Good afternoon everyone. This is the May 22nd, 2025 meeting of the zoning board of appeals in Chattam, Massachusetts. Pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28, 2025 signing of the chapter 2 of Acts of 2025, extending certain COVID measures
adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law until June 30, 2027. This meeting of the Chattam Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted in person and via remote participation. Every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the
proceedings as provided for in the order. A reminder, if you'd like to listen to the meeting while in progress, call 508-945-4410 conference ID 979843564. Pound or join the meeting through the link on m about Microsoft
Teams in the posted agenda. Well, this is a live broadcast and simal cast on Chattam TV Xfinity channel 1072. Despite our best efforts, we may not be able to provide real time access, but we'll post a record of this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible. In
accordance with town policy, the public can speak to any issue, hearing, or business item, or on the agenda during the meeting when recognized by the chair. Before I give you the procedural steps, I would ask you to shut off all devices that make any noise. whatsoever
and um it's customary that hats are not worn indoors um at at public meetings. Um so I'd ask you to conform with that. So first thing we do is we have a roll call of all board members and then we
ask if anybody participating in the call via the phone um give indicate their last four digits in their name so that we can identify you. The hearing notice will be read by staff. Sarah o' Clark on my right. Um then the presentations of
the appeal or applications will take place. Anyone in favor of the um application can speak for up to five minutes and there'll be a clock timing um your your recitation. After that I will read any of the correspondence we
received. Next, anyone that has a question or would like to speak against an application will have the opportunity to do that. Then the applicant can rebut any testimony that they see fit. We will have questions from the board, hear further information. Then we will close
the public hearing and the board deliberates and usually votes. Applicants need a super majority in Massachusetts, which is four out of five votes. Um, voting today is David Vch and
David Nixon, Paul Simple and and Lee Hy um and Virginia Fenwick. And so you need four out of the five votes. Um, let's see. Then all votes are taken by roll call because that's the uh open meeting
law in Massachusetts at this point. And at the end of the meeting, we will close with a verbal confirmation and note the time of adjournment. So the first thing we do to authorize this form of the meeting is we have a roll call me vote of all board members beginning with
David Vch. Uh David H. Vich and I approve of this format. Uh Ed Actton I approve. David S. Nixon I approve. Paul C. Simple I approve. Lee Hvey I approve. Steven D. Deborne I approve. Virginia Fick I approve. And Randy Pes I approve
as well. So we have let's see minutes. April 24th, 2025. Paul, yes. I will move to approve the minutes uh of April 24, 2025. I understand we do have some corrections. Okay. Before can we have a
second and then we'll open. I will second that. And uh anybody have corrections? Yes, Miss Hubby. Um on the last page, motion to adjourn adjourn. Um said I was present and voted yes, but I was not present. Okay. Well, well, I'll
move to approve the minutes uh with that correction. Oh, also Miss Fenwick. Yeah, on page n sorry on page nine um it says that Mr. Simple moved to close the hearing. He had actually recused. So Mr. Vich closed
the move to close the hearing and Ed Actton voted second. Okay, we'll make a note of that. Anything else? Nope. Can we have a roll call vote on that then? And and um I second and I vote yes. I vote yes. All votes yes. I vote yes.
Jenny votes yes. Okay. Very good. So, uh, our first application is 25-017 Andrew and Allison Pelosi, care of William G. Lichfield, Esquire. Application number 25-017, Andrew and Allison Pelosi, care
of William G. Lichfield, Esquire, 330 Orleans Road, North Chattam, Mass 02650. Owners of property located at 8 Cod Lane. also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 14G block 69 lot B102 the applicant proposes to change
alter or expand a non-conforming dwelling in a non-conforming lot via the construction of an addition the existing dwelling is non-conforming and that it is located 30.6 ft from Cod Lane and 20.4 4 ft from the Easterly abutter. Proposed addition will be non-conforming
and that it will be located 31.9 ft from Cod Lane where a 30 where a 40ft setback is required. The existing building coverage is 1,482 ft 11% and the proposed building coverage is 2,4 ft 14.9% where 15% is the maximum allowed.
the law is non-conforming and that it contains 13,420 square feet where 40,000 square feet is required in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law Chapter 4A section 6 and section 5B of the protected bylaw. Attorney Lichfield, welcome. Thank you, Madam Chair, members
of the board, Bill Lichfield here on behalf of Allison and Andrew Pelosi. Andrew is right in the front row. Uh, I want to, as is often the case, commend the central permitting coordinator for saving you miles uh by scheduling two
hearings on shore on Shane Drive and one on Cod Lane. She got you into one part of town, which I'm sure was useful for you. Uh Andrew and Allison have owned the house on the corner of Cod Lane and Derry Street for 14 years now and uh
they are thinking about making it uh more ready for eventual year round living. They're not quite at the retirement stage, but they do want to plan in that regard. And they also have some family situations which warrant some space. More specifically, this
house was built in 1961 and it has very small bedrooms. They have two 15year-old twins and boys and their current bedroom is right next to where those two 15year-old twins
live. They'd like to have some room at the other end of the house and the only way to do that is to put the master bedroom as shown on that plan off to the left. So, you've seen the plans. That's Sarah has the site plan there. Uh the lot is for the Old Harbor Pines
neighborhood, relatively large. It's in excess of 13,000 square feet. It's more or less dwarfed by the old Millard Eldridge uh dairy farm uh immediately to the south. Uh we are like everything in the neighborhood non-conforming as lots as to lot size because it was developed
in the R10 era. Uh the house is a little bit too close to the easterly uh lot line. That's not going to change. We happen to be on a corner lot obviously and accordingly we need to meet two street setbacks who meet one that to
Derry Street but at present we don't meet the uh COD lane setback under current zoning. Uh so that's sort of a segue into the uh into the criteria. Sarah maybe the uh site the house plans might be useful.
Thank you. Uh what is proposed? That's what's there uh on the top right hand side. Uh thank you. That's that's fine. Uh that is the existing facade and there is a porch um which we are proposing to
replace with what you'll see from that elevation is a farmer's porch. Uh and maybe you could go to the proposed Sarah. Uh, and at the top right, the house will have a sort of traditional step down as it goes along, which tends
to minimize, I use the word mass loosely because there really is no mass to a house of this size. So, I'll go into the criteria as to adequacy of of site, including building coverage and setbacks. As I indicated, all of the lots in the neighborhood are non-conforming, although this house this
lot is somewhat larger than some others. Uh the site however is certainly adequate and I think you can find it to be sufficient for the additional living space which is requested. Uh we will comply as to coverage. Uh the small farmer's porch is less non-conforming as
to the street setback than is the existing house and the balance of the changes meet all of the requirements of the bylaw. As to compatibility of size, as I indicated, we have a relatively large lot for the neighborhood with a smaller footprint than most. On the
third page, you can see that we are in the mid-range as to gross floor area and living area. Uh the uh gross floor area at present is less than 2700 square ft. It'll increase to 3,62.
The living area will be up to go up to 1868, but we're in a neighborhood where several of Butters are in excess of 2,000 square feet of living area. So, we'll remain compatible if you approve the special permit. Certainly comp comparable to the others. As to the
extent of increase, we have the nonconformities as Sarah read in the hearing notice. Lot size, one of the two street setbacks and the west easterly sideline setback. There is no increase in nonconformity. The farmer's porch is 31, the proposed farmer's porch is 31.9
feet from the street while the existing house is 30.6 feet. And I think more importantly from a visual or perspective of feeling uh not all of the road is paved and the actual not all of the legal layout is paved and the porch will
actually be 41 feet from the pavement. So further further back than it might appear on the paper site plan as the suitability of site there are no environmental issues. Uh so that's really not a concern as the scale sighting mass views and vistas. The
existing structure is a low profile cape. Uh as I indicated it's minimized further by the Eldridge Dairy Barn which tends to dominate the streetscape certainly when you come in from Barliffe. The sighting if you approve the special permit will be unchanged. We are relatively far from the streets with
most of the additional living space at the rear of the lot. It's certainly larger, but it's rather shielded and again I think the step down ridges are helpful and the scale is in keeping with the neighborhood. There are no views or vistas involved as to the use. It's a
residential use and that will continue. Adequacy of water and sewer. We have a town water and a title five for three bedrooms. There's no change in that regard. The chair will read a letter from the health agent and we are aware that we can't have any doors into the
bedroom which is being converted into a den and as shown on the plans there is a casement door there. There are no traffic and flow traffic flow and safety uh noise or utility issues. So, as you know, uh the question for you to
determine is whether the proposed additional living space with conversion of onebedroom uh to a family room/den and then construction of a larger uh bedroom on the southwest corner uh with significant greater
utility for uh Andrew and Pelos's family, Andrew and and Allison Pelosy's family, but meeting current zoning requirements is substantially more detrimental the neighborhood. than the current non-conforming structure on a non-conforming lot. The additional space
is primarily for a larger uh primary bedroom and bath at that end of the house as I indicated together with a family room uh which will give the house more utility for the family. It complies the proposal complies with all bulk and dimensional requirements and again the
small farmer's porch I think is far from substantial in its impact on the retirement. So in light of the goal of the Pelosis to have the house uh ready for eventual retirement and also to give them a little bit of separation uh I think that you can find that based on
the plans and this location you can find that the proposed changes are not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Be happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application? Please raise your hand.
Seeing none, I will read the two correspondences. One, as noted, was from uh health agent Judith Giorgio 52125 um dated in a letter that she says she's received the plan to renovate and reconfigure the property. It appears
that the dwelling will maintain the existing three-bedroom layout. Our existing bedroom, one existing bedroom will be converted to a den with the addition of a six-foot cased opening. No doors will be allowed in this room. The addition will encroach on the septic tank and a permit will be needed to
relocate said tank to meet the requirements of title 5. Next, we have a note from John Hoother and his addresses um let's see 98 COD Lane. He writes uh
to us about three on all on three different applications today. um the the COD lane applications in Shane Drive, but I'll read them every time. What he says is that um he has no issues with the project, but the issue that he does
have is that projects have um the placement of a dumpster and a portable toilets in um projects that take a long time, like up to a year. Nobody wants to look and smell the toilets or dumpsters. I think the property owners and
contractors need to find places out of the sight of neighbors for these uh utilities. I know the vendors want to access their equipment, but not at our expense. He uh asked that they should be required uh to put them out of sight at
every work site in town. John Hoother and uh 98 Card Lane. That concludes the correspondences for this application. Is there anybody here? All right, Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak against this application or has a specific
question. No questions from the board, Mr. V. We'll just go around this way. Uh, no questions. No questions. No questions. No questions. No questions. No questions. No question then. Okay. Uh, Paul, I'll move to close the hearing
and move into deliberations. Uh, Dave each seconds and votes yes. I vote yes. Paul votes yes. I vote yes. Jenny votes yes. Okay, that's unanimous. Uh deliberations. Um Virginia Fenwick, I think it's a great um it's a very
thoughtful expansion. Um I think Mr. Lichfield summarized everything very well. Um certainly I think believe it meets our criteria. Certainly not substantially more detrimental. Okay, Mr. V, what do you say? I absolutely agree. It's a a project fits right into
the neighborhood. well welldesigned and very nice. And Ed Actton, I agree as well. I I believe it's going to fit in nicely with the neighborhood. Mr. Nixon, there's no reason to believe in anyway. This is detrimental to the neighborhood. And Steve, yeah, I feel the same way. I don't I
don't see this impacting anybody. I was going to ask you what that building was in the back, but you explained that. Yeah, he's not in this part of the hearing. A little more history. You can't Yeah, this is just us. All right. And Lee, I agree with my colleagues. It's um a great house, great
neighborhood, and a great project. Yeah. Very good, Paul. I agree with my colleagues. And now I'll move to approve the application as submitted. Uh I guess the question would be time frame in terms of the work. Thank you. Uh the Pelosis already have a builder, Ben
Morgan, uh will be doing the work. I don't think the Pelosis would plan on doing anything before Labor Day, so the standard condition would be acceptable. All right. I'll move to approve the application on the conditions that all construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neighboring
property with the permission of the property owner that between June 30th and Labor Day, no exterior construction will be allowed. No work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. only. Uh Dave seconds and
votes yes. I vote yes. All votes yes. I vote yes. Jenny votes yes. That's unanimous. Congratulations. Thank you very much. Okay, next up is 25-027 Kettle Taga Harbor Trust uh Care
of Cape Cod and the Islands Engineering um incorporated. Sir, application number 25-027 Kalatuga Harbor Trust Care of Cape Islands Engineering Inc. 800 Falmouth Road Sweet 301C MASHP PM Mass 02649.
owner of property located at 176 Stage Island Road, also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 14A1, block 2, lot D7. The applicant seeks to reconstruct a portion of the elevated stairway under section 4 A3A of the protective bylaw. The lot contains
33,53 ft in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48, section 9 and section 8D2B of the protected bylaw. And I believe our applicant is online. Is that accurate, Mr. Rivera?
Yes, that is correct. Um, for the applicant, Rauli Sardi from Cape Island Engineering representing the applicant and homeowner for this project. Um, for those who have reviewed or even visited the site. Um, this project is to mainly
repair a failing um, peer stair access structure. Um last year after several storms the bank at this property has been collapsing and eroding away and the existing um upper tier stairs and
platform um status sliding down along with the coastal bank. What we are proposing to do is repair this section of of the upper landing and stairs not the entire pier and not do anything more to the pier just repair this one
section. Now, the existing pier was licensed back in 1972 and it predated the local zoning regulations um at the closest point to the uh bought property line. This pier is located roughly 7 ft away from that property line. Um we did
provided um some revisions and this plan that was submitted with this application shows the revision that we showed to the conservation commission where we reduce the width of that upper section to 4t wide. The existing um platform is
slightly larger but this one is being proposed at four feet to comply with um the width requirements um by the town. Um what we're proposing to do with that reduction is also increase the set back to that same property line by one foot.
So the non-conforming setback of 6.9 ft is still non-conforming but it is um a little better at 7.9 ft because some of the sediment has been lost. Um we are actually moving that platform slightly
higher to reach um the stable grounds at a slightly higher elevation. Um the project is not interfering with any of the waterways safety or navigation. Um this project is technically above main high water and
above the reach of any of the tights. The existing pier which is at the middle um section elevation and the lower section that will remain the same. So all of this work is happening above water. Um we don't believe this is any
um detriment to the neighborhood. Uh I believe it is a safety condition right now and it will benefit both the property owner's use of the pier as well as protecting the resources and wetlands uh from further damage. If there's any
questions, I'll try to answer. Thank you very much. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application? If so, please raise your hand. Seeing none, I will read the one correspondence that we received from the conservation commission on May 6, 2025.
They tell us that they are scheduled um to order um to place an order of conditions on this application on June 4th and it will be revised and it will meet the performance standards under the wetlands protection act.
Does anybody here on Microsoft Teams wish to speak against or has a question about this application? Seeing none, are there any questions from the board? No. Yes. Virginia Fenwick, please. Yeah. Uh, hi Raul. How are you today? Good. Thank
you. You mentioned the pier. I think the pier was built in the 70s 72 you said. What about the stairs? Were they built at the same time? So yes, the entire structure was one structure constructed and licensed in 72
and and the platform and everything that we're talking about replacing that was all so that's 50 years old that structure. Correct. Okay. Um and so the erosion is pretty bad. Are you I think I saw on conservation that you were planning to
um uh reconstruct the pier but also uh improve the site. Is that right? You're going to That is correct. Remove invasives and do mitigation. Yes. In addition to the structural repair that's needed, um there is a soft
solution being um proposed for this project and has been presented to the conservation commission to stabilize um the bank. Along with that stab stabilization, there is some invasive plant species. Um, and to get everything
to work together, um, we are removing some of some of that invasive um, within a I think it's an area 8 ft around the proposed work that we're doing. Okay. So, the key word is stabilization. You're doing you're working on that. You're not just repairing the stairs.
That's right. I mean, the the bank is exposed. We cannot just leave it like that because anything we do will continue to to collapse. Yep. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else have questions? No. Okay. Paul, I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. Uh
Dave Beach second yes. Yes. All votes yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. Now, uh deliberations. David Beach. Well, certainly there's a need for this uh and uh on on both respects, both in
terms of stabilizing the bank and rebuilding this section. Um, I think it's it's certainly not substantially detrimental in any way. Uh, and I think it meets all of our criteria and I'll support it. Okay. Ed, I agree. I it it meets our criteria.
It's a it's a repair and it's also an improvement to the bank. So, um, they're voting. I would have my vote. Mr. Nixon. Well, this has been a multi-year um erosion problem as many homes here in
Chadam have elsewhere too. So I think the Kim family has gone about it in the correct way about hiring really people know what's going on looked at the alternatives and what we've had presented today and as Miss Fenwick
point out the stabilization is the key to this because you don't want this to be come back in three years and say hey it didn't work you know and so forth. So I'd certainly recommend voting for her. All right, very good. And Paul, yes, it certainly meets our criteria and it's an
improvement over the existing situation. So, I intend to support it. And Lee, yeah, I agree. Um, it's a big project, but um it looks like they have a good plan and um especially like the whole concept of the stabilization of the bank
because otherwise it's going to continue to be a problem. Yeah. Yeah. And uh Steve, I agree with all the previous and as do I. Yeah. So, they're not rearranging the deck on the Titanic here. So, uh very good. Um Paul, I'll
move to approve the application as submitted. I think uh given the location and the drive, uh u the roadway there. Uh it's appropriate to say that all construction activity and vehicles would be contained on site or at a neighboring
property with the permission of the property owner. I don't think there's a need for any other conditions. No, no, I agree. Um Dave seconds and votes yes. I vote yes. All votes yes. I vote yes. Jenny votes yes. And that's unanimous. Congratulations. We'll see you next
time. Thank you. All right. And moving right along. Today we're going to 57 Cist Lane, the Parson's Family Revocable Trust 25-024. Care of William G. Litzfield.
And when the Sierra is ready, we'll hear that application. Application number 25-2024 Parson Family Revocable Trust Care of William G. Lichfield, Esquire, 330 Orleans Road, North Chattam, Mass 02650. Owners of property located at 57
Cus Lane. Also shown on the town of Chattam's assessor's map 2A, Block 13, lot 19. The applicant proposes to change, alter, or expand a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a new dwelling. The
existing and proposed dwelling comply with the setback requirements. However, the law is non-conforming and that it contains five dwellings where one is allowed and has zero feet of frontage where 100 ft is required. The existing building coverage is 3,362 ft and the proposed building
coverage is 3,440 ft where 2,950 ft is the maximum allowed. The lot contains 37,700 ft of land area and 26,223 ft of buildable upland area in
the R20 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law Chapter 4A section 6 and section 5B of the protected bylaw. Welcome back, Attorney Litzfield. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Still Bill Lichfield. Uh I am here today uh in regard to 57C Miss
Lane. It must have been what almost a month since you've been out to see Miss Lane. So we thought we thought it was time for you to return. Uh although the vast crowd of opposition has somewhat dwindled because the only people in the
room here today are basically members of the Parsons family. Uh the applicant is Pam Parsons who is in the green raincoat, her granddaughter to to her right, her friend Wayne to her left, and in front of her is Diana Zaglio of MCI
Associates, our architect. Uh Parson's family purchased this property in 1959. Uh they have some roots in the neighborhood. In fact, one of you has a 432 prefix to his phone number. uh the
others don't but this was once known as Pharisees field u nothing to do with anything biblical but Pharisees comes from the ancient Greek it means set off and as Paul knows South Chattam is sort of set off or
separate so um it was built as a cottage colony in in the 50s actually before zoning and uh Pam's mom and dad owned the property for many years and she owns it now and she is thinking about uh
eventual retirement and she would like to have some additional living space in one of the five cottages. Um that is obviously one of the many nonconformities as shown on the site plan. We have a long narrow lot although
by South Chattam standard it's fairly large. It's 37,000 square ft. You're familiar obviously with the fact that there are other cottage colonies now converted to condominiums in the neighborhood. This has not been converted. It remains owned by the Parson's family by Pam, but she would
like to take one of the units and make it a much more livable yearround home uh for the future. So, if I could, Madam Chairman, I'd like to invite Diana Zaglio to come up and talk about uh what is proposed, the actual plans, and then we'll go from there. Diana, there are
two mics, so you don't have to be shy. Sounds good. Um, hi. As Bill said, I'm Diana Zaglio from McFee Associates and I work with Pam to develop the design for the cottage. Welcome. Thank you. Um, I guess I would just say that Pam has a deep
attachment to the property. Spent her childhood here and maintains and takes care of the cottages on her own. She comes to do this and she lives at the property throughout the summer. Um, so you know, she does not have an interest in tearing everything down and building
a a brand new bigger house that could be feasibly be conforming. She wants to keep maintaining the cottages and continue to rent them. She has some renters who've been coming for many years. Um, and then the one that she stays in, which happens to be at the top and is not on the coastal bank, but is
also kind of furthest removed from the water and oversees the rest. Um that's the one that she stays in and that's the one that she is proposing to replace. Um on that note, we have tried to create a
small but very uh detailed and hopefully beautiful cottage that would have you know with the roof formed that will sort of keep it um help it blend in to the other beautiful buildings in the area
not overwhelm them. Pam is an artist, so she would very much like to have northern facing windows for an art studio. Um, in fact, the whole upstairs is starts at a lower plate height and just vaults up to create a light o like
an light airy space um with views to the water, but also with some windows that you can see on the what I'm the front elevation is actually facing away from the water. So, the tall windows on the left there are her art studio space, and it's really just not a very
large space. She has um two legal bedrooms. One is really just a tiny space upstairs. Um she's not increasing any bedroom count and the septic system will remain. there'll need to be a connection to that which is something I think the um health agent might have
commented on and that will come if um and really that's she just wants to create a small space that she can be in and you know have a grandchild visit now and then and still do her artwork and then continue to take care of the cottages and she hopes to pass the
property on in the family at some point. So I think that's all we'll say for the moment we're here in case as to the criteria then and obviously Diana will be happy as would I to answer any questions about the plans themselves
but the first matter is adequacy of site including building coverage and setbacks notwithstanding uh the nonconformities of having multiple dwellings as shown there and a lack of frontage the site was adequate for houses built more than 70 years ago before zoning. If you
approve the special permit, I think you can do so based on a finding that the site remains adequate for reconstruction of the one house allowing for future future retirement use as well as her art studio. It conforms as to all setback requirements and is below the height
limitation. The net coverage with the removal of uh a large shed immediately adjacent to the house will increase by just 78 square feet. As to compatibility of size, as I indicated, the lot is relatively large at just under 38,000
square ft and several lots uh in the neighborhood, as you are very aware, have multiple dwellings. Uh the current house at just 614 square feet of gross floor area and living area is by far the smallest in the neighborhood. If you
look at the third page of the handout, uh I'll I'll get to some of the comparisons. The goal, as Diana indicated, is to increase the living area without significant change in the footprint. So, a second story is necessary for that purpose. But
topography creates some challenges. Uh but all but one other uh abuing property, everything on that page, that third page has a second floor. Uh, so going up is consistent with the surroundings. And Sarah, I had sent you
a couple of photographs if you might bring up. That's the view from the bottom of Seamus Lane. To the right hand side are Pam's four other cottages. Uh, when she goes down to the beach, that's what she looks up at on her her left
when she on the west when she's coming back. Those are 72 and 60 seammy. And I think there are a couple of others that give you a similar feel. Those are aerial views which none of us gets an immediate feel but it does show you the size of those houses and I'll get to that. And then on the other side to the
right hand side or east side uh there's a motel on Perkins Drive which backs up and the photographs there speak to the height and size of those houses. So looking at comparisons
uh if you look at that are are our even including all five structures on the lot we are at nine we will be if you approve the special permit at only 9.1% of lot coverage. Uh two of our abutters are
greater than that. But most interestingly as to gross floor area, the total if you approve the special permit, uh the gross floor area right now is 32.98. That's for five structures. If you approve the special permit with a basement, which doesn't
really count for living space, our uh gross floor area is $49.95. The two houses next door at 7 60 and 72 uh semist have gross floor area in the range of 7,000 square feet. That's for one
house. Our numbers are combined for five houses. The gross floor area of the house we're that's before you today 57 is only 2,415 square ft of which 7 800 odd square feet is a basement which
obviously won't be shown. So I think you can find that what is proposed is compatible with the neighborhood. And as you know, immediately adjacent, the the uh Stanish Village condo has got about, I think, 9,000 square ft of
uh roughly 9224 9,224 square ft of coverage. So those houses put together are substantial. As to the extent of increase, there are nonconformities. As noted in the in the legal ad, the there was a slight increase less than 80 square feet in
coverage or removing one of the sheds. And parathetically, in case you wondered uh about the the little shed at the northeast corner which encroaches, we have a letter from the abuter giving us a license to leave it there. So from a zoning perspective, it may not be an issue. Uh anyway, or rather from a legal
perspective, from a zoning perspective, it predates zoning as far as we know. It's been there since Pam's father was there as far as we know. Uh as to uh the suitability of the site, we have a residential lot and a residential neighborhood as Pam
indicated or Diana indicated rather. Uh the lot does go down to Nantucket Sound, but this house is some 200 feet 250 ft back from the top of the top of the bank. So there are no environmental concerns. Scale sighting, mass, views, and vistas. The existing cottage is
essentially identical to the other four on the lot. It's very modest the scale uh but it's been in the Paris family for a long time. It is without impact on views and vistas. The addition of a second floor is an obvious change. Uh but the scale remains appropriate and
it's an attractive design. I don't think I'd be telling tales out of school to to indicate that uh Pam spoke to a couple of families who had some concerns about Stish the Standish condos and they are on board. They are immediate abutters to this property and they had no objection.
There is virtually no impact on the streetscape because there's virtually no street. Uh when you get beyond 57, it is Pam's driveway to her other cottages. Uh the uh there's a hedge to the west and the motel to the east behind a fence and
in a very private location. And again uh unlike the recent matters you've considered there are no views uh either either individual or neighborhood at issue as to compatibility of use it will remain residential use the changes will make year round living more feasible or
at least extended living if not I was going to say nobody wants to be there in February but after a day like today I'm not sure you want to be there in May but that's a separate issue uh as to adequacy of water and sewer this house all all of them are served by town water we have two bedrooms Chair will read a letter from Miss
Giorgio. There is no change. We already have a deed restriction uh limiting the entire lot to 11 bedrooms. The septic tank will be relocated and Ryder and Will Cox will be doing the engineering and is ready to provide the board of health with any additional information
which they might require. So that ought not be an issue. as to traffic flow and safety. There was probably more traffic due to the zoning board of appeals on Seamus Lane than anything else is not exactly a thorough affair. Uh no no
noise, litter or utility issues. So the question, as you know, is whether the proposed reconstruction of one of the five family-owned cottages almost, but not quite on the existing footprint, is substantially more detrimental to the
neighborhood than the current structure on a non-conforming lot. The coverage increases marginally. I know we can't say dimminimous, but it increases marginally. Clearly, the second story is a change, but it's consistent with its surroundings and it's below what's
allowed. Again, all but one other structure on one other property on the house on the street rather has a second story. Given its location, the house is largely hidden. And with again the with five dwellings on our lot, our total
living area and gross floor area is only 2/3 of the single uh houses on comparable lots next door. So what Diana has designed for Pam and her family will increase the living space without
significantly changing coverage. Uh it's an appropriate and thoughtful design as shown there which was the goal of the project and will allow the applicant and her family can to continue to enjoy the use of the of the property as they have since
1959. Uh clearly it's a change but I think in light of the criteria and the plans I think that you can find that the proposed changes are not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Is there anybody here on Microsoft
Teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application? Seeing none, I will read the correspondence from Judith Giorgio, our health agent, received on 52125. She receeded the proposed plan to demo an existing cottage and rebuild.
The plan does not appear to increase the sewage flow of the property. This is a shared septic system for all cottages on this lot. plans show the existing system. Future connections to the new dwelling and existing floor plans will be needed for
review. That concludes the correspondences. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak against this application or has a question? Seeing none questions from the board, Virginia Fenwick, start up there.
I I don't have any questions right now. Okay. Well, we'll circle back if you raise your hand. Steve, um I don't think I really have any questions. I was going to ask if because I I wasn't quite getting it in the beginning if all of these houses all of
these houses were on the same lot and owned by the same people. And I think you sort of alluded to that several times in your in your presentation. So the the the nearest a butter to this is a dwelling on our own property. Our we are our own abut butters. Yes. Okay. All
right. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you, Lee. No questions. Paul, I have no questions. Mr. Nixon, no questions. Mr. Actton. Uh, no questions. Mr. V. No questions.
Okay, then. Paul, um, I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. Uh David seconds and vote yes. Yes. All vote yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. So now we'll do deliberations and we'll start with Jenny again.
Uh I do agree it's very attractive design. Um, however, it's a very unique property and that's why I couldn't really phrase what my question was, which is you've got a lot that is um 74 feet approximately wide and a house that's
being proposed on that that's 32 feet. Um, I think it does meet the setbacks, but it it I don't I don't think that it's a fair comparison to compare this proposed house, as lovely as it is, to
the houses that are next to it because the the whole lot is part of this cottage community. And I I don't think it fits in there with this design. um by itself it it uh is smaller than
those other large houses that Mr. Lichfield showed us. Um and then of course the hotel on the other side and then you've got Seamus which we're very familiar with. It has cottages that are all improving but but this is I think in its own category. I think it's too tall
at 1 foot 3 in from the maximum in Chattam for a small cottage community. Um, and I but I can appreciate that folks want to expand. Um, but maybe not everyone in the cottage community, they
bought in the cottage community because they want to be in a cottage community. And if all these houses are um you know expanding to to this degree, I I don't know that it fits in the neighborhood. I guess that's my summary. Okay, Mr. Mr. Beach.
Um well, I think it to me uh the proposal it fits the neighborhood. Um and I think you know some of the things that uh Bill has the numbers he's shown us help to illustrate that. Um, I mean certainly there's no
shortage of second stories on homes in the neighborhood. Um, I think uh also I mean and it's it's a tractor design that I think fits. I understand uh Jenny has a concern about the height,
but it does uh it falls pretty well below the 30foot uh height requirement that the bylaw imposes. And um I was I was fortunate I had a a a discussion uh with Miss
Parsons while I was out there looking at it. And just I I have to say I'm I'm somewhat um I really would like to commend that what she's proposing to do with this property which basically keep those other cottages as they are and
keep them in the family ownership and do upgrades to them but not replace them. She talked to me about changing siding and roofing, things like that. And I I mean just that that intention alone to me is worth my consideration. I mean this is a
this is an old school type property and and this is a a someone seeking to make an improvement to one of the buildings in a way that I think can fit in the neighborhood and certainly uh is not substantially more detrimental. Okay.
And Steve, what do you say? Oh, I I kind of like this this project. It's a I think it's a nice design. You've incorporated some some antique features, the stained glass windows and things. Um I think it's it's a nice project and as I think as long as those other cottages
aren't going to be affected adversely, um I don't have an issue with this at all. Okay, Ed. I I'm not sure it's initially going to fit into the neighborhood. It and and that's primarily because you have kept
this a small footprint, but the you know the the footprint and the height are are about the same almost. But I I think it initially, you know, will look rather large, but I think after time it'll
it'll sort of blend in. And um I don't think it's going to fit initially, but I think it's it's certainly not going to be detrimental to the neighborhood. Uh substantially detrimental. So substantially detrimental. What do you say, Mr. Nixon?
Well, I don't like it. I really don't. Uh to me, the height is too much for the neighborhood. And the neighborhood is those five homes on that part of Seus. It's as Mr.
Litfield pointed out the homes to the right are really you can't you unless you go down that driveway you don't even know what they are and to the left it's pretty well insulated. So when I look at this to me the neighborhood is these five homes and having the one that is
already the highest because of the topography. Now all of a sudden we're going up to I guess is it 28, 29, whatever the answer might be. Um it simply is the wrong place, the wrong
time and it is going to be substantially more detrimental to that neighborhood. And Lee, um well, I I have to say I I learned a lot from Mr. Lichfield's presentation today because I did not
realize that the one family owned all of those cottages. Um, and I think that's a very cool situation to have and they're lucky. Um, I did struggle uh with the height as well, but considering the
circumstances, I think that the house is very attractive. I think that the fact that the owner of the property will be living there is appropriate. Um, and I can I can support it. Um, I I
might agree with Ed. It might look um different for a little while, but I think that um I think that it is a um appropriate um reconstruction uh whatever you know,
building um considering the circumstances, considering the fact that it is the cottage community. Um and I I will support it. and Paul. Well, this is uh this property is on one of my walking routes that I do
periodically. I think I actually saw Wayne out there about two weeks ago. Um and I'm familiar with it. Um it it seems to me that um it certainly doesn't compare to 60 and 72 Semist which are
large homes and have been there I guess now for maybe six or seven years. Uh the uh putting the house at the top at 57 as opposed to further down uh the driveway towards the water uh is a break
for uh uh everyone. Uh and I think it uh it will fit into the neighborhood um quite well once uh it's done. It's just going to be different and uh but that's to be expected compared to a a
a cottage community that's been there for as long as this has been there. Um certainly it's a change but it is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. So um you can count you know who's voting. I I I I'm not 100%
certain because if if I may respond I haven't heard from the chair and I always like to hear from the chair. So, I I tend to agree with Paul um and I I think that um under the circumstances and I agree with Lee as well that that it won't be substantially detrimental.
Um and uh so I would if I had been voting I probably would have voted yes. Um I don't like that it's over the over in terms of the um the uh building coverage. It's already over the building coverage that's allowable and now it's going more over. So that causes me some
concern and uh but I'm not voting. So uh having having gone to Chattam schools when there were such things before they came became anoy my counting is imperfect. Might the chair indulge me with a a straw vote. Absolutely. Thank
you. Um so David V. Yes. David Nixon. No. Paul. Yes. Lee. Yes. Jenny. No. That being the case, Madam Chairman, we uh we've heard you.
Uh my tendency, if the board would allow it, would be to ask for continuence until a late August, Labor Day, if not a withdrawal without prejudice. I'm going to confer with the boss on that and see. I know we have uh applications
scheduled all the way into July at this point. that that's not that overwhelm a September date would be acceptable. If you'd like the end of August, that is August 28th or we have August 14th as well. Both of those are open. We would
just need the plans at least a week in advance. And we one unfortunately there's no here from Ry and Wilcox. I know they're jammed up and I'm not sure how fast that they could adjust the site plan through. I think think the second August hearing or even the first one in September might be safer.
Um so September 11th it's fine by me if if the second August hearing would be satisfactory. Okay. Very good. So you're asking for the second meeting in uh August which is August 28th.
All right. I'll move I'll move to grant the requested continuence to August 28th, 2025. DV seconds and votes yes. Yes. All votes yes. Yes. Jenny votes yes. Okay, that's unanimous. Thank you very much. Appreciate your time. See you next time.
And not rushing at all. We're moving along in very good time today. Our next application is 20 Cove Hill Road. Application 25-028 William and Joe and Petri care of
Thomas Moore who is the designer in Baroo. Sir, application number 25-028. William and Joanne Petri, care of Thomas Moore, PO Box 2124, Brewster, Mass 02631. Owners of property located at 20
Cove Hill Road, also shown on the Town of Cadams, Assessor's Map 12J, block 32A, lot G13A. The applicant proposes to change, alter, or expand a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the construction of an addition. the existing dwelling is non-conforming and
that it is located 35.5 ft from Pine Lane. The proposed addition will be non-conforming and that it will be located 33.9 ft from Pine Lane where a 40ft setback is required. The existing building coverage is 2,177 ft and the proposed building
coverage is 2,938 square ft where 3,000 ft is the maximum allowed. the law is non-conforming and that it contains 29,000 square feet where 40,000 square feet is required in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required
under Mass General Law Chapter 4A section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw. Welcome. Good afternoon. Thomas Moore uh from Moore Home Design Company representing Bill and Joanne Petri. uh pet trees. Well,
before I do that, I just wanted to see if uh because I know that initially when the members visited the site, it wasn't staked out, but it was staked out a day or so after that. So, I'm not sure if you got back to see those stakes
physically on the lot or not. So, there have been no complaints that I'm aware of. If you didn't, I apologize for that. So, I'll take that. Uh but um you know again Ken Thomas Moore representing Bill and Joanne Petri. We're requesting a special permit
for an addition and renovation to their house at uh on Cove Hill Road. Um the property is pre-existing non-conforming for two reasons. One, the size of the lot uh is 29,000 square feet where
40,000 is required. The front setback on the Pinehill Lane side is 35.5 where 40T is required. The project that we're doing it consists of uh a great room and mudroom addition to the right side or
northwest uh side of the existing dwelling which uh is to the Cove Hill Road side. Uh we're also taking a section of the roof on the middle part of the house out and rebuilding it. uh with some with a new dormer on the front
and uh we're create creating some more volume in their kitchen living room area. Uh we're also in doing that we we looking to expand the front porch from 4 feet in depth uh to 5t in depth. So
we're pushing it one foot closer to the Pine Lane side. Uh we'll also be removing and rebuilding the existing sun room that's on the back uh of the house on the driveway side uh the walk outside
to a slightly smaller footprint. So uh we feel that this project proposed project is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing structure and although we haven't changed the nonconformity with respect with respect to the size. The
proposed front porch will increase the nonconformity to the pine lane side from 35.5 to 33.9. So, a little about a foot and a half closer to to the uh to the street. In addressing the criteria for a
special permit, uh the following is submitted. Uh the adequacy of the size including but not limited to the maximum lot of building size. The addition renovation will be under the 3,000 square foot maximum lot coverage requirement. The proposed lot coverage
will be 10.1%. As far as the compatibility of the size with the neighboring properties, the area is uh a neighborhood of single family dwellings. The proposed structures are cape style structures and this is a cape style
structure. As far as the extent of the non-conforming nature of the structure or use, the use does conform to the current bylaw and as we are getting slightly closer on that Pine Lane side, but it's not not I don't think I don't
feel significant uh as far as suitability of the site. The proposed addition renovation will not have any effect on the neighboring properties, the natural environment, vegetation, wetlands, uh groundwater or water bodies and all
storm water will be contained on the site impact of the scale. The proposed you addition renovation will not affect the visual character of the neighborhood and does not affect any views of vistas. As far as compatibility of the proposed
use, again, it's a a property is a single family home, an area of single family homes. No change in use. There is an on-site septic system that won't be affected by the new addition. The proposed addition will not
create any new traffic flow or safety. The proposed addition alteration will not create any noise and/or litter. The proposed addition will not affect any utilities or public services. There will be no visual impact
on the neighborhood or neighboring uses and the proposed addition and the house is not in the flood zones that would not be affected. So, uh, with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you very much. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wish to speak in favor of this
application? If so, indicate. Seeing none, the one correspondence we received was from our health agent on 52125. Judith Giorgio tells us she reviewed the plan to renovate and
reconfigure the property. It appears that the dwelling will maintain the existing fourbedroom layout. The proposed new great room does not meet the board of health definition of a bedroom with the six-foot cased opening. The doorway through the mudroom must remain an open hallway and no doors
segregating this new addition from the rest of the house. The addition will not encroach on the existing septic system. That concludes our correspondences. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wish to speak against or has a
question about this application? No questions from the board. Um, David Vch, I have no questions. Ed, no questions. No questions. No questions. No questions. Steve, is there any what
what how are you going to handle the landscaping? Is there anything that's going to be between this addition and Coveill Road that's going to be changing? Do you know? Um the I I believe the as far as that timber retaining wall because there is on that lower side the back side there's going
to be a garage door. So there'll be a little bit of a change to that timber retaining wall. You know as far as any of the other anything else there you know some some landscaping will be disturbed because of the excavation because I think there's a couple large trees there that are I think close to
Kofill Road. That's all. If they're close to the road we won't touch those. And are both garages going to be active or is one Yes, because it's kind of a there's a a break between the two doors. That's kind of There is a little bit of
a break. Two uh two single car garages, I guess. That's what it is. Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you, Jenny. No questions. Okay, then. Paul, I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. Dave seconds and votes yes. Vote yes. All votes yes. I vote yes.
Jenny. Jenny votes yes. Okay, then um we'll do deliberations. David Nixon, I don't see how uh this would be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Uh it's been well thought out, I newly believe, and well designed.
So, I'll be voting yes. And Ed, um yeah, I think Tom did a nice job. Um, typically we don't like to see an increase in non-conformities, but I think this lot is hampered by having frontage on on two roads. And uh I don't
know, Pine Lane almost seems like a a driveway to me, but uh so I I I understand that increase and um if I was voting, I I wouldn't have any issues and it definitely meets our criteria and uh it's certainly um nice to see the house
being renovated. two large houses that have went under construction and one that recently went up that are much bigger than this. So certainly not substantially detrimental to the neighborhood. And Mr. V, I I agree with previous uh I I think it's um
the uh current um porch is an illustration of why a 4 foot deep porch is not adequate for much of anything, especially when there's a bowl window going out into it. So I certainly understand the the need actually to to expand that by a foot just to make it
somewhat practical use. And so it's certainly not substantially more detrimental. It's a I think a great improvement over the uh the appearance of the house and building will fit the neighborhood and meet our criteria. We'll go for it. Yeah. Very good. Um I'm
sorry. Um Lee, um yeah, I think this is a great renovation, um addition. Uh I think it will improve the house overall. Um meets our criteria and not substantially detrimental to the
neighborhood. Steve, yeah, I feel the same way. I mean, I I don't think this is encroaching on anybody and I don't think it's detrimental to anyone. And Jenny, I agree with all my colleagues and Paul. And I also agree with my colleagues. And would you like to I'll move to approve the application as
submitted. Um I think given the neighborhood and the confined areas that we probably should use our standard conditions here. Uh so I would say all construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner that between June 30th
and Labor Day, no exterior construction will be allowed. No work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8 am and 5:00 pm only. Dave seconds and votes yes. I vote yes. All votes yes. I vote yes. Jenny votes yes. Unanimous.
Congratulations. Okay. Thank you very much. All right. We'll see you next time. Yes. Whizzing through this agenda. We are 25-029. Michael and Linda Lahan um care of Kevin Ber 148 Chain Drive.
Application number 25-029. Michael and Linda Lahan, care of Kevin Boyer, PO Box 21, West Barnstable, Mass 02668. Owners of property located at 148 Shane Drive, also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 15G, block 85,
lot B30. The applicant seeks to enlarge, extend, or change a conforming dwelling in a non-conforming lot via the construction of an addition. The proposed addition will comply with all bulk and dimensional requirements of the bylaw, but is considered a substantial alteration and under the second accept clause of section 6 of Mass General Law
Chapter 4A. Such substantial alteration requires the grant of a special permit. The existing building coverage is 1,353 ft, 10.7% and the proposed building coverage is 1,484 ft, 11.7% where 15% is the maximum
allowed. The law is non-conforming and that it contains 22,652 ft where 40,000 ft is required in the R60 zoning R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law Chapter 4A section 6 and section 5B
of protective bylaw. Welcome, Mr. Ber, I presume. Yes, thank you very much, Kevin Boyer. Um, the last time I followed Bill Lichfield, I he he helped me out to the extent that I could say just like he said because this is this is a particularly from at least from my
perspective a pretty straightforward situation when I make and I'll go down the criteria as I understand. Let's go through the applicable criteria. Now, I can jump right to that because um you know, first and foremost, adequacy of the size uh of the site. It's non-conforming. That's the reason we're
here. But as it relates to the neighborhood and all the other homes in that neighborhood, we certainly uh are not in any way an anomaly. Compatibility of the size of the proposed structure with the neighborhood properties, I think I just addressed that as well. The extent of the proposed increase in
non-conformity nature, um it's it doesn't we meet all the setbacks. we meet all the height limitations, we're not making it a two-story structure, etc., etc. Um, so to that extent, I think we uh we fall comfortably uh within the criteria of the board.
Suitability of the site, I think I addressed that as well. Impact of scale, we're bumping out two feet on one side and then going out a little bit further. Still meeting those setbacks. Um compatibility of the proposed use with neighborhood you with neighboring uses. Uh we're residential. They're all
residential. Adequacy of methoded of sewage, nothing changes there. Impact on traffic, no change. Noise and litter, no change. Adequacy of utilities, no change. Visual impact, I think it's a pretty little addition. Good enough. Good enough. Very good. You've exceeded our expectations.
Thank you. So, is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams who wish to speak in favor of this application? Apparently not. Next, I will read the two correspondences. And the first one is from a health agent
and she tells us on um May 6, 2025 that uh let's see, she has no concerns with the addition as proposed. Okay. Next, we have that same note that I mentioned before from 98 C Lane, John Hoother. This is not really in our
purview, but I will read it. He is the um fellow that has an issue with these projects because um the placement of the dumpsters and portable toilets in his view need to be out of sight of the neighbors because of
the uh odors and the unsightly view that they um cause. I think the property owners uh need to find places out of sight for the neighbors. And um that's the sum and substance of that note. Um, is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams
that wishes to speak against or has a specific question? No. Does anyone in the board have any questions? No. Paul, I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. David seconds and votes yes. Yes. All votes
yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. Uh, Jenny deliberations. Um, I think it's a great a great project. Very thoughtful. um will fit right in the neighborhood, not substantially more detrimental. Very
good, Mr. V. I wish they were all this simple when they came to us. Uh no, very it looks nice and it it certainly fits the neighborhood. All right, Mr. Actton. Uh yeah, I think it's a nice little addition. Fits well into the neighborhood and going to look like it's always been
there. All right, Mr. Nixon. But Dave, there are they are this simple. Yeah. Not Mr. Boy has said everything I need to say. Thank you. All right. And uh Lee, um once again, great neighborhood. Um
very cute house and a very modest, thoughtful addition. I think it will be fantastic and uh meets our criteria. And Steve? Yeah, I have no issues. I think this is a good project. Gives them a little more uh space there. It looks like it's an extra bathroom. Bathroom. Yeah. Not an issue. Very good. Paul
certainly meets all our criteria and I'll move to close the hearing and move you to have I already done that to approve golly I'll move to approve the application as submitted um I guess given the neighborhood and activity that we should probably use our standard
conditions all construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner between June 30th and Labor Day. No exterior construction will be allowed. No work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8 am and
5:00 pm only. Uh Dave seconds and votes yes. Yes. Paul votes yes. Yes. Yes. That's unanimous. Congratulations. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you very much for coming in person. It makes a big big difference
anybody in the future. Okay. Last but not least, we're going to stay on chain drive. 53 Shane Drive uh 25- 030. Application number 25-030 OConnell 1998 Family Trust Care
of William G. Lichfield, Esquire, 330 Orleans Road, North Chattam, Mass 02650. Owners of property located at 53 Shane Drive. Also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 14H, block 40, lot B 42. The applicant proposes to
change, alter, or expand a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the construction of an addition. The existing dwelling is non-conforming and that is located 32.4 ft from Bishop's Terrace and 16.1 ft from the southeasterly butter. The proposed addition will be non-conforming
in that it will be located 23 feet from Bishop's Terrace where a 40ft setback is required. The existing building coverage is 154 ft 13.7% and the proposed building coverage is 1,640 ft 6 feet 14.99% where 15% is the
maximum allowed. The law is non-conforming and that it contains 10,947 square ft where 40,000 ft is required in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw.
Welcome back, Mr. Lichfield. Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the board. Bill Lichfield here on behalf of Charles and Marily Okonnell as trustees who own the property at 53 Shane Drive. And with with us virtually is Charlie O'Connell, who could not be here in person, but is
waving to you as we speak. Uh we know obviously that you're very familiar with this neighborhood, having been out there for the last hearing, as well as a prior one. Uh and what is proposed is a very small addition on from the Shane Drive
side, the lefthand side, which I guess is the northwest side, uh to allow uh for a new bathroom, uh and to have a washer and dryer on the ground floor. Um, in talking with Charlie about it,
uh, he explained that while there is a washer and dryer in the basement, uh, he and Maril Lee together, uh, have knees that are nearly 160 years old, uh, or 320 years old between the two of them,
and they are tired of going up and downstairs to get to the laundry. They would like to have a small washer and dryer as well as a bath over off of the primary bedroom. So, we'll go into the criteria. As to adequacy of site, it's
adequate for the existing 1965 or circus 65 house. Uh there are lot size street and sideline nonconformities which are found throughout the neighborhood. If you approve the special permit, as I hope you will do, you can do so based on a finding that the small addition to
accommodate the new bath somewhat closer to the street, but uh mitigated by 11 ft of unpaved road uh unpaved green area, which is not technically part of the lot and with a minor but compliant change in coverage in consistent with the
neighborhood is not detrimental. as to compatibility of size. Again, on the third page of the handout, all of the uh houses on the street or nearby houses are on the street. Some of them have more gross floor area because they have full basements. Uh some of them do not.
Uh but certainly this will be consistent with the others in the neighborhood with living area of,52 square ft. It'll be smaller than others. Several others by percentage of coverage at 15% where some in the neighborhood go up to 19.2. 2%. Uh state the extent of increase in
nonconformity. The bath addition will be 23 feet from the secondary street but 34 feet from the paved area but behind a hedge. The change in coverage itself complies with current zoning as suitability of site. This is the second
phase of the old dairy farm. All of the houses were built in the 1960s and at this end of Shane Drive, there were no wetlands or environmental issues. It's a residentially developed site which is entirely suitable for the small but useful addition and it's the scale
sighting mass views and vistas. It was developed under prior zoning. The existing structure is a p of a piece with surrounding houses. It will remain reasonable as a scale and mass. Uh if the special permit is approved, it'll be consistent with the style of the
neighborhood. It's without impact on views and vistas. And again, the addition is largely scaled uh largely uh screened by vegetation. It's a compatible use as a residential. There Charlie is not notably noisy, so there won't be any issues there. The question
for you to determine is whether this proposed addition is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current non-conforming structure on a non-conforming lot. The house will remain consistent and compatible with its surroundings. There is an existing nonconformities to the street that
changes as does coverage but both are consistent with the neighborhood and the resulting living area of 1252 square feet while a much needed gain is not inconsistent with the sky style and scale of the neighborhood. So I hope that you can find and I think that you
will that the proposed change is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. We'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams who wish to speak in favor of the application? Seeing none, I will read the correspondences. There are two from
our health agent. May 21, 2025. Judith Giorgio tells us that she has no concerns regarding the proposed bathroom addition. Then we have that same note from John Hoother, 98 Cod Lane, who has
an issue with the dumpster and the Jiffy John's. uh he'd like them to be placed out of sight to the neighbors. Um and I as I mentioned before that's really not in our purview. So um consider it red. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams
that wish to speak against the application or has a question? No questions from the board. I'm going to just do that. Are there any? No. Okay. I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. J seconds and vote yes. Yes. All vote yes. I vote
yes. Jenny votes yes. Okay, very good. Um, David V. Um, well, this is another um small scale um absolutely fits the neighborhood. I I I think I would be be remiss in not
commenting that sometimes in driving around this neighborhood, it it reminds me of my some of my Midwestern roots. uh it fits seems might fit there there better than Tramam somewhere but over time it's really uh it's become a really nice neighborhood there so that's great
so not substantially more detrimental meets our criteria I'll support it okay Mr. Aken I agree with Mr. V and Mr. Nixon, I agree with the previous two gentlemen. And um Lee, uh I agree as well. And Steve, I agree.
I think it this sort of balances the front facade of the house. I think it's a nice project. And Virginia Fenwick. Um I agree with my colleagues, but I want to make a couple comments. Um, you know, this neighborhood has a
lot of lot sizes that are small and um and I and I see as Mr. Lichville pointed out that a lot of them or several of them are over in the coverage and I appreciate that this um addition proposed addition was right right at you know at the coverage but within the coverage at
149. I this property is a good example of the importance of going to do a site visit because if you were just reading the location and you and see small lot um you know all within a a neighborhood where they're they're visible to each
other. An ask of over 9 ft getting closer you know within the setback would maybe be you know something that is a is raises an eyebrow. But when you go to the site it it it's a combination of it being a corner lot but also that nice
job with the landscaping that covers. So, um it makes complete sense what they're proposing and and I u would support it. I think it even though it's a big ask in that respect, it makes sense in that property in that neighborhood. Before we get to Paul
because then he can do the whole nine yards. I will say that I had the same exact impression as Jenny and that um when I got there I said, "Oh, this is fine." Yeah. It was mostly because of the landscaping and it gone a lot. So, um Okay, Paul. I think it's a good
example of the site v visit makes a big difference for us. Um so I'll I'll move to approve the uh application as submitted. Uh and uh we've already terminated our hearing. Right. We did. So okay, good. I'll move
to approve the application as submitted. Once again, I think we're in need of the standard conditions that all construction activity and vehicles would be contained on site or at a neighboring property with a permission of the property owner between June 30th and Labor Day. No exterior construction will be allowed. No work shall be permitted
on the weekends and construction activity between 8 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. only. Uh Dave seconds and votes yes. I vote yes. All votes yes. I vote yes. Jenny votes yes. That's unanimous. Congratulations. Thank you very much. And uh okay
then we can all go out and enjoy the weather. I will move to adjourn. Dave seconds and votes yes. Ed Actton votes yes. Yes. Paul votes yes. Yes. Steve votes yes. Jenny votes yes as do I. Good night
chatam. What time is it? 4:21 p.m. All right. Good job, Randy.