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you. So, I will read that letter you referred to. stated July 8th and it's from David and
Christopher Lazulus. They are the owners of the Bow Roof House at 59 Queen Anne Road. We're writing on behalf of the Bow Roof House to clarify the record regarding a statement made by Mr. Norcross at the
board's meeting on June 25th in which it was indicated that we had reached an agreement with Mr. Hay Jaw concerning parking. We want to be clear that this is not accurate. No parking agreement between our two properties has been finalized or agreed to at this time. We're currently reviewing a proposed
parking arrangement with Mr. Har together with our legal counsel. Expect to reach a decision by the end of the week. Until that review is complete and both parties have signed off, no agreement should be considered in effect and we do not intend to represent otherwise to the board. For additional
clarity, no formal overflow parking agreement was ever in place with the previous owners. There was an infirm informal verbal understanding that the previous owners and guests with disabilities staying at the Queen Anne in could park on one side of our lot.
However, this understanding was never documented or formalized in any written or quote unquote handshake agreement. To make our broader position clear, we support the plans to renovate the end and believe these improvements will be a positive addition to the neighborhood.
At the same time, we share the concern expressed by board member Fenwick regarding parking, which is one of the issues we are continuing to evaluate as we review the proposed parking arrangement. We appreciate the board's attention to this matter and welcome the
opportunity to provide further clarification at the board's convenience. Okay. So, I think uh unless you feel differently, we should go back to any specific questions that
the board members might have at this time before we move along. >> That's fine. >> That good. Okay. Uh Ed, do you have any further questions that have come up to light? >> I do not. Paul,
um, just in in looking at the, uh, the variance issues, um, what what was your client's plan when they purchased the property in terms of how they were going to use it? >> Uh, well, they were going to use it as an inn and perhaps a restaurant
potentially, but they always were looking at the possibility of adding rooms. So really the restaurant use was never something they wanted to pursue. Again, if it's something they have to utilize the space for, they're willing to do it. But they understood it required permitting and approvals. They weren't
under an assumption it was a guarantee you could add rooms. But again, they thought it made sense in lie of using the restaurant and also the employee housing would be a real benefit to them and to the employees. >> Okay. So they understood that they were they were
taking a bit of a risk with respect to the question of whether that concept would be approved. >> Correct. They knew it was an unknown. Um, is the uh expense of uh doing um
handicap access to the property um substantially more than it would be to uh go forward with the plan that you have Now, >> uh I believe the architect Derek Rubenoff is on. Derek, would you be able to answer that?
>> Uh hello everybody. Um Derek Rubenov from uh Dubov Architecture 84 Spring Street, West Roberry. Um so if I don't if you don't mind just repeating that question so I could fully understand it. Please. I'm trying to get
a feel for what the expense uh would be of making re revisions to the in building in order to uh get your uh handicap access that's required. >> Um okay, if I try to answer that, um so
we we we're spending more than $100,000 on the building. So, we're triggering the the uh accessible front entry and uh toilet room and then um we're I believe uh going past a third of the val 30% of
the value of the building not including the land. So, we're um we were correct required to make the entire building accessible. We've already gone through a process with the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board to obtain the necessary variances. um we were granted
all the variances that we need. So um in terms of expense um uh I I'm I'm still trying >> Paul if I sorry to interrupt just I think your question Paul is is the the difference in cost to renovate an
existing room to make it handicap accessible versus constructing the new handicap accessible rooms. >> Correct. >> Does that make sense Derek? So yeah, sure. Uh so uh the existing um rooms uh
the the quarter on the uh the side that's closer to the the ocean, that quarter is is too narrow to comply for somebody in a wheelchair to go down that quarter and get in a room. And those rooms are are too small as they are right now. So significant that's those
are bearing walls on either side of that corridor. So you you'd have to do significant structural work up and down the building to uh to get somebody into into one of those rooms and make them uh comply with the accessibility requirements. Uh um on the side of the
building with the restaurant, there are um I think uh uh I believe it's three units that are uh along the Queen Anne uh road there. Just flipping through my drawing right now.
um the um those are not very deep units and so com even combining those into two units I think would still be difficult structurally to to make them work. Uh it was just far far easier to to use um
a disused portion of this this very old kitchen like you know today's kitchens can be much smaller than commercial kitchens can be much smaller. We do a lot of restaurant work, so I know this uh than what this uh kitchen, which is decades old, um is. And so there there
was just ample opportunity to reuse uh a significant amount of this what today would be wasted space to to to do something very positive, which was create these additional rooms uh for accessible use for for handicapped people. So um the the answer is I I
can't give you a a dollar amount. um because we'd have to we'd have to look at several different options and try to qu um quant quantify the cost of those. But um uh what I would say is there there would be significant structural challenges to and reworking required to
make this fit. There's a stairway that's near the corridor on the restaurant side that might even have to be moved as part of that. >> Okay. what I'm uh Jamie, you've done a very good job of explaining the the basis for variance and and making
arguments with respect to it. I'm having a little trouble with the concept of why uh your clients don't simply continue the ca the same kind of use that has been going on for decades. An inn and a
restaurant as opposed to uh ending up killing the restaurant and having excess space that they don't know what to do with other than to come before us for a variance. Um I'm trying
to figure out why that's necessary given the ability to go forward with the exam as it exists now. >> Well, I think the answer to that, Paul, is a couple things. One is um they just don't see a a combined restaurant in use for this property is the best use for it given the limitations. They think
strictly using it as in is the best model for the property and they would prefer to have again the more rooms and then folks can eat in the downtown restaurants. Uh the second part of it is restaurants really are not generally their business. They operate in. So they would prefer um to focus on an in
operation. But I think the more important part is again if you look at it for u how it impacts the property um they think just an in use is really a best use for that property as opposed to trying to uh utilize a restaurant in that location.
>> Okay. I have no other questions. Jamie, uh, something came to me this week, just a thought, and it has to do with the full bar license that I presume exists
for that restaurant. And as I understand it, um, you can transfer a liquor license to someone who's using the same space, for instance, TK's or whatever it is,
they they took over the uh license that they previous folks had there. So, um, and if you don't use it, it goes into the I don't know if you can sell it. Uh, I don't know if it goes into a a pot that
the town would hand out, you know, I think whether it's there 18 full liquor licenses. I don't know. So, tell me what I'm aiming at is the Chadam in back when it was the Cranberry in had a full liquor license.
They didn't have a restaurant at that time, which they do now, but there was just a little room. You walked in the front door and you go in the little room and it was like a little bar set up. Oh, you want a drink? Sure. You know, and is that what's going to happen happen to
the liquor license that exists now for the Queen Ann >> or is there something else that I don't understand? >> No. So, there would be um if there's a liquor license um for the Hijars, they would just be serving beverages to
guests. So, it's not going to be available for um non- guests. Again, they're going to have a a breakfast service, continental breakfast with the small kitchen in the common area, and then there'd be a bar area for guests to get a cocktail in the afternoon or the
evening, but it's not available to the general public. >> Is is that possible to exclude the general public? I believe this lady probably has an answer or two. Oh, >> hi. Hello.
>> Uh, my name is Megan Yops. I'm the general manager of the Queen Anne Inn. Um, the liquor license that was held by the previous ownership at the Queen An was a seasonal license. So, it's not one that is of the rare commodity of a year-
round full liquor license. It was a seasonal full liquor license. So, we don't have to worry about that. Um, and we're able to apply for a new one on our own without having to transfer >> because there's unlimited seasonal licenses here in town.
>> Uhhuh. So, so there's going to be a little bar maybe. Is that right? >> We would like to be able to offer the ability for guests to purchase a bottle of wine and enjoy it in our garden. We would like to be able to if a guest is
coming for their honeymoon or a special occasion, be able to provide a complimentary bottle of champagne in room as a welcome amenity. Um, if someone is out by the pool, we'd love for them to be able to enjoy a cocktail by the pool in a plastic appropriate
piece of glasswear. Um, we don't have, we'd also, you know, if a family member is having a baby or celebrating an occasion and they wanted to do a small gathering, we would love to be able to offer them the appropriate beverages to celebrate. We're not looking to
have a, you know, a Friday night party every night. Um, believe me, that's the last thing that I want to be doing on a Friday evening as the general manager. Um, >> sounds like you'd be the waitress, too. Yeah, exactly. A general manager and in of this sort does wear a lot of hats.
So, um but no, we are not in the market to have a full, you know, bar out of control cafe liquor situation. No, it really would be just for in-house guests. >> Okay. So, so you feel it is legal to
exclude, you know, if somebody walked in off the street and say, "Hey, uh I want a martini." You can tell them to get lost. No, I mean if if they have had too much to drink already, then I would the legal requirement to tell them no, you sir, you cannot have another martini.
Um, as the holder of a liquor license, that is my obligation. Uh but you know if someone wanders in off the street or if you know there are family members in town, we do have a lot of guests who um come to stay at the inn because their
kids or their grandkids have houses and they just need an overflow place to stay. So say that one of their children wants to come and enjoy a drink with them. That is I'm obviously not going to turn them away. No. >> Okay. >> We are in the hospitality business after all. >> Yeah. All right. So, it'd be kind of
like a mini bar uh available to your guests. >> Yes. Without an actual mini bar. >> So, you would end up being the waitress. >> I have an incredible team. So, >> I see. Okay. All right. Well, I was just wondering about that. >> Good question.
>> Yeah. I didn't realize. Thank you, Megan. I didn't realize it was a seasonal license there, >> but Okay. All right. >> Jenny Qu. Well, I asked a lot of questions last time and I think I actually took up all of our time. I apologize to my colleagues that you didn't get to ask
questions last time. >> You got all night. >> So, I only have one left. Um, if you could just clarify, Jamie, the um be I think you said this at the beginning. Just clarify. Because of current zoning, the only thing that that
could be is an inn or a single family home. Is that what you said? >> I believe that's correct. have to be um I don't I'm I'm not I don't think you could even do condominiums or multif family. So, it would just be single family home or >> uh the current use. >> Okay. Thank you,
>> Steve. >> I'm happy with the questions that have been asked, >> Lee. >> No questions. >> Okay. >> Okay. Well, Paul, >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations.
Ed seconds and votes yes. >> All votes yes. >> Genie votes yes. I vote yes. >> And I vote yes. So who would like to start? I don't see any volunteers. Ed.
>> Um I guess I don't know. I I feel like we have somewhat of an obligation to help the town and help businesses in the town and and and see that businesses
succeed. Um that doesn't mean we necessarily have to provide a variance for that, but um I I I see this property as important to
the town. I I feel five guest rooms is certainly less intensive than a than a restaurant. And I I think um Jaime's done a good job explaining
the um criteria for a variance and it typically, you know, variances are very hard to meet. That's a it's a very high standard. But um there is leeway here and there with the
variance and I feel I could support this project. >> Paul, >> well, I've struggled a bit with this uh with this property because um I would like to see the business continue on. Um
and I think it could continue on as it has existed for the last number of years. Um unfortunately the the current owners would like to change that. Um and that's what's creating the question of
variance or nonvariance. um when I don't know that it's actually necessary the when you look at the the standards for the for the variance and look at the question of whether there are soil conditions, shape or topography
of the land or structure or building. Um the building is not as large but it's not that unusual. It's uh the the topography or the shape of the lot is larger than the lot at 77
Queen Anne Road, but it's the same configuration in terms of the narrowing rectangle. Um
and I feel that to a large extent the need for a variance is self-imposed. has been created by uh the applicant uh because of their concept that they want to change the way the business operates
and um that's fine but um that's something that they knew really ahead of even purchasing the property and they understood the conditions that were involved. So um my inclination is to say that it does not come to the
satisfaction of the standards for a variance um as set forth by the statute. Unfortunately, we're controlled by that as opposed to our desire to simply continue the business.
um and the the uh uh the way the the particular owners want to operate the business. Uh in this case, they're sophisticated. They know what they're doing. Um and they've taken on that risk. I'm concerned that they've not
necessarily met the standard. Jenny. >> Um, yeah, I agree with what Ed was saying that, you know, historic ins like the Queen An in are important local landmarks. Um, I also think that there's
uh I mean maybe obligation is not the right word, but but we're in a position to help uh with I think that um I agree that with a previous comment that Jamie, you've done a great job in going through the criteria. I I do think that owing to
the circumstances related to the shape of of the structure um I I think that that and also the uh hardship it's not a financial one it's an otherwise the otherwise is
zoning the zoning for this property is was imposed upon this inn years hund you know years ago and it's been an inn that's been operating for 150 years. So I what the way I I think of it is um the
conversion of the kitchen is a smart use of changing that for it to be a successful property and and inn and I think that that is a contemporary solution to what they see today as business owners of other properties like
this. So I I think it's a smart conversion. the alternative if it's not those uh 20,000 square feet for the two affordable housing is that it would just be unused or it would be this kitchen that they really don't want to have. And
I don't think that that's smart. I think that the town is talking about housing for uh workforce housing every day all day. And here are two options two two of them that are being proposed. So, when I look
at, and I talked a little bit about this last time, you're 54,000 square feet short today. And that seems like an off-putting like, oh my gosh, how how could you ask for more when you have 54,000? But you've been short that for 150 over
150 years. And we made that point last time. I also look at then, okay, so I kind of remove that from the big number of 89,000. And I'm comfortable with that. I then look at the next ask which is 20,000
square feet for the two units of workforce housing and I say that I think that's a great use of that 20,000 square feet and the conversion of that kitchen. So it for me the the ask is the extra 15,000 for five rental units and what
we're getting in exchange for that is no change to height, no change to footprint. um they have agreed to the historic asks that were to which I think are very important and they're costly that I watched the historic hearing and they
want um they wanted wood shingle u siding instead of you know composite and something that could last longer and immediately agreed right at the hearing they asked for real wood mill work for the front entryway not the entire
structure the front entryway because there is a difference in seeing the wood and I was you know again we're not the historic board but I think that was uh an important ask and I asked also if there was consideration of the shutters that was something else that historic
brought up those details aren't for this discussion but I was impressed with the willingness to honor the historic features of the inn and um and so I think that is part of the uh offset of the of the kitchen which seems to you
know, part of part of the the problem. Um, so again, going back to what we're getting, um, we're so we're getting those two units of workforce housing. We're getting greater access the accessibility for those five new apartments for the for the or the uh,
not apartments, but rental uh, units for the that will be, you know, meet the code. And so I I feel as though it's a a proposal that is workable. I think the biggest concern I had was parking and I think
you've addressed that today. Um the fact I didn't realize that by getting rid of the kitchen you get 12 you 12 additional parking spots. I wasn't factoring that into my number last time and so I'm now comfortable with the parking. Um additionally with
the recognition that you shared today of no, we'll we'll have this nailed down. This isn't a well maybe if we need it. No, we understand we may need it and we're going to have a plan for it and that plan is this um valet situation and possibly the folks across the street,
but you know that is um is something that is being uh recognized and being being uh part of what's proposed. So I I do So getting then to criteria three is desirable leaf uh is desirable relief
could be that could that be granted without substantial detriment to the public good? I think it's substant it's we're saving the inn. We're making improvements to housing opportunities. We are giving the
Hajars a little extra income to take on this project. The site visit showed just how enormous the that project is. It's in terrible disrepair and it's a significant and important historic property in downtown and it can't be
used for anything else except for a house. So I I think it meets all the criteria and not only is it, you know, is not a detriment to the public good or deraggates from the bylaw. I think it is u something doing something
substantially good. So I will leave it there. I support it. >> Steve, >> um well, it sounds like the applicant is not in the restaurant business and they would prefer not to have it. So, I think repurposing that
space where the kitchen and restaurant is now is is an excellent idea. Um, it does a few things. It helps preserve the internal architecture of the rest of the building so that they don't have to destroy hallways and door
openings in the rest of the building to accommodate uh ADA rooms. So, I think that's a that's that's an excellent idea that you came up with and you're still going to have a small kitchen or, you know, an eating area. So, um I think
that's a great idea without damaging the rest of the um the building. Um the in has been there, I guess, primarily in the size that it is now, on the lot that it is, where it is now, and
it's been operating for over a hundred years. And it, you know, if if it wasn't feasible to run an inn on that on that property, it wouldn't be an inn probably years ago. It would have come up with some other plan for that property. So,
if the property couldn't sustain the inn the way it is now, it would have been gone, I think, probably a long time ago. So, I I I don't have a problem with the extra the need for the extra space. 35,000 square feet for five rooms seems
I don't know unfair. It's an unfair ask. I know it's part of of the of what's required, but I mean that's the size of several large houses and to to to to uh to require that amount of space for five rooms, I think seems unreasonable.
So, I I don't have a problem with that. I think it's a great project and you know it's important to the town to keep that building and to keep it up and running and um I have no issues whatsoever whatever you're trying to do >> Lee.
>> Okay. Well, I will be brief. I am in favor of this. I think there's lots of positive things that will come out of it. I think that um you know I I've been in town long enough that I've seen a lot of these old quaint um important ins
disappear and we've had so many that have been turned into either housing or one home or whatever it is and I think the town needs these you know um quaint special historic ins. Um, so and I'm
always always in support of local businesses in town and whatever we can do to help them out. Um, so I think when it comes to the um, criteria, I I think that the unique conditions is the
historical nature of this building. I mean, there aren't other buildings like that in this district that are an inn. So, I think that it's um you know, it's really important to keep it keep it keep it running um renovated, which obviously
everyone has said needs significant renovation. Um and um and I agree with Jenny when she said the hardship is the zoning that's being imposed on this in that has been there for so long that, you know, I think that's a hardship to them
because they can't do what they want to do. Um the fact that they're not changing the footprint at all is very important to me. They're doing everything internally and they are um you know going to get some ADA compliant rooms and that's important. Um and in
terms of the um relief that may be granted without sub substantial detriment, I think it's I think it's a help to the town and the people of Chadam. um providing a historical inn providing workplace a workplace for some
um uh J1 or whatever the uh workers whatever they are I get confused um and you know having employees that will you know work at the end and make the end profitable and give us service and a
place for for people to stay. So, I'm in favor and I really commend the Hajars for taking this project on. You like this, don't you, Jamie? Jamie can count. He's thinking to himself, okay, there's three yeses and
one noses, and that leaves that up to me, doesn't it? Well, let's let's look at number one. The ask is huge,
but it needs to be, and I understand that. So, I'm not too concerned about what you want to do, but when I look it, it's it it has to be a variance.
And when I look at the criteria for a variance, particularly the hardship, and Paul hit on it's it's self-generated because they bought it and it's what it is.
there's nothing that changed after that and whatnot. And number two, um when you look at it from a economic standpoint, um it's not a hardship that you can't
make X dollars or you can't make another 10% or you can't make another. That's not a hardship either. But what changes the game is
eliminating the restaurant. And I don't know why anybody wants to be in the restaurant business in this day and age. It uh it's Does anybody want to be in the restaurant business? I don't think so. It's so difficult. And those that are in it, there's a secret to it and
you can figure out the formula and then you end up owning five or six and whatever it is. And these folks, your clients, they don't want to be in the restaurant business. I don't I don't blame them. So when I look at the space that they
want to convert from the restaurant into the 28 ADA compliant things, that's good. I like that. But I don't think I feel that way about the
three additional units beyond those two. The two staff manager apartments being the basement and all that, you know, I don't have any problem with that. But I think what I'm saying is
it is too much of an ask. But if you change this where you're asking for the two additional not five rental units for that restaurant space to become ADA
compliant and leaving in the two additional one for the staff manager participants. I could probably vote yes on that. But as it stands here I think it's a no. It's just too much of
an ass, particularly with our criteria. >> So, did I have a moment to speak with my client? >> I think you might need more than a moment. I'll give you three minutes. >> Three minutes. Perfect. Thank you. It's cutting the baby in half, but
it's a solution to me that gets what I want to see, which is AD. I want to see and I'm happy to help out. This days. What do you do? Let's go on. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. While we we're taking recess here, uh we do have some rearrangement of the officers of the board because we lost our vice chair. She took a demotion and
went on the select board. I'm sorry for that, but hey, everybody makes that choice. And uh so Paul, um today's >> nomination committee, we need
>> a new vice chair, and that would mean we would need a new clerk. >> Yes, I would like to nominate Virginia Fedwick as vice chair and Lee Hvey as clerk. Well, I would second both of
those, right? >> And uh unfortunately, Ed, you can't vote on this because it only you can't vote unless you're a maid member. I know it's a >> just getting a hang in a second.
>> So, and it also, but it doesn't have to be unanimous. It's it's, you know, 40Bs don't have to be super has to be unanimous. Uh it doesn't have to be unanimous. It doesn't have to be a super majority. It's just, you know, of course, here we get two to two, but
that's all right. So, I seconded Paul. >> Okay. >> And so, I vote yes. Okay. >> So, I can vote for myself. Okay. >> Uh, Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> Well, and I vote and congratulations to
the two of you. Thank you. You might wonder what happened to the chairman. Well, that's me and I was elected for a year last December. So, then you still stuck with me. So, thank you very much. >> Took care of that. >> Um, our next meeting will be the 40B4
meeting house road continued. Uh, begins at 100 p.m. next Thursday. Just a reminder to anyone because it's not our normal 2 o'clock time. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And following that, we're back to three.
>> Okay. Hey. Uh, I think uh the folks are coming in >> So Jamie, the floor is yours. Uh, one question for your consideration, uh, would be, would there be any willingness to have, uh, just one room
in the basement as opposed to three? Thinking that's no. Okay. >> So, they're they were proposing the two upstairs and the three guest rooms in the basement. So, they were uh, Mr. I was asking if it'd be possible if you'd be willing to consider just the one guest room in the basement in addition
to the two accessible rooms. >> Okay. What happened to the two staff units >> along with the staff units? >> So, it' be a total of three additional guest rooms and the two staff units. >> Yes.
>> Okay. Um, so he is willing to agree. Could you make a formal motion, please, to change your application? >> Uh, absolutely. So, we would um move to amend our application to request an
additional three guest rooms. Uh, one to be located in the basement, two to be located on the main floor, and the two employee housing quarters in the rear building. >> Okay. Okay. So, Paul, would you make a motion,
please? >> Uh, I'll move to accept the amended application with the changes as set forth by uh council. >> Eds and votes yes. >> Paul votes no.
>> Uh, Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> And I vote yes. That's a 4 to one decision. >> Thank you very much. >> But don't run off. because that was just the variance. I >> think we can withdraw the special permit, I guess, at this point. Oh, we
can't. >> No, you still need the special permit finding because it's not a one or two family structure. >> Oh, okay. So, that's uh 23-043. Uh is there any need for discussion on that? Uh just
>> it would just be amended to be three three rental units and two staff. >> Right. >> Correct. >> Right. >> Any discussion? >> I'll any deliberation? >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> Very good.
>> Will second. >> Paul votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. I vote yes. >> Yes. Okay. Deliberations. Ed. Um, I'm I'm good to go. >> All right, Paul. >> I think we've deliberated as much as we
need to. Yes. >> So, I'll move to uh approve the application as submitted. >> Ed will >> as amended. I'm sorry. As amended. >> Ed will second and we'll vote yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes.
>> I vote yes. >> And I vote yes. That's your unanimous vote. >> Thank you very much. I don't think so. I don't think it's necessary. >> So, >> thank you very much. >> Okay. Uh, congratulations and
>> thank you very much. >> So, let's have a motion to >> I'll move to adjourn. >> Ed votes yes. >> Okay. >> All votes yes. >> Yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> Steve votes yes. I vote yes. >> It is 5:58 p.m.
>> 5:58. Thank you. We're all done. >> Welcome to