Heat. Heat. Let's say what happened. It might be Steve's. >> We are on. >> All right. Welcome everybody to today's Town of Chadam Zoning Board of Appeals.
The date is April 23rd, 2026 and uh we start by having a message from the governor of Massachusetts. >> Miss Fenwick is not the governor yet. 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 28th, 2005 signing of chapter two
of the acts of the 2025 extending certain CO 19 measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law until June 30th, 2027. This meeting of the Chattam Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted in person and via
remote participation. Every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided for in the order. A reminder that persons who would like to listen to this meeting while listen to this meeting while in progress may do so by
calling the phone number 508945 4410 conference ID 144 384337 or and the pound sign or join the meeting online via Microsoft Teams
through the link in the posted agenda. While this is a live broadcast and simalcast on Chattam TV, which is Exfinity Channel 1072, despite our best efforts, we may not be able to provide real-time access. We will post a record of this meeting on
the town's website as soon as possible. In accordance with town policy, the public can speak to any issue, hearing, or business item on the agenda during the meeting, but when recognized by the chair. >> Thank you. To authorize this form of
meeting, we need a vote of all the members. I'll start with Mr. Vch, please. >> Yes. Uh David H. Vich, and I approve this format, meeting format. >> Uh Ed Actton, I approve. >> Paul C simple, I approve this uh format. >> Randy Podash, I approve. >> David S. Nixon, I appear.
>> Virginia Fenwick, I approve. >> Steven D. Debor, I approve. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Mr. Chair. We do have um one person who is notifying via the chat that Mutoo notetaker AI note takingaking um is
using that today and that is the only notification that we have received. There is one other person that has not alerted you to the fact that they are taking notes of the meeting >> and the penalty for that
>> is up to you. >> Mr. Chair is Steve Buckley. Okay, let's go on with the beginning here. >> Um, I'm recording the meeting. >> Excuse me. He's just he has to play.
>> Any citizens or non board members participating in the call via the phone only need to give us their name and the last four digits of their phone number for ID purposes. Meeting is conducted as follow. The hearing notice will be read by Sarah
Clark. She's the lady to my right. She's the PO for the town of Chhattnham. That's the principal permitting officer. After she's read the notice, the representative of the applicant or the applicant his or herself will have a
presentation. When they are done, we would ask that anybody in favor of the appeal and wishes to speak may do so with a max time of five minutes. I might read after that any and all
correspondence we've received. Sometimes we edit it a bit, but we try and get everyone's opinion in. Following that, I would ask for anybody who's against the appeal or has a question and wishes to join the meeting
to do so again with a fivem minute time limit. The applicant would after that have an opportunity to rebut any testim testimony that came from the previous. Then we'd have board members asking questions. When we're done,
we'd go into deliberation by closing the public hearing. We would hopefully then vote. All votes are taken by a roll call and the commonwealth of Massachusetts to be successful. You need to get a super
majority. In our case, there are five votes for each application. So, you would need to get four votes to be successful. And then we need to know who's voting today. I
know Mr. V is Mr. Simple. >> Um I think Ed Actton is going to vote for me. >> Okay, Ed, then Miss Fenwick and myself. Those are the five voters. Are there any questions?
Sarah, the first application, please. Oh, no. Wait a minute. We might have some >> which I've promptly lost. Yes, we do have minutes. Randy. >> Yes. So, I move that we approve the minutes from March 26, 2026, unless
there's any uh corrections or >> other. >> I just was going to note that I wasn't here for that meeting, so I'll abstain. Okay. Sure. I'm not sure whether the minutes were
revised after I received them, but they seem to be confused as to the dates at the top and reflected uh myself being present. I was not present. Okay. Yeah. It says here
four board members were present. Myself and I wasn't here. Paul, you weren't here. >> No. >> Um, >> maybe we need a redo. Uh, because I maybe this is consistent throughout for the votes. >> Okay.
>> So, I move that we revisit this at our next regular meeting. >> Okay. >> Well, >> I'll second that motion. >> And a vote. >> Uh, Vro yes. >> I vote yes. >> Ed votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> Okay. Yes. Okay. Very good. And that was
the only minutes I think we had. Yeah. All right. So Sarah, please. Application 26-015. >> Application number 26-015. 19 Highland LLC. Care of William G. Lichfield, Esquire, 330 Orleans Road,
North Chattam, Mass 02650. Owner of property located at 19 Highland Avenue. Also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 15e, block 47, lot 57. The applicant seeks to modify special permit number 24-028 granted on July 11th, 2024, which
allowed for the demolition of the existing dwelling and garage and the construction of a new dwelling and garage. The applicant now seeks to modify the special permit to allow for an increase in building height within the required setback and the installation of exterior mechanical system appliance AC condenser. The
approved building height was 23t 10 in and the constructed building height was 24t 1 in. The exterior AC condensers were installed 5.9 ft from the easterly of butter where a 15t setback is required. The law is
non-conforming and that it contains 7,78 square ft where 20,000 ft is required in the R20 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 4A section 6 and 14 and sections 5B and 8D2B of the protective bylaw.
>> Mr. Lichfield. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Bill Lichfield. Uh members of the board, Governor Fenwick, uh here on behalf of 19 Highland Avenue LLC, which in human terms is Bob and Susan Gallagher, and Bob Gallagher is here near the front
row. Uh you will recall that we were before you almost two years ago for a special permit to demolish and rebuild the Gallagher's home at 19 Highland Avenue. You had in the initial hearings some concerns about setbacks and coverage and we made some significant
and responsive changes and you ultimately approved the plans. Uh the Gallaghers had been working with Clark Engineering and uh Kevin Buer their builder and also with Zebrat and McCarthy as their designer and at the time Mark's health was not good
unfortunately and that made for some challenges but everything went well uh and the house was built as you saw in your site visits recently. Um as we know Mr. Briggs prudently requires an asbuilt plan after construction and that plan
showed two aspects that deviated from the approved plans. Without going into the somewhat complex reasons for it, the ridge of the house ended up being about 3 in higher than shown on the plans uh but only to a total of 24t 1 in as Sarah
indicated uh which is obviously about six feet below the 30foot height limit. the maximum. Uh we know of course in cases where things like mistakes like this happen uh that variances for those sorts of issues are problematic.
But uh we didn't come close to maximizing the house and this wasn't uh close uh and certainly is not a variance. It is instead a simple modification of the approved height from 23 feet 10 in to 24T 1 in. Um, again to
refresh your memory, coverage uh and street setbacks were a concern. Height was never an issue in the prior hearings. Uh, in addition, while there was already one pre-existing air conditioning unit, uh, shown on the plans, it was ultimately determined that
a second one would be necessary to adequately serve the house. It was placed next to the one that exists. Um, the one that exists is 5 feet n or 6 feet one inch from the property line. The new one is 5.9
uh 5'9 in from the property line. Uh, that was perhaps contemplated two years ago, but because of the difficulties we had during the design process, uh, it may not have appear did not appear in the site plan. So, we're seeking modification of the original
special permit to validate the completely conforming height of uh 24T 1 in and also the placement of the second unit. Would you like me, Mr. Chairman, to go into the criteria? Um, I I'd be happy
>> I don't I don't think so. Thank you, Mr. The the simple issue is whether the 3in deviation from the approved height uh in the addition of a second condenser uh are substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. The chair will read letters from a butters particularly the
effect the butter on the north east side who was affected by the AC unit who has no issue were obviously lower than the adjacent houses at 115 and 124 Old Harbor Road and Holy Redeemer. Uh and the height is consistent. So, we'd
request a modification. Be happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you very much. Is there anyone here today or on any form of electronics that wishes to speak in favor
of this application? If so, please indicate you'd like to join the conversation. Don't see anybody. So, I'll read the correspondence. First is a letter from Joseph Debatista. And uh let's see.
Uh they don't give a specific address. Do you know what the address is, Sarah? >> Uh I believe it's 23 Highland, Mr. Chairman. >> No, but I can look it up quickly. >> No. Okay. You think it's 23? Okay. >> 23 Highlanders, the immediately adjacent house.
>> Okay. We are writing in support of the petition for our neighbors for a modification. As immediate abutters, we are in favor of the modification which will by no means be detrimental to our neighborhood. The CalaS have built a beautiful new home that fits in very well with our neighborhood. As we understand that the asbel height of the
ridge line of the new home is a mere 3 in higher than contemplated. Additionally, the special permit approved the placement of exterior mechanical unit in the same location it was before demolition which is on the side of the house abing our property. Since the house is now two stories, the
Gallaghers have added a second mechanical unit adjacent to the approved unit. We feel these two modifications are very minor and are in no way detrimental to our neighborhood. We urge the board to support it. And then we have another letter. This is from Steve
and Susan West. They were at 124 Old Harbor Road which actually is the abuter on the other side and they write on April 1st. We are director Butters and are writing in support of their request for minor differences. Previously as communicated to this board
we fully supported the special permit. Now the construction is complete. We're very pleased with the beautiful home. It's our understanding the ridge line of the house is just 3 in higher and that was contemplated in the plans approved by then what was uh approved by the board. The difference is not noticeable.
The scale of design of the house fit. We also understand there's a second air conditioning unit adjacent to the one contemplated in the design and we do not have any concerns with this additional unit as it does not negatively impact the aesthetics of the house. We hope the board of appeals will approve the
gallery's request for these minor adjustments. Is there anyone here today that would like to speak against this application or has a specific question they'd like to ask? Don't see anybody. Uh questions from the board.
>> Steve, >> I have no questions. Jenny, >> I don't have any questions either. >> Randy, >> I do not have any questions. >> Paul, >> no questions. >> No questions. >> And nor do I. >> Okay, Randy. >> So, I move that um we close public
hearing and move into deliberations. >> I'll second the motion and vote yes. Okay, we need a vote from the other voting members. >> D votes yes. >> Ed votes yes. >> Paul already voted yes. Jenny >> Jenny Jenny votes. >> Yes. Okay. Uh deliberations. Uh Dich.
>> Oh, I um as we've in situations like this in the past, we I'd say that, you know, if it had been presented the ridge three inches higher, it certainly would have not been a problem. and uh and having the second unit there. Uh also neither one of those things rises to the
level of being substantially detrimental, more detrimental neighborhood and happy to approve these minor changes. >> Ed, >> um I I agree agree with Dave. >> Paul, I'll agree with Mr. Vich >> and I fully agree with Mr. Vch.
>> I too agree with Mr. Vich. Um but I wanted to add that um I agree with you, Mr. Lichfield. height was never a concern and it was never contemplated last time and I think that's an important thing to point out. Um so I just wanted to add that that's one of one of the reasons why I'm okay with it
too. >> Steve, >> uh yeah, I I don't think um the changes are um so dramatic and I don't think it has a negative impact on the original decisions that were made. >> So I move to approve the application as
presented. Second on that. >> I'll second the motion. >> Okay. >> And I'll vote yes. >> Uh D votes yes. >> Ed votes yes. >> Chenny votes yes. >> And I vote yes. And obviously we didn't mention the word condition because that
would be >> we would have no objection to a summertime limitation on construction, Mr. Chairman. So >> thank you. >> Uh excuse me Randy. >> No nothing on this one. So uh Mr. Chair as to application 26019 I am the abuter and I will recuse myself
and walk out of the room. >> Okay, very good. The previous one was a unanimous decision everybody. So there you go. All right, Sarah. Uh 26-019 please.
>> Application number 26-019. The Malbury Family Revocable Trust, Caramuda Construction, 1621 Orleans Road, Harwitch, Mass 02645. Owner of property located at 106 Steven Drive. Also shown in the town of
Chadam's assessor's map 7D, block 25, lot G39. The applicant proposes to change, alter, or expand a non-conforming dwelling on a conforming lot via the demolition of the existing deck and the construction of a new deck. The existing deck is non-conforming and that it is located 7 ft from the
Easterly abuter. The proposed deck will be non-conforming and that it will be located 7 feet from the easterly butter where a 15t setback is required. The lot contains 21,742 square ft in the R20 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass
General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of protected bylaw. >> Floor is yours. Please identify yourself. >> Uh OD Figureroa. I'm a representative of Mudov Mudo Construction. >> Floor is yours. So the basically we're b rebuilding the deck in the exact same
footprint that it was existing including where the stairs go down to the ground. So that was the uh the set plan. >> Okay. Uh anybody on the board want any of the criteria reviewed? Guess not. Okay. That was a short
presentation but it seemed to satis >> I mean that's as simple as it is. Okay. Uh, is there anybody here today or on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application? If so, please join the conversation.
That's nobody. So, I'll read the correspondence which is from Judith Giorgio, the health agent for the town of Chadam. She writes on April 14th. Uh let's see what did she No concerns
regarding this application. That was >> also a short answer. All right. Is there anyone here today or on Microsoft Teams who wishes to either speak against this application or has a specific question? Now is the time to join the conversation and ask.
I don't see anyone. Uh questions from the board. We'll start with Ed. Yeah, I guess I I just have one question for Jay. Is is it even necessary for for Mr. Mutoo or for the applicant to be
here for for this request if it's exactly pre-existing non-conforming and being done exactly in the same spot? >> I believe the deck was that portion of the deck that's within the setback was built without a permit. >> Right. So, we're just trying to >> legitimize this.
>> Understood. >> New construction. I have no questions. >> No questions. >> Uh simple question is any changes being made to the deck, lighting or uh any kind of awnings or anything else that's
going to further encroach on the setback? >> No, it's literally the exact same footprint. I mean, the material we're using uh I believe we're using mahogany as the decking and part of the railing, but other than that, it's going to be the basically the same deck. Okay, >> great. Thank you. Yeah. Randy, she's gone. Paul, yep. I'll move
to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> David seconds and votes yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> Ed votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes. Paul, well, it clearly is not going to be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and uh I think it meets all our criteria. I would
move to approve it when it comes appropriate time to do so. >> I agree with Paul. I agree with Paul. >> And I agree with Paul. >> That makes it unanimous.
>> Well, there we go. Wait a minute. >> Almost. >> I should say save those for a few more of my potential theories. >> Excuse me. >> All right. All right. All right. >> I jumped the gun, sir. >> Okay. You didn't even mention conditions. Uh well, I'll uh I'll move
to approve the application as submitted. I'm not sure that we need any conditions with respect to this kind of a project. So, uh, I'll just move to approve it as submitted. >> Okay. If David seconds and votes yes, >> Ed votes yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes.
>> And I vote yes. That's unanimous. >> Awesome. I appreciate it. Thank you for the entire board. Okay, Sarah, let's try uh 26-02. >> Application number 26-020 AWe Family Trust LLC, Care of Stonefield
Engineering and Design, 2011 Washington Street, Sweet 2011 Salem, Mass 01970. owner of property located at 655 Main Street, also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 14E block 2, lot 43. The applicant proposes to establish
and operate a formula business, Chase Bank, under section 3C4C of the protective bylaw. The applicant is and proposes to do business as a bank, which utilizes a standard array of services, trademark, service mark, and logo utilized by 10 or more other businesses
worldwide. The structure is located in the GB1 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 4A section 9 and sections 3C 4C and 8D2B of the protective bylaw. >> Please identify yourself, sir.
>> Hi, my name is Giovani Caesar. I'm with Stonefield Engineering located at 120 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts. >> Okay, >> perfect. I can't promise that we'll be as quick and straightforward as the last application. We'll try our best. All right.
Good afternoon board again here with uh Stonefield Engineering on behalf of JP Morgan Chase Bank and we're looking to establish a branch at 655 Main Street Chadam. It's right when you get off the rotary at uh 28. Um that's the first building you're going to see and this
building has historically operated as a Rocklin Trust. It's since been relocated and vacant now, but it has a relatively active parking lot. In which case, while there's no tenant occupying the building, um there are, you know, multiple patrons that kind of park and kind of circumvene throughout downtown
and uh whatnot. So, we're looking to kind of, you know, perform an adaptive reuse application here and a banktobank conversion with Chase Bank moving in. Um, as part of that program schedule, we're looking to increase the curb appeal and kind of clean up the site. As it stands right now, there's a lot of
overgrowth. There's some damage curbing throughout the site. Um, and we're really looking to, you know, kind of establish a presence here in Chattam, kind of invest in the community. So, um, our application is fairly straightforward. Uh, most of the improvements are relatively minor on the exterior, more so focused on kind of
bringing the site up to ADA compliance and again, uh, kind of cleaning up some of the damaged infrastructure out there, as well as some minor building alterations, um, as it pertains to the exterior. So, um, you know, we're happy to kind of touch more on any operational questions that the board may have and
answer any questions that can come up. >> Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone here today or in Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application? >> Don't see anyone. So, I'll read the correspondence. First of all, we have a note from the
planning board here in town on April 14th. They write, "The applicant proposes to establish branch location and operate a formula business." But on the applicant proposes to do business as a bank, which utilizes a standard array of merchandise,
trademark, service mark, decor, color scheme, signage utilized by 10 or more other businesses worldwide. The location of the business is such and such. We know that um the applicant's representative was notified that a site plan approval from the planning board is
required for the formula business establishment per section 7 special regulations A5 of the protective bylaw as well as for a site plan approval amended change of use application. The application submitted to the planning board will be heard on Monday, April
27th with review utilizing the planning board site plan review criteria as set forth and such and such. Since the site was previously used as a bank with a drive-thru combined with the knowledge that only minor revisions to the external layout of the site are
proposed, the planning board unanimously recommends that the CBA approve the formula business use. This favorable recommendation of the ZBA of the planning board's opinion will be reiterated to the board site plan approval amended change of use
application review. Thank you for your consideration of our review. That was from Arthur Sporch. He was the chair. Then we have a note. This is from uh the HBDC and actually it comes from Chantel Kilkenny who is the community
development secretary on April 14th. They write due to the April 15th meeting cancellation the HBDC is now scheduled to review this on May 6th 2026. That's the extent of the correspondence.
Is there anyone here today on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak either a against this uh application or has a specific question? If so, please indicate now you'd like to join the meeting. Don't see anyone. So, have questions from the board. Randy.
>> Yeah. So, um I'm wondering about uh HBDC. This is basically to the chair. Should we wait? >> I feel that we should. Okay. Um, how do you feel, Miss Fenwick?
>> Well, I I was curious to know why why we weren't seeing why they weren't seeing it first. And they they did have a hearing and they said they were going to um do it after ours, which is unusual, right? >> No. What happened was it was canled. I'm not too sure why.
>> Uh there was a lack of quorum, so they weren't able to meet on April 15th. >> Okay. Um, so you're asking me I I think we should do what we normally do, which is see it after it's been seen by them. >> Steve, >> yeah, I think the same thing. I think they're going to probably have some
questions about signage and lighting and all kinds of things that are not necessarily our perview, but I'd like to hear what they what the outcome of that discussion is. >> Okay. Uh, Dave V, >> I'm going to take a different tack on this. Uh, this is coming to us as as the
under the formula business provision. So, they're seeking a special permit as a formal business. I'm not clear um how the input of the HBDC is critical to our
determining whether this formula business meets or not. Ed, >> so the HBDC board didn't have enough members to to vote. >> Correct. So they're going to meet on May 6th.
>> Yep. So that will be May 6th. The signage actually hasn't been applied for officially yet and I believe that it's going to be on the May 20th meeting um just for the board's information. So
>> I I guess my only concern and we I I perhaps I could ask the applicant but I don't feel the applicant should be delayed because the HBDC couldn't reach a quorum. You know that's Okay, >> that's uh
something that you know I don't understand the reason for that. I guess they couldn't have enough didn't have enough people perhaps. But should the applicant be penalized for for that? >> They were all off paying their taxes. It was April 15th. >> Paul,
>> well, I think I agree with Dave Vich. I don't think it's necessary to postpone the hearing in light of that issue. If if if there are questions with respect to the signage, which does not comply with uh the ordinance, then it will come back
to us as an appeal uh in order to be adopted. So, uh it would have to come back to us in that situation in any case. So I think we can go ahead and deal with the uh uh question of whether it's a form of the business that
presents a problem for us. Well uh my spin is uh don't forget uh the planning board is still looking for the site plan. >> Wait for one second. >> Are you still on? >> I'm on >> Okay. All right. All right. So, we're
going to take a timeout here, gang. >> There are technical issues with the Chattam TV um teams link right or teams right now. So, they they will be rebooting and just please hold for a couple of minutes.
>> Yeah, I'll move for recess. >> Of course, we'll take five minutes >> if you want. Jeopardy is winning all the money. All right, we're back. So I was saying um because the planning board doesn't
have a site plan. I really think to me that overrides the comments about well you know you know how about the HBDC to me that's more important. So I would agree in this case with Randy.
How you feel? I agreed the first time, so I would >> Okay, >> I'm okay with that. >> Okay. All right. Okay. All right. So, um, when can they come back, Sarah? So currently we have May 21st which has
one two three four five six applications on it. Um there are also six applications on May 28th and there are six applications on June 11th currently. So >> okay I think that we should do that first meeting in May
>> the 21st or not? I'm not I didn't recommend the 40B meeting day. No, which is the seventh >> which one that you mentioned? >> May 21st. >> Uh we ask you to ask us for a continuence until May 21st.
>> Sure. On behalf of the applicant, we request the continuence of the May 21st hearing. >> Okay, good. Randy, >> so I move that we continue this hearing till May 21st, 2026. >> All right, I'll I'll second the motion to vote yes. Okay, Dave >> Beach votes yes. Ed.
>> Ed votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes >> and I vote yes. Thank you very much. Perfect. >> We'll see you on the 21st of May. >> Looking forward to it. >> All right. Okay. Sarah, we're on to 26-025. >> Okay. Application number 26-025
Tracy A Lambo 2022 revocable trust care of William G. Lichfield Esquire 330 Orleans Road North Chattam Mass 02650. Owner of property located at 121 Middle Road also shown in the town of Chattam's assessor's map 12K block 26 lot HC85.
The applicant seeks to enlarge extend or change a conforming dwelling on 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 except clause of section 6 of Mass General Law
Chapter 48 requires the grant of a special permit. The existing building coverage is 1,596 ft and the proposed building coverage is 1,8 ft where 3,000 ft is a maximum allowed. the law is non-conforming and that it
contains 29,434 square feet where 40,000 square feet is required in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law Chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protected bylaw. >> Mr. Lichfield, thank you. Good afternoon, members of the board. Bill
Lichfield here in behalf of Tracy Lembo as trustee. Uh Tracy is here with us virtually. Uh she and Anthony own this house out in Harbor Ces and like every lot in Harbor Ces or virtually every lot
it is non-conforming under current zoning. Uh but they would like to make a small addition in sort of the rear right hand side from the street as you know from having gone out there uh as shown there uh which is conforming uh as to
the sideline setbacks. It's I don't knowund and some odd feet back from the street in a long and deep lot. I think you ultimately can find that it has no detrimental effect whatsoever. But I will go into the criteria as to what is
proposed. Perhaps Sarah could bring up one of the site plans maybe number three which gives uh not the site plan the elevations which gives Thank you. which gives you an idea of what is proposed. What is there now is a fairly simple sort of cape salt box. Excuse me. The
limbos are proposing, as I said, a small uh bedroom uh addition. Uh they would like to eventually retire to this home. Uh the washer dryer in the basement. The existing first floor master bedroom does
not allow for anything more than a queen bed, and even that is kind of tight. So, they'd like a little bit more room. Uh Tracy like eyes is of course much older than any members of the board but you will someday come to understand why firstf floor living uh is a useful
thing. So I will go into the criteria as to adequacy of site. We have again a midsized lot which is certainly adequate for the existing home. The house meets all setbacks and is completely conforming and that will remain the case if you approve the special permit. The
addition is about 100 ft back from the road. Uh the bylaw coverage provision would allow for an additional 1,200 square feet of of compliant coverage. We are not near to that number. The proposal is completely conforming as to
compatibility of size. On the third page of the handout, there are uh some of the neighboring properties shown. The neighborhood was developed under prior zoning. We have a typical lot and house, both of which are relatively modest and compatible. If you approve the special
permit, as I hope you will do, coverage increases from 5.4% to 6.1%. It's still much smaller than several adjacent houses on smaller lots. And again, the proposal meets all dimensional requirements. As to the
extent of increase in nonconformity, there is none. Uh this is a Bransford or Bjorkland hearing based on an apparent intensification um as the suitability of site. The site has been suitable since uh it was the
house was built in 1974 and that will no ch not change. There's no impact the natural environment. It's the scale citing mass fuse and vistas mass is not notably applicable to the existing house. the scale is appropriate for the neighborhood and it will remain so if
you approve the simple and appropriate design for the addition again coverage is far below the limit doesn't have any impact on streetscape there's no change in views and vistas and when you went out there as you saw to the right hand side there's already a partial hedge u
and of course that that can be continued uh will be as compatibility of use there's no change it's residential use and eventual retirement use. We have uh town water and a title five for three bedrooms. The health agent has commented as the chair will read later that
there's no concern there. There's no impact on flow and traffic safety. Uh there's minimal traffic increase from having a first floor washer and dryer or a larger bedroom. So the question as you know is whether the addition of a
completely compliant uh but more useful first floor bedroom uh meeting all dimensional and bulk requirements of the zoning bylaw is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing conforming house on a nonconforming lot. The lot won't change.
The house will remain conforming. Uh it again complies with all uh current zoning requirements. So given the criteria and the plans, particularly in this neighborhood of relatively large lots with larger homes on many of the
lots, I think that you can find the proposed addition meeting all current requirements of the bylaw is not substantially more detrimental. The neighborhood be happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you very much. Is there anyone here today or in Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor of this
application? Don't see anyone. So, I'll read the correspondence. First, we have a note from Judith Giorgio, health agent. She writes on April 14th, "No issues with the addition and renovations to this existing three-bedroom dwelling." Then, we have a
letter. This is from Brian Bush, 105 Middle Road on April 18th. He writes, "I am in receipt of the legal notice uh regarding the proposed addition to the home located uh at 121. My wife Kathleen and I live
next door at 105 Middle. Please let this letter serve as our notice that we support the addition as proposed." That was from Brian C. Bush. That's the extent of the correspondence. Is there anyone here today or on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak either against us
or has a specific question? If so, please indicate you'd like to join the discussion. Don't see anyone. So, we'll have questions from the board. Jenny, >> um Mr. Lville, three bedrooms or four? >> Three.
>> Three. The site plan I mean the floor plans look like >> Well, I I'm quot Yeah, I I agree that there are four. The health I didn't want to contradict the health agent. Her letter I believe says that there were three but four is the answer. >> Okay.
>> Thank you >> Steve. >> I have no questions. >> Dave each. >> No questions. Dave >> Ed. >> No questions. >> No questions. >> No questions. >> And I have no questions. >> So I I move to close the um to close the
public hearing and move into deliberations. >> I'll second the motion and vote yes. Dave Vich votes yes. >> Ed votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> And I vote yes. Uh deliberation Steve. >> Um I think this is a nice addition. It's going to give them a little extra living
space and um I don't think it's detrimental to anyone around them. So um I would approve this if I were voting. >> Dave. >> Yeah, certainly not detrimental and meets all of our applicable criteria. I support it. >> And uh I agree. and and the assessor
card does have it labeled as a fourbedroom. >> I agree with my colleagues. >> As do I. >> Meets all of our criteria. >> Any conditions? >> I don't I don't see a need for them. >> Uh given the location and the size of
the lot, there's plenty of room to put everything in and uh it shouldn't be a problem >> through the chair. I would just ask the applicant if if he feels that anything. I I I if I could, Mr. Chairman, I did not specifically ask Miss Limbo when she'd like to do the construction. I
suspect that if the board imposed a requirement that we not start the work until the fall, that would be acceptable. But in this particular case, I don't see that it really is an issue. >> Okay. So, I'll move to approve the application as submitted.
>> I'll second the motion and vote yes. >> Dave Votes yes. Uh Ed votes yes. Chief votes yes >> and I vote yes. That's unanimous. Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. >> 26-026 please. Sarah
>> application number 26-026 Virginia Dome 41 Katy Ford Road Chattam Mass 02633 owner of property located at 41 Katie Ford Road also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map AE block 48 lot 24 the applicant proposes to install an
exterior mechanical system appliance generator 13.1 ft from the Westerly butter where a 15t setback is required the property contains 82,87 ft in the R20 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General law chapter 48 section 9 and section
8D2B of the protective bylaw. >> Good afternoon. I'm Virginia Don. My husband and I own this property 41 Katy Ford. In October of 25 this generator was was installed. I knew because the
installer told me it had to be 15 feet from the line and he put out his measuring stick and it was put there. Later on, months later, I had to have engineering work due to an addition. And that's when the surveyor said it was 13
ft. And to this day, I'm very confused about the whole thing because I went out yesterday my measuring tape and I got 15 feet 4 in. But having said that, um there is really isn't any place else to put this because it has to be on a flat
surface. My property is not very flat. After the generator up to the lot line, it goes up about 4 feet, which kind of acts as a natural sound barrier. The It's at the northwest corner of my
house. And when the sewer comes in, which I'm told it's going to, they have to get around that corner. And to move it away from there, even 2 feet, it would be I don't know how a bobcat could get through there. It would be very tight.
So, I'm asking that it get to stay where it is. Um, it's a newer, obviously, a new generator. When they do their weekly updates, it's only five minutes instead of 20 minutes. and it just sounds like somebody's lawnmower.
>> It's not an issue. So, that's how I feel and I hope you all agree. >> Thank you. Uh, is there anyone here today on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application? Don't see anybody read the
correspondence. This is a uh letter dated April 20th. It's from John Gray at 26 Uncle Zolus Road. I'm writing to express my objection to having a generator installed on the westerly side of the dwelling. My
property at 26 onto Zulttus Road abuts this property. Our bedrooms are in the back of our house and sits much higher than the dwelling at 41 Katy Ford. If a generator were to be installed and operating on that side of their house, it would concentrate the loud droning
sound that comes from generators and sent it right to our bedrooms. Why can't they put the generator on the eastern side of their house? This would serve to block at least some of the noise from disturbing my house.
So, uh, I would say to you, couldn't you answer this gentleman's question, please? the eastern side of the house would be within wetlands and it would be a long way away from where the gas meter is and I don't know if
conservation would want I mean I'm there's just nowhere to put it on the eastern side of the house that also goes and um this thing runs like I said five minutes it sounds like a lawnmower
in midday Okay. And that's it. Until you have, like we had a storm, then everybody's got something going whether it be portable or standby. And there's no, you know, if mine's going to bother you, so is
everybody else's under those circumstances. >> Okay. Uh, is there anyone here today on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak against this or has a specific question? Okay, questions from the board. Uh,
let's start with Dave. >> Yeah, I guess I guess the only thing I I wasn't quite clear in the neighbor's letter, how's the how's the topography there, Virginia, with respect to was your neighbor's house higher, lower?
>> It's higher than me. It's like a tower behind me pretty much. >> Okay. So that so the it slopes up to his property from your where your house is located and >> more or less slopes down from his >> and and where the generators is is
somewhere low on that slope. >> It's low. Yeah, it's >> that's all I have. Thanks, >> Ed. >> Uh no questions. Paul, >> I have no questions. Randy. >> Yes. So um good afternoon. I'm wondering I'm not sure if this is particularly
relevant, but to me it is. Mhm. >> Um, you're not hooked up to the sewer yet, correct? >> No, but No. >> Okay. So, stay stay with me for a minute on that. When you do, do you know if you're going to need a grinder pump? >> Yes, I am.
>> Okay. So, my question is, will you be able to use this generator pigtailed onto the grinder pump if you know? I don't know, but I doubt it. I would assume they'd have to be near each other. I don't I don't know that.
>> Yeah, I don't either. If they do have to be near each other, the answer would be no. >> Okay. Um that's my only question. >> Jay, can you give us any uh advice on that question of Randy's?
>> If it's a whole house generator, it can pro it's probably adequate to run the the grinder pump as well. I would imagine >> it's adequate to but I didn't know if they had to be nearby. >> I don't think so. >> Oh, okay. Yeah, it would be for sure. Yeah. So, so, um, Jay Briggs, is there
some kind of a long pigtail that can be used in the in those situations? So, it's no matter how far it is, I mean, within reason, because I'm a I'm concerned that if people have grinder pumps, they're really going to need a
generator. And if she can use this one, then I think she's um, in a sense killing two birds with one stone here. That's really important. I'm not an electrician, but I don't believe that it needs to be close in close proximity to the grinder pump. >> Okay. Thank you,
>> Jen. >> So, Mrs. Stone, I'm a little unclear on the measurement. So, your contractor measured 13 then you so it's not like, well, my contractor made a mistake, which we often hear. You you measured it as well and saw that it was 15. So what
I don't know >> I don't know except for I I was there when the engineer or surveyor was there but I didn't watch him when he was back there and he has this fancy equipment and I tried to talk to David Eldrich
about it uh David Clark and he said oh don't worry about it so I don't understand it it's confused me from the beginning that how he gets some two feet difference that's quite a Well, you both did. You you measured it
as well and got 15 ft. >> Oh, okay. Jay, >> I mean, I don't know if the topography changes the distance if you're measuring up the slope rather than measuring the horizontal distance. I don't know if that would account for that, but it's less than two feet um from the minimum
required setback. >> Thank you, Steve. Um well assuming that the surveyor is correct and it's at 13.1 um and you had to move it two feet to make it compliant in his eyes.
>> Mhm. >> Do you think it's going to make that much of a difference? >> Yes. Because I don't know how a bobcat will will get around there. And now you're not on level ground. So, I'm going to have to change that, which
changes drainage. >> Okay. >> But you you don't think it's going to have an effect on your on what your neighbor >> Oh, God. It's only two feet. >> You know how long you can how far away you can hear a generator?
>> No. 15t. >> Two feet is not going to make a difference. >> Yeah. No. Uh, >> okay. All right. I can hear one from his neighborhood that runs the 20 minutes, an older one. >> Yeah, >> I'm sure. Okay. Thank you,
>> Randy. >> So, I move to close public hearing and move into deliberations. >> I'll second the motion to vote yes. >> Dave vote yes. Uh Ed votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes. Uh Ed, deliberations. Um,
well, by the context of the letter from the neighbor, it almost seems like he doesn't think the generator has been installed yet. But yet, it's been installed since how many years? >> Oh, no, no, not years. Just um October
of 25. >> Oh, October. So, it's been And it And it was on for that period when we had the power out. >> I do believe he was there for part of that. >> Yeah. Um, >> but he doesn't live there year round. Sure. So
given that and given it's only two feet, I I I really don't think it would make much of a difference if it stays where it is or if you move it. So I I would approve uh leaving the generator where it is. >> Paul,
>> I agree with I agree with that reasoning. I mean, we're hearing generators all the time nowadays when we have power outages and uh and also when they're running their tests once a week. Uh with the newer generators, it's a shorter period of time that's involved.
I don't think it's a significant enough of an issue to create a real nuisance issue. Uh and therefore, I would be inclined to approve. >> Randy. >> Yep. So, I agree with my colleagues. Um, and I'm I'm just looking at the 10
criteria and um I don't I I understand the noise and litter number seven would be at issue, but based on the facts here, it apparently isn't and it wouldn't be with a twoft difference. So, I can't vote that this would be
substantially detrimental. um permits will be granted when it's been found that the use involved will not be detrimental to the established or future character of the neighborhood and when it has been found that the use involved will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the bylaw. I think
you're on all fours and I would if I were voting I would vote yes. >> Jenny, >> so I um am swayed by your attempt to put it in the right place. Uh you did attempt to and you had someone helping
you who also attempted to put it in the right place. Um it's only off by two feet. Um I I agree with uh my colleagues. It's not detrimental the noise. And also I'm inclined to give more grace with generators. They are not just for comfort but also for safety.
And this winter has really proven that again. So >> the older you get the >> Yeah. Yeah. So, um, >> so for those and I and it's I don't think it's substantially detrimental. So, for those reasons, I I would support it. >> Steve,
>> well, I think the the the homeowner has gotten some conflicting information and I think you did the best you could to to put this in generator in the place that it had to be. Um, even if you made the effort to move it, it's not going to
it's not going to diminish the amount of noise that it makes. Unfortunately, no. >> So, I I I think it's fine just leaving it where it is. >> K. >> Well, I I agree with all the previous um I I um
I'm once again I'm grateful that last year's town meeting um voted to give us the opportunity to grant special permits for a situation like this. Uh and I think this is a pretty good case for for for doing that. uh as all previously
said uh to to move a two feet is not going to make any significant difference in in the noise and and uh being already quite a bit downgrade from the neighbors. uh you know that's that's he's experiencing less noise than than
certainly the homeowner is while they are and as our former member Joe Craig always liked to say if the generator is running people have larger problems than the noise that it generates and I agree
with that. So uh I'm I'd be happy to support this. Well, I take a little different tack because um you know, we're the zoning board and we're here to protect properties from their neighbors.
And in this case, you have a neighbor that doesn't want this to go across that certain line. And I'm sorry about the confusion you had with people and all that sort of thing,
but to force an individual to accept something that's unacceptable to them uh to me is throwing the whole idea of zoning in the trash. And I know this is
the zoning board of appeals, >> but um he made a case as far as why he doesn't want you to be any closer. And so I I will vote against this
because I feel voting for it. I would be throwing that right to the wind when he or she doesn't want it to happen. Well, they want it to happen. Fine. But that's not the case here.
>> Okay, Randy. >> Yes. So, I um move to approve the application as submitted. >> I'll second the motion and vote yes. >> Dave Votes yes. >> Edit votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> I vote no. So, you're successful. Four to one.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. 26-027 please. Sarah >> application number 26-027 Allen D. Pearl and Joan M. Pearl car one
131 Whitaker Lane Hingham Mass 02043 owners of property located at 315 Pleasant Street also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 2A block 27 lot E15. The applicant seeks to enlarge, extend, or change a conforming dwelling in a non-conforming lot via the
conversion of the existing garage to habitable space and under the second except clause of section 6 of Mass General Law Chapter 4A requires the grant of a special permit. The law is non-conforming and that it contains 9,323
ft where 20,000 ft is required in the R20 zoning district. A special permit is required under master general law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5 v of the protected bylaw. >> I see that's unfortunate. All right. Uh please introduce
yourselves. Can you hear me? I can't hear you. No, there's no words coming from you. That's not helpful for your presentation. Is is that any better, sir?
>> Okay, now we can hear you. Now you can introduce yourselves. >> Okay. Um, my name's Alan Peral. My wife Joan is beside me. Um, and the current house has very nice living room, kitchen arrangement.
>> Your voice is going in and out. So, >> okay. Um, let me see. Hear me now if I speak up. >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um, so the objective is to get a little more living space. We have three adult children.
Um, and when they come, it's somewhat helpful to have an extra room other than just a living room. So, that's kind of what the objective is. Um, and we have spoken with our immediate neighbors, those who at least who are around, um, those who are directly behind us across
the street of a Levis's Lane, uh, across the street from Pleasant Street, and they all seemed, um, okay with it. Um, we didn't do this prematurely, but I filed a building permit after talking to Mr. Flores, which I know can't be acted on until this board acts, but Mr. the
floor thought it may be beneficial because it would flush out any questions from town boards and it did flush out a question from the health agent um who preferred that the opening we were doing from the current mud room into the
family room should be wider. So that has been adjusted. Uh I sent that plan to Sarah and the health agent has sent has since said she's satisfied. So, I believe it's relatively straightforward. We are non-conforming, as Sarah said, in lot size, but not in
any other way. We have 100 ft of frontage, actually on two streets. We meet setback requirements. And I did submit a statement to Sarah that basically believes that we're in, you know, consistent with the neighborhood
as far as uh utilities, aesthetics, and the like. I kind of answered each of those in a statement that I provided to Sarah and the chair and I guess that's our position. Okay. Uh does any member of the board
want any further explanation of any of the criteria? >> The board did receive copies of the written criteria that was submitted by Mr. Peralt. >> Yeah, if you I'm going to take a moment
and read it because I hadn't read it. Okay. I don't see anywhere in here when um you believe you would start this construction. >> Uh I didn't that that was part of my reason uh Mr. chairman is of filing the building permit because I know there's
an appeal period after this is done. Um, and I believe we can do the exterior work which is really installing five windows. Three in the places where the garage door is. It's a single car garage and then three other windows which you know we can order
you know shortly and have the the building tight to the weather and the exterior work done by the end of June. So, uh, you would be working on the interior during the summer. Is that correct?
>> As little as possible. Quite honestly, I think we can actually do everything in that time frame. All we're really doing in the inside, it's already studded off. The existing ceiling remains. Um, and we're just going to be raising the floor of that and the mud room by 10 in, which
my carpenter can probably do in two days. and we'll have the framework done within two weeks and I already got quotes on electrical work and insulation and sheetrock. So I basically got all the contractors lined
up and my plan is to have this done by them and I don't they're all available. That's why I've been kind of outreaching to them because I knew that might be a concern and I know that was the case on a neighboring or nearby property 34 Longs Lane. So that's why I tried to be
proactive for that reason. >> Okay. All right. So, um let's backtrack a little bit here. Um I presume that's your presentation. Uh is there anyone here on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor of this? If so, please indicate
you'd like to join the correspondence converation. Don't see anybody. I'll read the correspondence first. We have Judith Giorgio saying, "I have discussed the plan with the owner and they have revised the floor plan to
include a 5-ft cased opening into the new family room, therefore making it a common area with limited privacy. I have signed off on the building permit." Then we have a a written letter from William J. pool
and his address is 10 uncle leies and um he writes on 48. As an abuter to the property, I would like to offer my approval for the proposed conversion of the existing garage to a family room. I a yearround
resident and look forward to the continuous gentrification of our neighborhood. Please approve the project. And that's the extent of the correspondence. Is there anyone here today on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak either against this or has a
specific question? If so, please indicate now you'd like to speak. Don't see anybody. So, uh, we'll go to questions. I already had my question. So, Jenny, >> three-bedroom home today. Is that correct?
>> It it it is. Okay. And this is habitable space that you're converting the garage to and the change from the 4 foot proposed to the 5- foot. Um, so it's what's the intended use of that room? Is it >> a family room? >> Family room. Okay. Uh, I have a question
for Jay Briggs. Um, the site plan do for for a proposal to be sent to us, does it need to be more current a more current site plan? Because when I was first looking at this, I was looking at the balcony and it says new balcony, but I realized that
was a previous probably a previous uh project. Is there a requirement to have a more updated site plan than 2007? >> Jay Briggs. Um, no, not really because I mean they're not adding on. They're just altering what's there. >> Okay. >> So, the distance from the road hasn't
changed at all and the building coverage won't change. >> Okay. Um, >> so >> it's nice to see that they it's nice to see they didn't mark up the plan because we don't allow people to mark up other people's plans without their permission. >> Jerry, don't they need to give you an asbuilt when they're done?
>> Well, if they're not ch they're not changing anything in that regard. So, I don't know that I would need an asbuilt in this scenario. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. No, that's good. But I >> most most permits do require an asbill, but if they're not expanding, um, then there would be no reason to have an asbuilt.
>> Okay. All right. Thank you. That's all I had. >> I have no questions, Dave. >> Uh, no questions, Dave. >> Ed. No questions. >> Oh, no questions. Randy, >> no questions. >> Okay, Randy. >> So, I move to close public hearing and move into deliberations.
>> I'll second the motion and vote yes. >> D votes yes. >> Ed votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes. Okay. Uh Paul >> looks like a nice project. It seems to me it will provide him with some additional space and as long as it's
complying with the necessary uh bedroom issues, I should have no problem. So it will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. >> Randy. >> Yes. So I agree with Paul. Um, and I also I know I'm a little ahead of us,
but I think the only um condition we would need on this is just that construction be contained on the site um or a neighboring property with permission from the owner. In the long run, I think that's all we would need with this one and um it meets the criteria and I would support it if I
were voting. >> Jenny, >> it meets her criteria and I would support it too. >> Steve, >> I would support it. It's not outwardly changing the building at all and um gives them a little better living space. It's fine. >> Dave, >> I agree with all previous Ed.
>> As do I. >> Okay. >> So, I move to approve the application as presented with the one condition that all construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission
of the property owner. >> I'll second the motion. Vote yes. David votes yes. >> Ed votes yes. >> Genie votes yes. >> I vote yes. That's unanimous. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay.
Elizabeth bias care of William F. Riley Esquire PO box 707 Chadam Mass 02633 owner of property located at 60 house lane also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 7B block 52 lot S25 the applicant seeks to enlarge extend or
change a non-conforming dwelling in a non-conforming lot v the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a new dwelling the existing dwelling is non-conforming and it is located 13.2 2 ft from the northeasterly butter where a 15 ft setback is required. The proposed
dwelling will comply with road and abutter setback requirements. The existing building coverage is 1,459 ft 15.5% and the proposed building coverage is 1,861 ft 19.8% where 15% is the maximum
allowed. the law is non-conforming and that it contains 9,418 square feet where 20,000 square feet is required in the R20 zoning district. A special permit is required under master law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw. This was
continued from January 22nd and February 26, 2026. >> Mr. Riley, good afternoon. uh Bill Lichfield here in behalf of uh Jim and Libby Debiasi. And you can perhaps figure out who in the audience the
Debiosis are. Uh they wanted to be here on February 26, but you'll recall that we had a little snow and uh they were unable to attend, but they're pleased to be here today. Their family has owned this property since 1977. And I think uh
most if not all of you were here on February 26 when the matter was previously before you, but I was not. So when Jim and Libby first approached me about representing them, the the initial step I took was to go back and review
the tape of the February hearing. In fact, because I realized then it was continued from January 22nd and I went back and saw the notice of that hearing which referred to coverage of 18.5%.
So I assumed that the initial continuence to February might have resulted in a somewhat lower request. And I when I watched the February hearing, I was a little surprised to learn that the request hadn't been decreased, but rather had been increased
to 19.8%. And at least one member of this board vocalized that thought, saying that uh the belief when had heard about a continuence was to allow for a decrease. Uh that didn't happen. And in that February
hearing, as you know, although there were significant words of praise for the design and for the overall appearance of the proposed house, there were also considerable concerns expressed about the increase in coverage and about the height. While the actual uh actual
number of the increased coverage was only a bit more than 400 square feet, measured by a percentage on a fairly small lot uh that was deemed excessive. So before I agreed to become involved, I told Jim and Libby that while a an
increase of a percent or maybe 2% of increased coverage might, as expressed by several of you, perhaps be acceptable, going to 20% was simply not going to fly. Uh and that the height also had to be adjusted.
You've heard me say before that I don't like to waste your time or my time or my client's money on plans that aren't likely to be approved and that when a matter has been continued due to specific criticisms
uh they have to be taken to heart at a continued hearing. And I think that you can find that the revised plans have been specifically responsive to the concerns expressed by the board. I'm pleased to report that Jim and Libby and
their design team listened and took your comments to heart. Uh while the initial proposal complied as to height, the height was mentioned by several of you. So the ridge has been dropped a full foot to 28t 6 in which is well below the
maximum. Uh perhaps more importantly, the increased coverage sought is a mere 232 square ft uh less than half of that previously sought. And while nothing you do uh is a precedent, the coverage
involved 17.8% is exactly the same as two other rebuilt houses on similarlysized lots on the same side of House Lane. So, I recognize that being last on the agenda, sometimes people,
not you, but sometimes people generally want to go home. Uh, but this is pretty important to Jim and Libby. So, I want to take a minute and ask that you bear with me while I go through the criteria, even though you've heard them before, and specifically speak to the responsive
changes that were made as to adequacy of site. Uh like the entire neighborhood, we have an undersized lot under uh current zoning with coverage of 15.5%. Interestingly enough, when this house was built, and for that matter, when
Libbyy's family, Libbyy's mom and dad bought the house in 1977, allowed coverage was 25%. Uh we are however compliant with the current street setback, but with just one of the three sidelines. Uh I think
however you can find that as revised as reduced the site is adequate for the new home the footprint uh remains consistent with those in the neighbors. Uh the responsive changes reducing the height request or the uh coverage request from
19.8% to 17.8% 8% exactly the same as two other adjacent properties and with the height reduced by a foot the site is adequate for the revised house as the compatibility of size on the third page of the handout. The you have in front of
you the numbers the neighborhood was developed with smaller summer cottages uh but many if not most of which have been rebuilt or expanded since then. This house as revised will remain compatible with its surroundings. The
gross floor area and the living area consistent with those which have been rebuilt in the neighborhood which several of you correctly called a neighborhood in transition. The footprint increase is certainly in accord with several uh adjacent
properties. as to the extent of increase in nonconformity. We have are non-conforming as to lot size as to two of the three sideline setbacks in coverage. Well, the lot isn't going to change and we're seeking an increase in coverage of 232 square ft, but again,
it's consistent with the neighborhood and two of the sideline setback nonconformities on the west and north, excuse me, are being eliminated. In addition, when you go out there to House Lane, uh we've got about 800
square ft of green space lawn in the front yard, uh which is technically part of House Lane, but which realistically in terms of the appearance is part of our lot. So the actual percentage the mathematical calculation doesn't take
that into consideration but it certainly that green space lessens the impact of the strict mathematical percentage involved and again it's consistent with others in the neighborhood as the suitability of site. The site has been developed for residential use since 1960
and there are no environmental issues in this part of a long developed neighborhood. And it's the scale citing mass fuse and vistas. We have at present a 1 and 3/4 story house of a scale consistent with the original neighborhood. Arguably the house is the
existing house is not consistent with the neighborhood as it now stands. But the existing house is without impact on views and vistas. And again the original design received positive comments at the prior hearing and as modified as to
heighten coverage. I think you can find it to be responsive to those comments. U as modified, the scale and the mass are appropriate for the setting and are of a piece with other redeveloped properties in the neighborhood. It's an attractive and thoughtful design and I don't
suspect the prior correspondence will be reread nor need it be. But the butters had written several abutters had written in support of the proposal as compatibility of use. There's no change residential use town water and a four bedroomedroom septic that's going to
change. So, as you're aware, the question which you're to decide is whether replacing, excuse me, the existing structure with a new home significantly modified as to both coverage and height in direct
response to your comments. While maintaining the overall well-received design with a fairly small expansion compatible with neighboring properties and support of the Butters is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than a current the current
non-conforming structure on a non-conforming lot. The new house as proposed is consistent with changes in what uh you called correctly I think a a neighborhood in transition. Uh Jim and Libby and their design team listened to
what you had to say and we're here today with plans which provide some additional space but which are sensitive to the site are compatible with neighboring houses and are directly responsive to your prior comments. There's one other
point I want to make. As I said, this house was built in 1960 and the family's owned it since 1977. I have in the past reminded you of the the lengthy and largely if not completely successful attempts made by
many of us 40 odd years ago to upgrade our zoning bylaw by increasing minimum lot sizes and setbacks and decreasing coverage. But every time we went before the voters uh to encourage them to increase lot size or lower coverage, we
told them that they would have the zoning board of appeals as an avenue to make changes to properties made nonconforming by zoning changes. Of course, you're required to evaluate petitions under the substantial detriment standard, but I think it's
instructive to remember that this house and others in that neighborhood. Uh when this house was built, uh and when the the family bought it in 1977, again, the coverage limit was 25%. We're not seeking anything close to
that. That would be a house of 2,534 square ft. Having heard your comments, you're only requesting 1681 square feet, much smaller than originally proposed. But I know you'll be cognizant that the bylaw at issue was amended based on
representations that owners of pre-existing homes would have this board as an avenue for changes to those houses. We're not seeking anything to close to what could have been uh been built, but rather something which is reasonable for this lot in this
neighborhood in transition. Uh the chart that I handed out gave the neighborhood comparison numbers were consistent with the redeveloped houses in what you've correctly characterized as a changing neighborhood. And while the standard that you follow is not to
compare this proposal to that which you didn't like in February, the footprint is substantially less the height is significantly lower. The Debianis listen to your concerns and it will be appropriate for this neighborhood. The
scale and the mass about which you had concerns have been reduced. The height has been lowered and we've come back back with a plan which as revised is specifically responsive to your concerns and also because it's the legal standard
it is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. We'd be happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you. Is there anyone here today or in Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application? Now is the
time to join the conversation. >> Uh seeing none, I'll read the correspondence. This is the new correspondence, not the correspondence we read before. This is dated April 21st.
And someone's wishing Sarah. Hope you're doing well. You're enjoying spring, are you? >> No. All right. Uh, it's from Ethan Allen Arnold. Since our last email, my wife Helen and I at 48 House Lane have had the chance
to review the pictures of the new house that the Diabasis would like to build. We are supportive of their application and recognize that they have made changes to their plans. We appreciate that the house is consistent with the other homes in the neighborhood and hope that the board approves their new
design. and he's the managing partner of I don't know what but chart chartist anyway he's at 48 hours length okay that's the extent of the correspondence the new stuff uh is there anyone here
today on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak either against this or has a specific question now is the time to enter the conversation don't see anyone so questions from the board. Let's start with Dave Vich. >> Thanks, Dave. Um, Bill,
uh, is the architect, uh, available or present or >> uh, neither, unfortunately. >> Okay. Um, well, maybe I I found a few minor discrepancies in the plans as I was trying to understand the the
differences from the this most recent proposal and the previous one. Uh, and so it looks to me in in both the site plan and the um architect's plan some some slight discrepancies in terms
of dimensions and things. Nothing that I that I think probably can be explained but I forgot to make changes in this part or whatever. Um, so I I I don't think I really need to pursue that. My question would be and I don't know if the if the answer
is available in the room in in reducing the height by a foot as as you proposed how was that how was that accomplished? Do we know? >> I I had discussions and Jim or Libby if
you want to join me please feel free if the chair will allow. I I readily admit uh that there was some rushing about to get the file the plans to you. I didn't become involved in this until about two and a half weeks ago and Sarah needed
the plans by the 16th and we got them on the 16th, but I think I sent Sarah two or three different versions and said, "Whoops, that's not it. Hold on. There's another one to come." Uh, I confirmed today with Wendy Clark the height 28t 6 in
>> and the coverage request is 1,681 square ft. >> Um, that that's on the record how the architect would deal with that, Dave. I can't tell you. >> Okay. I just wanted to I the reason I wanted to pursue it was to make sure
that there wasn't some some kind of an error made in making that 28 foot 6 in representation. I would think based on what I've seen and but I'm having to speculate a little bit which is not good that that it was
probably accomplished by dropping a couple of ceiling heights a little bit. >> That that is what she did. >> Libby they can't hear you miss. >> Okay. So that that's that's what I'm hearing and and that that explains to some of my question.
Um and then I had there was another question I have with respect to a a roof line on on one of the um uh elevations that I think um it it doesn't quite make
sense to me. So I would be a little concerned about you on the on the I'm going just be more specific try to be more specific about this because I think it's I think it's just an an error perhaps in the
architectural plans. If we look on page A.2.2 to at the northwest elevation. Um,
and we look at the um upper right hand corner of the main uh ridge line that that we're looking at from the side. And and if I compare that to the previous
uh drawing, what I see is the previous drawing is much the same, but it it actually shows that main ridge extending a little bit further towards the road.
When I look at this the um floor plans, I don't see any indication that that's going to be the case. The the roof is not the roof, I would think, should appear as it did on the previous set of
plans that were submitted on 226. It's it but it's it's it's kind of extended more and I I it that's not reflected in the um floor plan. So, I think that's somehow a small error in
the drawing. So, I call that out. >> I appreciate you bringing that to your attention. If you'd like to come up, you can, but you can't speak from back there. >> Yeah. Good. >> Uh I don't have an answer. I believe Jim has gone out to try to reach Lauren O'Neal who is our architect. If I could, Mr. Chairman, Miss Dhazi.
>> Oh, yes, please. Okay. I think is what you're seeing because I questioned it on this other side of the house is she put a I forgotten what she called the name, but a almost a a what's the right word for it? Uh architectural element on it
>> just to make the design look nice, but the floor plan is the floor plan. >> Right. Okay. >> That that that I did the same thing and I kept on saying the floor plan doesn't match the the >> what it looks like from the outside. It's just a like a collar, if you will.
>> Okay. Okay. But that's fine. It's a it's a minor point, but I you know, I was because I was trying to understand this and I was pouring over it and and and I and and I've seen other plans from time to time that didn't not everything lined up. So then the other part of my
question is I I would like to understand my understanding from from comparing these two plans is that the the reduction in um uh from the previous proposal from the 19%
to getting down to the 17.8%. is been achieved by eliminating the roof on the front porch and a roof over the side entry. An
extended roof over the side. Is that is that >> Yeah, there there is no roof over the front porch. The >> front porch is now we call it a deck. >> We should It should be It should be called a front deck now because it's no longer a porch. As I indicated, we were a little late in with the plans, but we
we agree have to speak from here. And I spoke with uh Wendy Jones of Clark Engineering to confirm that and that lowered the number >> lower than we had thought it was. So, it was a good thing, but the intent was to remove the covering over the deck, non
porch. Right. But we also pulled the house in. >> You did? >> So, we did. We didn't just take off those roofs and leave it as is. We pulled the house in. >> Okay. That part I couldn't see from. >> Yeah, it's it's >> these reduced plans were hard for me to read. You know, we don't have the scale
set. So, but so you did shrink the the the dimensions of the building as well. >> We did pull it in, but it was done like, you know, a foot here, six inches. >> Yeah, I know. I Yeah, I can see that that there wasn't a lot of room to
maneuver with it. >> The the island went from four chairs to three. You can you can see it in that fashion. Okay. >> I in in in order to retain the physical appearance, which most members seem to like, we didn't change the overall
design. And as Libby said, it was just sort of a little bit here and a little bit there in addition to taking the coverage off of the porch. >> Yeah. Um uh uh Yeah. Okay. I think those are my only questions, Bill. Thank you. Thanks. >> And
uh no questions, >> Paul. Uh well, I think you may have answered one question. Well, the the paperwork that we have uh and the updated cover sheet uh reflects the building height at 296, whereas what you're saying is that it's
actually 286. The site plan that Sarah has has 28.6 and I'm representing to you that it's 28.6. >> Okay. Uh I wanted to be clear on that. Um, the other question I'm uh
uh curious about is if you look at your chart for uh the other properties on House Lane, >> uh 48 House Lane, uh which is the house to the right as you're looking at the houses from the road,
>> uh reflects a gross floor area of 4241 >> and a living area of 38.86. >> Mhm. And the proposed house reflects u for your clients a gross floor area of 4526
and a living area of 2845. Just for the record, can you just explain the difference between the gross floor areas and living areas? >> Yeah. And and this is an issue. I know that uh your rules and regulations require gross floor area, but I've I've made this observation before. If I have
a th00and square foot house on a slab and you next door have a th00and square foot house with a full basement. My gross floor area is a thousand. Your gross floor area is 2,000. From the world's perspective, the houses are
identical. So gross floor area, yes, it does include garages if they're, you know, separate. So it does have some relevance. But in this case, 1681 square feet of our gross floor area is
below ground and isn't going to be seen. All anyone is going to see is 2,845 square ft of living area, which is 1,000 square ft less than the house at 48 House Lane next door. And is the is the
house at uh 48 uh a house which has a basement? I can tell you in a couple of minutes I believe it is. I've got the assessor's field cards for half of West
Chadam here. Uh the house at four, that's the wrong one. 48 has a finished basement of 1,66 square ft and an unfinished basement of
1355 for a total basement area of 1421. So those are included in the gross floor area for that property. Our house at present has only a partial basement.
Some of it is a crawl space. >> Mhm. But the significant change in gross floor area or a port a significant portion of the change in the gross floor area for this house at 60 is the change from a partial basement to a full basement.
>> Okay. Um I did take the time to look at the uh ZBA hearing with respect to 48 house lane. Um and um they were very careful to maintain the house at the
coverage that it had before uh with one exception 100 square foot gardening shed in the back left hand side. But um as I see it now where you're at is consistent
with the same coverage that they have at 48 house lane. It's exactly the same. >> 17.8. >> Okay. >> And also at 40 house lane. And that's also one house further away >> and lower obviously than than houses
further down at 66 which is beyond us and at 88 which is the last house on the right before the left onto Nickerson Lane. >> Well, I find I find the number significant because you know when you're over there and I've I've been over to
the house several times. um looking at uh what the the uh staking shows and the uh paint lines for the turnaround and so forth. Um you really get the feeling that it's very close and you're very
close to uh what the house and building is going to be. And I was concerned that uh that it was going to in some way uh sort of overpower uh what's there. Um if you look at the perspective coming sort of the reverse
way down house lane and coming from the west to the east um and in most of those lots you see much more open space in the uh in the lot. So uh those presented some concern to me but I appreciate the
fact the numbers that you've provided. Thank you. >> Thank you. If I could could respond briefly. We we absolutely uh tried to be responsive to the request and in terms of open space uh you know if the board felt it worthwhile and I'm
not sure that it would make any difference uh the house could be moved further back from the street a foot two feet but you know one one of the sort of problemat or challenging aspects
um is that on a relatively small lot as all of them are in that that area. You know, 1% of this lot is 98 square feet which is pretty small. So, you know, a a 1% or 2% increase is still only 200
square ft. So there are there it's it's not an easy lot obviously, but again uh even though the house at 48 did not increase except by the shed, we're going to end up the same size as that if the special permit is approved. >> Thank you.
>> I don't have any questions, Mr. Chair, >> Jenny. I've got so many notes here. So, similar to Dave Beach, I I noticed some of these discrepancies, too, but I I think I explained most of them. Um, so let's start with the height. I saw in
the site plan because all the paperwork was still showing at 296 and I was disappointed when I saw that because I thought all that feedback that we got and I w re-watched the hearing to just go down two more percentage points when
you're already over. So you're still over and pouring through this. But the site plan, I calculated the height. It's 285. That's what I have. You had 286, but it's 285. And I um that really made a difference. I I think that's important.
My So my question though is trying to reconcile some of these um I guess it would be the building coverage number. How is the building coverage going down when the um gross floor area is going up? And I think that Dave, so that was
my question, but I think Dave Beach's uh observation about I'm looking at A2 and I I have the old A22. I have the original one and the new one. And I see what you're talking about, Dave. It's this this the top floor, the second
floor is um has like an eve that's extending out over I don't know if you have the old >> Yeah, I Yeah, Jenny, that and that that's and that may be that actually might partially be the case because you cannot see it from the the other um elevation from the opposite side because
it's between it's it's it doesn't show because the the gazebo is is is it inter intervenes. So you can't confirm that on the other elevation. >> Yeah. >> So that's why I look to the floor plan. >> Okay.
>> But it could be a an extension of of the roof line without extending the wall underneath it. >> Okay. So I think that is is that what you were going to say, Sarah? So I just put this is the previous um version of the plan with that elevation that
everyone's speaking about >> and this is the current proposal with >> less >> less of an indent. >> So I guess the question Mr. Lfield is would that then explain why the building coverage is shrinking
but yet the gross floor area was uh increasing? Well, the the gross floor area is increasing over what it is now. Uh I can't tell you what was representatives to gross floor area at the original hearing because I wasn't a part of it. >> Yeah. Okay.
But, you know, I I can again by way of response, one of the things that I've never quite understood and I've been doing this for a couple of weeks is why feet are often shown by engineers
in a decimal sense. You know, 28.5 is the same as 28T 6 in. So I I I can never quite understand that but that's how it's done but I think it may be the same. >> That's just to confuse your bill primary. >> Thank you. It works very well. Uh Mr.
Diosi if I could Mr. Chairman. >> Yeah. I mean I'm not sure what gross floor area was was represented in the first meeting but >> there's no question the footprint got smaller. >> Yeah. >> And the basement is the size of the footprint, >> right? >> I don't know. It's not possible that we have more gross floor floor area now
than we had before. I mean maybe the numbers got discombobulated at the first hearing. I'm not sure but we definitely reduced the size of the footprint. >> That's what happened. >> That should have reduced that should have had a corresponding decrease in the gross warrior. >> Okay. Thank you. Sarah, were you going
to >> Sorry. Yes. the um February hearing uh did the the plans that were given to the board um did not take into consideration the full basement area
which is why the number from the February hearing is less than the hearing today. So it was it was numbers that were not included on the plans so they couldn't >> shown to the board. I I I can can simply
observe that while I don't like gross floor area, I know that you want it, which is why I provided it even if it doesn't help the cause. >> That's all I had. Thank you. That's all I had. Thank you, >> Steve. Uh just and just because the the
documentation has changed so many times over the course of the last few months, what do you know what the existing ridge height is and how it compares to what's being proposed? It may be on Sarah. Do you have Wendy's prior plan?
>> Again, >> what I observed, can I just interact for a second with respect to that? What I observed and this is where I think an maybe an error was made is that on the site plan uh in the in the height calculations box
>> the um Dave Clark the or the engineers made the change so to 64.5 proposed ridge elevation formerly had had been 65.5 now the that's those are
those are inches you know 65 six inches However, when you what what I found is that when I go down to the call out on on the U floor plan, it says proposed four bedroomedroom dwelling giving ridge elevation first floor top of foundation.
They did not change the number there. So, but the representation is that it's been dropped to to 64.5, not 65.5. >> Correct. existing is 57.1 or about 7
feet higher. Okay. >> Yeah. So, and you don't have any statistics, I guess, or dimensions on the house at 48 and how this house would compare to the one at 48. Do we have a ridge height for that house?
>> No, ridge height. I I can't do that. There are those who have, you know, laser things that can do it, but I'm not one of them. >> Okay. >> All right. I'm just kind of trying to get a feel for how that compares to that house cuz it's kind of a large house. >> Yeah. So, the house at 48 house was um
uh basically a singlestory house. Uh it had roughly 1,400 square foot of living area all on the first floor. So, the re the renovated house or the the rebuilt house essentially doubled the square the square footage by adding a second floor.
But we don't know what the ridge height of that. Okay. But it was it was a shorter house. >> I understand. >> The other thing, Stephen, is that the grade has dropped, >> right? Drops a few feet at least. >> Right. So, this house is going to seem
>> It's higher because the grade is higher. >> Because the grade is higher, right? >> Fortunately, we have a fairly flat lot, so it's an easy calculation, but again, it's consistent with those on either side. >> There's a there's a drop off between 40
between 60 and 48, >> right? >> Goes down about I don't know two or three feet I think. >> Yeah. Easily, right? >> So the the height >> calculation really won't be relevant to to what's actually. >> Yeah. But just to get sort of an idea so
we could visualize what 28 and 1/2 ft is in the neighborhood. Um, the other thing was, and I think, uh, Paul was saying it, is that, you know, you you could kind of tell from the outline, the painted outline of the of the house or the proposed house is
not the footprint is not that much bigger, I don't think, than than what's there now. It's just um, you know, changing the style of the house. >> That's that's very very true, Mr. Dor. And as you know, and I should have offered this to the board earlier, we didn't have the time to restake it. Mhm.
>> So if you went if you went back as I assume you did, you saw the original staking. >> Okay. All right. I appreciate it. Thank you. >> So Mr. Lichfield. Um, the plan, the site plan is strange
in that when I'm looking at the left side of the house, I don't have measurements of distance to the property line. I have measurements
to the next house, which is interesting and it's informative, but that leaves me to believe that okay,
u the part of the house that's closest to the property line, it's like 6 or 8 feet off or something like that because I and here I'm just guessing and I I stood on the property line and said, "Okay, that looks like 7 feet or that
looks like 8t or something like that." So, um I I was if if >> kind of taken back, >> chairman, if you look at the street setback, >> yep, >> the same problem appears.
>> If you look at the left hand side up towards 66, the same problem appears. I believe the measurements are correct. The dotted lines are not. >> The dotted lines extend beyond where
they should because the dotted lines go to the the property line on the far side of house lane and obviously that's not correct. So what what is shown on this plan for instance on the street side the propo
the existing house is 33.5 ft from the street and the proposed house is 26.6 or 25.5 because of a slight turn in the road. The same holds true for the sideline that we are quite compliant as
to the right hand side or souththeast side. We're at 28.3, not we're well beyond the 15 feet. And on the northwest side, the existing shed
is 10.9 ft. The existing house is 17.3. The proposed dimension is 16.7 to the house and 12.7 to the bulkhead, which will be less than 30 square ft. So I think it's a function of the rush with
which the dotted lines were shown on the plan. >> Okay. Because it's it's kind of confusing. >> I I I don't disagree. Uh but unfortunately we were trying to be compliant not just with the zoning bylaw but with plan providing plans in a
timely manner. But the representation obviously is that this house complies to three sideline requirements left, right and rear and also to street setback requirement.
>> Okay. All right. Well, if I could, if you look at the the the rear when we go beyond the existing gazebo, >> Yeah. >> the dotted line goes nearly to the house behind us. >> Correct. >> Yeah. So I think it just I think the line
daughter got overly excited by the beauty of this proposal. >> This is according to >> Well, okay. If if I could, uh, Mr. Debasi has just gotten an email or a text with his client setbacks at 16.6 on the left of
the bulkhead. Rear is 26.9. Uh, height is 286, brought it down 1 ft, etc. So the architect has confirmed Thank you. confirmed what I had suggested. >> Okay. Okay. Well, that clears up my
>> my concern. Okay. Uh I I don't think I have any other question. Is everybody satisfied with questions? Okay. Ready? >> I move to close the public hearing and move into deliberations. >> I'll second the motion and vote yes. >> D votes yes. >> Ed votes yes.
>> Jenny V votes yes. >> And I vote yes. So deliberations. Let's start with Well, we'll start with Dave. You had a lot of good questions to begin with there. So, uh I guess they were straightened those. >> Yeah, they Yeah, I I I think we've
pieced I think we've pieced it all together and and and figured out what pieces and and I and understand and I understand how these things can happen pretty easily. uh you know and ch dimension not changed on a drawing and and consistently both between the
architectural and then it's a lot of moving parts. So, but I think we're clear now on how what's being proposed on it. Um, I I I'm think I may have been the only one the last time who felt that
the previous proposal I I could support. And um but I also uh and looking and watched the meeting again and I I definitely understand the concerns of all my other fellow board members about the uh increase in the um um ground
coverage from from the 15.5%. I'm um pleased that um Attorney Litzfield is is here representing because I I he he does a great job with these charts and and showing us and and uh
sometimes some other attorneys don't do quite as good a job of um doing the comparisons because I was interested because this is there are there are a number of lots in this development that are And these are among the smallest of
the lots. And there are others that go up to, you know, you could see 11,000, 12, 21,000, but these, you know, 9,400, 94,400 190. And they're all kind of right in a row on on House Lane there. And so I wanted to see, but and I
started to actually try to put it together myself, but at that point I I'd already fried my brain trying to do these other things. But I be I'm glad to see because I wanted to get a to see along that stretch on those size lots
what kinds of of lot coverages had been presented and and we can see them here. We can see now here's a 17.8 a 17.8 uh a 155 217.8 the proposal current proposal a
23.6 six at 66 house. Um and and then when you get down I was trying to look up 88 house but that one has probably upland consideration. So when you look at in when those some of those larger lots you could can't tell what's upland but it you know 19.2. So I I what
they're asking for is not out of step with some of what we've propo has been proposed and we've um um agreed to and some of the others and in the neighborhood. So, um it's I I think it's a nice looking house. I am um in a way
um sorry to see the front porch lost as a porch because I think it would look better as a porch, but you know, we've expressed these um um ground coverage concerns and and the 17.8 certainly
looks better than the 19 something that was previously proposed. I don't know what the difference would be if we put the porch roof back on. I I would I would certainly entertain that thought because I think aesthetically it that that losing the porch over the front and
making it just a deck is is not a um an aesthetic improvement, let me put it that way. Um so, but I I I would I'm happy to support this. I think it's a nice house. I think it is um it will look somewhat different than some of the
others still remaining of the original houses on the street, but there are transitions taking place on this street and certainly around the corner. Big transitions have taken place on Nickerson Lane and things and so I I I see it I don't see it as substantially
more detrimental to neighborhood. I I it can meet meets our criteria as I see it. Ed. >> Well, I I agree with Dave um mostly. Um I feel we're going to see, you know, a lot more of these projects coming in
front of us in this neighborhood if you if you sort of look around the neighborhood and see what's coming. And the applicants and the audience probably think we're somewhat perhaps nitpicky, but we're trying to
be fair and uh be uniform for what's there now and potentially what's coming. Um, this particular project I feel will fit in with what's been approved and perhaps what will be approved in the future. But it's important that we sort
of, you know, look at it completely, make sure all the facts are straight and and and make sure what's presented to us is is is accurate because there's going to be other people in front of us that are going to be looking at this plan and and seeing how
we went. But I feel it's going to be, you know, fit in with what's there now, fit in what's going to happen in the future. and I I don't see it uh being detrimental in in in any way and perhaps in an improvement to to the
neighborhood. >> Paul, I think I agree that uh with the changes that have been uh presented uh we've made an improvement or they've made an improvement in terms of overall compliance with the neighborhood. Um the
one thing that's running through my mind as we go through this is uh is the plan that's before us, the uh site plan that's before us one that uh contains accurate measurements that we can approve or do or do we need some revised
plan uh that shows the numbers more clearly? >> So I believe the extension of the lines Paul um is simply underlining. So if you look for example at the this elevation here, you have two lines that overlap
each other. So, what um Wendy from Clark Engineering most likely has done is extended the line to show you that the red is the existing with the line underneath it because that appears on every single one of them just with an
extension of the line and the number going to it because the line typically doesn't go past where the number and the words stop. So, it might just be some feature of their CAD that that's how it does it, but I'm not certain. But this
this is the true and accurate stamp site plan with the correct coverage and setbacks um as is being presented for today. >> Okay. You know, Paul, I did see on particularly the stake I'm in the street, the closest one to me that has
the corner down here. Uh it said approximate on it. It did. So, you know, I I think there's a lot of you could be off a couple inches, but we'll know about that later, Randy.
>> Well, um I I agree with Ed, which is good because he's voting for me today and um that makes me happy because I don't wish that I voted. Um and I like your reasoning, Ed. Um, and I also want
to say that I can tell that this project has been uh has caused some tension for the applicants and um you especially because of the timing. You wanted to get in here because you know the waiting list could be long and you hired a different attorney and then you had to
hustle with everything that you did and you obviously listened to our last meeting because you made changes and um and this is the way we do it here. You know, we don't say no. We say, "How about you come back?" And you did exactly you did you proceeded through
the process perfectly. And if I were voting, I would uh support it because I don't see it now as substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. >> Jenny, >> so I agree with Ed's point about um
neighborhood in transition, and that was actually something that that was brought up at the last hearing. Um, and it's it is why we pay particular attention to that because uh there are other homes that are going to be looking at this and that have projects and are going to say,
"Oh, you know, just ask for a little bit more." And that is why we're here is to make sure that that that is appropriately um so not to make a point out of this applicant but but that is why such a large increase to already
being over was was not acceptable um up to this point. Um that's number one. Number two, another comment that was made last time, I think it was Paul, might not have been, but I think it was maxing out the massiveness and um and I
remember last time really liking the design and commenting about very attractive design, but that it I I building coverage was my main uh problem last time. And but but when I was uh at the hearing last time and then reminded of that hearing at when I wa re-watched
the the uh the tape of it, I I I did feel like that that is exact and we looked at the site again uh went out yesterday and looked at it again and and it just it really was a good point that it was quite massive. not just the building coverage, but the height
started bothering me and I didn't really make that comment the first time. But coming in here tonight, I was frankly, you know, just wondering because two because it didn't look like anything else had changed until I did the calculation of the height on the site
plan and saw that's dropped a foot and that was really important to me. Um, I also like your chart, Mr. Lichfield, that you do. I agree with Dave Vich. There are 12 homes on this property on House Lane that are um
that are shown here and more than five of them or five of them are over I'm sorry, five of them are over the 15%. I mean that's almost half. So um I I think that that is also very good perspective. It doesn't mean that we're saying
you can go over uh but it's making the fact that you're already over and you're looking for a little bit more to make an improvement to the home for your family and to the neighborhood is is actually a um a small number. And speaking of small numbers, the reason it's a larger
percentage is because it's a smaller lot. I mean just mathematically that is the challenge that you now that doesn't mean that anyone with a small lot can just increase but the reason the zoning board of appeals is here is because we apply the discre the the the analysis
and the research and can apply that discretion and really see when it is appropriate. So, the last thing I'll say is that the decrease in the height by a significant amount, not just a few inches, but a foot and an inch is um for
me what really turns it um and makes it makes me want to support this this time because I do think it reduces the overall massiveness and um that was in addition to being over so much in the coverage that was a problem we all had
last time. In a nutshell, you were responsive, I believe, in the applicant to the comments that we made last time. >> Steve, >> yeah, I I think I feel the same way. You know, I'm glad to see that u some pretty important concessions were made,
especially in terms of the uh the uh the overall height of the building and the and the the mass of the building and your willingness to to cooperate with the board and and listen to our suggestions. Appreciate that. and you know to try to be as compliant as
possible. It is a very small lot and um you know anything that you do there is going to be um going to be difficult and I also appreciate the clarifications that were made in in terms of some of the coverages and things. Um we had uh
you know some dimensional questions that uh needed to be explained and I think we have a better feel for that now. And I think what's being done is probably a look into the future for that neighborhood. Um I think probably a lot of these sort of projects are going to be taking place in that neighborhood.
And um I think this is um you know it's it's a good project and um um I think you know hopefully works out well for you and you you enjoy yourself there. Well, I wax on the subject now and then,
but this is a perfect example. I wish the heck that we had a 3D presentation be particularly when Dave was originally talking about, you know, what this changed and all that that I really think a 3D presentation would have cleaned up
this whole thing for us and Jenny's concerns too. So while we can't make people do that, it certainly proves to me that somehow we have to convey the impression please. I mean it can be done. It
doesn't cost 30 grand anymore. You can do it for a lot less, you know, uh like less than a thousand. Um anyway, that's my soap box. As far as what's happened here, as everyone has
said, our concerns have been addressed. Is it substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood? Nope. Is it a great improvement? Don't know. Um like to see and reserve my judgment on that till
it's done. But what's proposed is certainly okay with me. Randy, >> I move to uh grant the uh application as submitted to approve um with the following conditions.
All construction activity and vehicles be contained on site are at a neighboring property with 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 would be between 8 am and 5:00 pm only. >> I'll second the motion and vote yes. >> Dave Votes yes. >> Ed votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes
>> and I vote yes to make that a unanimous decision. Thank you very much. >> Congratulations. >> We appreciate you. >> All right. Last motion. So, I move to adjourn. >> How do you feel about that, Dave?
>> I I support that. >> Okay. Ed. >> Ed, I'm good with that. >> Yep. I'll make a motion. >> I'll be second. >> Yes, you do. >> I'll second it. Okay, >> Steve. >> I feel good about adjourning. >> All right, >> I approve. Uh, and I do, too. And the
official time is >> 5:10 p.m. >> All right. Shoo.