911 2025. Yep. [Music] [Music]
Yeah. [Music] Heat. [Music] [Music]
Good afternoon everyone. It's September 11th, 2025 and this is the Town of Cadam Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28th, 2025 signing of chapter two of the acts of 2025 extending certain COVID
measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law until June 30, 2027. This meeting of the Cadam 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 provided for in the order. A reminder, persons who'd like to listen to this meeting while in progress may do so by calling 1508-945-4410 conference ID5588304 pound or join the meeting via the link on the Microsoft Teams on the posted
agenda. This is a live broadcast and simoc cast on Cadam TV. But despite our best efforts, we may not be able to provide real time access. We will post a record 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 um or business item on the agenda during the meeting when recognized by the chair. There will be a um three minute time limit on all um comments and there will be a um a clock on the screen just so you know. If
you could also shut off any gadget that makes any noise whatsoever, that would be helpful. And if there's any good conversations to be had, please have them outside. First, we um take a roll call member of of all roll call vote of
all members that um suggest that we approve this member this uh meeting. And then after that, we ask all citizens and non-board members participating to um make their identity known. Um, if you
are calling in, uh, the hearing notice is read by staff, Sarah O''lock on my right, you or your representative will present, uh, your your appeal or application. Anyone in favor will be able to speak. Oh, actually, it's five minutes. I'm sorry. The three minutes
applies to another type of hearing we've been having. Um, anyone against the appeal or application may speak for um up to five minutes as well and then the applicant may rebut uh any testimony. Members of the board will have uh
opportunity to ask questions, hear further information. We close the public hearing, deliberate, and usually we vote on the merits of the appeal or applications, but sometimes we move to uh continue, but we take a vote in any event. All votes are taken by roll call
and at the end of the meeting we will close by a verbal confirmation and note the time of adjournment. So as I said we'll start with a roll call members roll call vote of all board members starting with David Vch. >> Yes. Uh David H. Vich and I approve of this format.
>> Uh Ed Actton I approve. >> David S. Nixon I approve. Paul C simple I approve. >> Steven Dborin I approve. >> Virginia Fick I approve. And Randy Podes I approve as well. So voting today will be um regular member um Virginia
Fenwick, Paul Simple, David Nixon, um associate member Ed Actton and David Vch. Um I am not going to vote today, but I did go to all the um the applications and I will have an opinion um probably. So um with that, Sarah,
>> we have the minutes of August 14th, 2025. Paul, >> I'm going to suggest that someone else move these minutes since I was not present for most of this meeting. >> Yeah. Uh, so I will move approval of the minutes of August 14th, 2025 as as presented.
>> I second that. >> Okay. Roll call vote. Mr. >> Dave Votes yes. >> Uh, Ed votes yes. I vote yes. >> Steve votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> As do I. Okay. Now we will get to the first application whenever Sarah is
ready. Application number 25-079 town of Chattam Care Rob Failey 549 Main Street Chattam Mass 02633 owner of property located at 240 Cedar Street also shown on the town of Chadam's
assessor's map 12B block zero lot 11. The applicant seeks dimensional variance from the required setback for the construction of a sewer pump station wetwell 10.5 feet from the northwest butter where a 25 foot setback is required. The property contains 5,663
ft within the municipal zoning district. A dimensional variance is required under master law chapter 48 section 10 and section 8D2C of the protective bylaw under application number 25-080 town of Chadam care of Rob Faley 549
Main Street Chattam Mass 02633 uh for the property located at 240 Cedar Street also shown on assessor's map 12B block zero lot 11 the applicant proposed to install an exterior mechanical system appliance the proposed generator will be
located 19.4 ft from Cedar Street where a 25 ft setback is required in the municipal zoning district. A special permit is required under section 8D2B of the protected bylaw. >> Welcome gentlemen. >> Thank you madam chair. Rob failey,
director of public works, town of Chadam. >> Jeff Greg from GHD consultant to the town Chadam. >> And welcome. So you can present your applications. >> Sure. U Sarah, do you have the site plan you could pull up on the screen please? Would
you prefer us to go through the variance criteria? >> The first one that was read will be first and then the second one will be second. Just, you know, we'll keep them separate. >> Okay. So, um our pumping station located
on Cedar Street. uh we are doing work within the town's parcel and uh for the first criteria in order to stay um and minimize the impact to the wetland we are actually constructing this in a wetland um and we've gone through
conservation. We were shifting the station as far to the west on the parcel as as possible. So, uh, for the first condition, we're driven to try to stay as close to, uh, upland as we could possibly get, uh, and minimize our
impacts. Um, in order to put this, uh, we we don't have any other locations for this pumping station. So, that's pretty much the the basis for the the second
hardship. And um this is intended to basically continue with the town's implementation of their wastewater treatment uh and collection project that I believe everyone's uh pretty aware of. Um
>> so it's in actual accordance with the purpose and intent of the bylaw, would you say? >> Yes. >> Okay. Anything else on this one? uh just that there is a small retaining wall to for uh to raise the grade of the
pump station just so that is an impact on the topography but it's uh maximum height is close to three feet a little under three feet so it's very minimal um grade change >> okay do you want to now go through the um exterior mechanical system that needs a just a special permit
>> sure >> and then we'll separate it out when we go through >> so um again we talked about We're trying to make our footprint which is inside this retaining wall as as small as possible. So in order to provide
adequate access for the the generator, we wanted it as close to the street as possible uh within reason. Um uh it's sized for the facility. So that's part of the whole process of what we're doing. uh intended to support this
facility during uh power outages or other needs for emergency backup power. Uh it is the the station itself should not uh have a impact on uh traffic flow through the area. Uh there will have to
be uh service to that like any other town uh pumping station. Um, we have met with conservation and modified our landscaping plan with their approval based on uh resident impact uh comments
from the abut butter across the street to further um provide a visual barrier of the station. We do have what we're calling a privacy fence on uh these two sides in this
little section here. Uh and then we have uh vegetation, native vegetation that's of various heights to act as screening uh through that area. Um let's see. I think wastewater is it's
obvious that this is intended to it's not going to have a building or any facility on it. Um but deals with the overall waste wastewater conveyance for the town. um and includes also having the appropriate utilities to serve that
facility. Um the generator will like all the other towns municipal generators uh have to operate uh I believe weekly for about 10 to 20 minutes to run to exercise. Um so that will be a normal
operation, but otherwise unless it's called for through a power outage, the generator won't be on. So there's no other general noise associated with that. Um it's um
the the the intent is to have this facility blend in as best we can to the surrounding neighborhood. It doesn't have a building. Uh we're we're using the privacy fence. We're trying to surround it with as much landscaping as possible to obviously minimize any of those uh
impacts. Uh, and like I said, we're trying to put everything in this corner as best we could. This is the only site that was available with regards to its location. So, um, although there is an impact to the wetland, we are going through conservation, we're going
through Army Corps, um, and doing our best to minimize the impacts to this area. And there will be uh additional mitigation that's required as part of the order of conditions that we hope to be seeing in draft form next next
Wednesday. Um and then um again trying to make the stations as um aesthetically pleasing as we can for a you know pumping station with the fence in the in the landscaping.
I hopefully I hit all the >> the only thing I would add is the source of water. There's water uh municipal water located in the street. Uh we would tie into that and uh we will be improving drainage on both Cedar Street and on the site as well and treating that before it gets discharged to
groundwater. >> Great. Does that conclude your presentation? >> I believe so. Yes. >> All right. Thank you very much. Um, so is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor of this project? If so, please raise your hand.
Favor. Nope. Don't see anybody. Um, I will read the correspondences. There are two. Whoever has that noise going off, I think I mentioned before that that's frowned upon. I don't know where it's
coming from, but um, okay. First is from the conservation uh commission. Um let's see. The applicant submitted a notice of intent on August 12th, 2025. The project was heard on the 27th of August. The
project was continued to September 10th for revisions. With the requested revisions, the project will be conditioned to meet the performance standards of the Wetlands Protection Act. That was received uh September the 8th. Next, we have um a note from Judith
Giorgio. She is our health agent. She tells us um on Tuesday, September 9th, that she has no concerns um and she supports this request. Those are for both applications. And is there anybody here on Microsoft
Teams that has a question or would like to speak against this application? If so, now is the time. No questions from the board. Dave each. >> I have no questions. Randy, >> Ed,
>> uh, no questions, >> Mr. Nixon. >> I have several. Uh, first of all, uh, the other planned pumping stations in that area. Now, the ones that I know of that exist are the ones by the Harbor
Masters property and the one that was recently built by the Chattam Village Market. Uh what other pumping stations do you need to have going south of this location on Cedar Street?
>> So we haven't defined where the final locations will be. I believe that we had identified uh on uh staged neck uh three potential uh other stations or
um uh or a combination of pumping stations and pressure sewers. So um we haven't done the final design. We haven't uh worked with the town to to identify all the remaining locations,
but it was we had identified one to at least three other locations that were potentially going to be pumping up and into this system. Okay, that being true, um why would you want to build this until you determine
where the others are going to go? because this section of roadway is um at the low point and it's the next contiguous portion of the collection system in that area and the location of the other
stations is somewhat irrelevant. We know what the flow is from that that would serve the rest of stage neck that would come to this facility. So that's why we've been trying to get uh this facility uh designed and and constructed. >> Regardless of whether we have gravity
sewer and three additional pump stations or we install low pressure sewer and every household has grinder pumps, they're all going to be pumping up to this pump station before it goes to what? Stage Harbor pump station and back to the wastewater treatment plant. you know, when I drive down Cena Street,
um, and then whether I go right or left, um, you're going down. Isn't that area lower than where you are planning on putting this on S Ste Cedar Street? So, when you're coming south off of uh Stage Harbor Road and you turn
right onto Cedar Street, the first section of Cedar Street is actually sewered up to oh, I can't remember what the name of the road is, but at the top of the hill is is Seward. And then as you head down towards Black Duck Landing, which is basically the low point in the road to
Cedar Street before it starts heading back up towards Battlefield, that's where the station's going. It's in that low point that's down by Black Duck Landing. >> So, neither of you feel in any way that this is premature, this decision, that no matter what you do with the
others, you have to have this one. >> So, and this needs to be in place before we even develop any of those other areas. >> Okay. Um, had you considered any other locations along Cedar Street beside this one? Yes, we we looked at
uh the private property on either side of this location and uh the property across the street. we had considered. We started this process in probably 2014,
2015 and uh the property across the street ended up rebuilding their house and did a whole bunch of redevelop uh re uh >> mitigation conservation and mitigation in the location that was across the
street directly across the street is flood plane. So we wanted and wetland. So, we wanted to stay out of that. And then we uh spent a lot of time um the uh the former uh natural resources director
uh Dr. Duncinson spent a lot of time talking with the uh owner of the properties that are that's set back north of this that basically are in the parcels north of this uh site. uh and
they weren't able to uh come to some agreement on uh being able to get an easement on their property. They there was a sort of an area that was in the buffer but outside of the wetland um adjacent to
their one of their driveways that we considered but we were not able to get that. So, the town asked us to go back and look at our original location, which was this one, which was town owned property. >> Uh, is this a three4 million uh project?
I don't have the cost of the total uh of just the pumping station. Off the top of my head, the whole project that we're doing, which is sewing this area and some other roads, is probably in the order of $14 million. Um the station is probably somewhere in
the order of $2 million. It's typically where they're kind of falling. This one's a little more complicated because it's uh in a wetland um and it's very small. It's a small site, but um
>> Okay, final question. Um what uh just go through us for us again please what you're doing to protect the wetlands. >> Um so uh what we're going to be doing is we've
identified the boundary of the trees that we want to keep and remain. Then we're going to establish a um we have a limit of work and then on another plan we we show where we have
some protection of the existing uh uh trees that are in that are basically outside of this line. And then um the contractor is going to be basically doing the prim the majority of their
excavation here to dig the wet well which will then um disturb this area and then they'll have to adjust the grades in the wetland to bring that up and have suitable material for structural
material. Um there will be erosion control and protection along that back side. Um we have a restriction for uh habitat for um uh bats like the federal
government there's a requirement so that the tree clearing is limited to um they can't clear they won't be able to clear trees between August no April 1st and October 31st. Um, so they'll be doing their tree
clearing in the wintertime uh to protect both the bats and the pup season. Um, we've also uh minimized the impervious surface area. We have a lot of um um areas where you know there is a paved
apron, but the rest of the area for the most part is um allows water to percolate through the soils. And again um we will be treating storm water where it currently exists. There's a paved swale going directly to the wetland and now we'll be treating that with a forbay
and removing sediment deposits before that enters the wetland. >> Yeah, we're adding some storm water improvements on Cedar Street where now that water typically just goes right down to the low point and ends up in both the wetlands. And then we're doing an extent extensive planting plan here.
And then we have to do off-site mitigation to do the balance which will consist of potentially um uh invasive species mitigation and additional plantings in some wetlands that the town is going to work with conservation to
identify and then some additional plantings at other locations uh basically to meet the requirements of conservation. >> Thank you gentlemen. Jenny Fenwick questions.
>> Sorry. Couple of questions for you. Um, I didn't see a legend for the trees. Um, and you you've mentioned a couple times a substantial uh, you know, vegetative re replanting. Are a lot of these trees that are here um, going to be new?
because I did see a lot of ribbons uh on trees that will be coming out especially along the road. >> Yes. So all of um this is this is an older planting plan. I apologize. This was submitted and then we had to revise it and that was what went to the commission. Um this
is all uh Atlantic cedar through here. And then we've made some modifications to this as combination of low bush like uh ink berry and holly and then um uh some other red cedars and other
combinations of vegetation. I I apologize. I don't have them off the top of my my head, but there is a landscaping plan with a full list and also a list of all the trees and the species and the size that are being removed as well. So, that was >> and all that went to conservation. I
just was I was thinking about the the abutters. Um, and you mentioned one across the street. Um, and I do know you've got fencing proposed three sides. >> So, the fence the fence actually is on all four sides. What we're >> chain link on the back. It's chain link
on the back just because it's it's a long ways and it's in the woods. >> Three sides will be wooden and 510 height is your correct >> and um >> it might be a composite but it's a wood or composite. It's a a stockade style solid fence.
>> Have you heard anything else from the neighbor across the street? >> No, their their landscape architect actually gave us the recommendations of what they wanted to see here. So, we accommodated all of their requests. >> Okay. Um, great. And then one more just question.
Um, I think it's uh really important, isn't it, to have uh the benefit of gravity like that? That's a big reason why it's that location on Cedar Street. >> So the town when I first started working
on this project that the town wanted to maximize gravity to the extent practical. So that's what we've tried to do. >> Try to do that as best we can. uh it's uh provides uh um for the operations
it's um I don't know how to >> it gravity never fails you know so we don't have to rely on >> I guess what I'm what I'm kind of getting uh clarification on is the site itself benefits from the gravity but
that also contributes to the wetland situation which is also part of why you need to site it in a place within your boundary that requires the setback variance. >> Yes. So, this is Yeah. So, the the benefit of having sewer in this area is
you're getting all those systems off of their septic systems. Uh and again, because we were trying to maximize gravity for for people and and minimize the number of grinder pumps. >> Yeah. >> Um that's why we were look for these sites first because that's usually the
preference. Um all both systems work. Both systems are effective in addressing that. But yes, you will get that benefit. It's unfortunate in this case that the town's property is where it is in terms of the fact that it's wetlands.
If we had a triangle next to it that was an upland, we would be certainly citing it there and not. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And Steve, >> um I I think that the topography of that land is actually below the surface of the road.
>> Correct. Okay. So, how much of this equipment is above the ground level >> approximately? >> So, it's all >> not the street level, the ground level where it's installed. So it will all um with the exception of the wet well which
is actually a large structure that goes into the ground. >> Everything is above grade and we're actually raising the elevation of grade because there is a a significant drop off from the road surface down into that
area. Um, so as Rob indicated, we're we're putting in a retaining wall to allow us to bring grade up between one and a half and three feet in areas to accommodate a a flat working area for
the operators and then keep our facilities above that. And then the the generator sits on a pad. The electrical controls sit on a pad. And then the wet well has about a 6-in reveal above
grade. And then the the pumps sit on top of the wet well and have their own pad. So they're all sitting >> but none of it even none of it will be visible over the top of the fence if the the fence is approximately six feet
tall. So, uh the there's the possibility that if um some of these structures may extend above the top of the fence, but as you're walking by just based on
visual and distance, you may see the top of it, but you're not going to >> But there's going to be plenty of vegetation between the road and equipment. >> Correct. That's that's the intent. We're trying to keep the fence down so that we meet, you know, we're under the six
feet, but we also understand that um this this uh structure for the the enclosure the for the pumps is six feet tall and it's sitting six inches up. So, it's it's the top of it is going to
extend above the top of the fence and the control panels depending on the size of the panels um could be up to six feet tall. There's limits because obviously if the operator can't, >> but there's a minimal amount of of things that you would see over the fence
and and they're going to be blocked by vegetation. >> It's going to be very similar to there's a pumping station in Meadow View that has basically the same setup and a six foot tall fence in front of it. And you can depending on the angle or where
you're standing see the tops of it, but that's in the in the control panel. Uh but that's that's it. >> Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Welcome. >> And Paul, >> uh just to follow up on that, so what is it that the public is going to see from
Cedar Street in looking over at that facility? >> So you'll see a stockade style fence with a gate. You'll have uh porous pavers out front like uh you might see at Lime Hill Pumping Station or down at
Barnhill. Um yeah, Barnhill. Um, and then there's a paved apron and then you'll have tree plantings along all the front and then around the the whole building. So then in in several years you'll this will all fill in and
um it'll block a lot of the fence. You you won't see a lot of you will see where the gate is. >> So So you'll see the gate will you see over the fence >> the road? It depends on the I mean I hate to >> on your perspective. Yeah. If you're if you're standing there, you'd probably
see a little bit more than if you were driving by with you'd have a lower eye eye level >> and if you're shorter than I am then >> Well, I'm just trying to get a feel because the road is is well above a good portion of that. >> So, this is elevation 17 right now and I
believe this is somewhere in the elevation of 1516. So, it's still >> down. We didn't want it to we didn't want water to obviously run into our site. So, we had to kind of try to grade it that way, but it does still sit
slightly lower than the road, which has the advantage of it's a little lower, but the fence is also going to be down a little bit. So depending on and I apologize I don't I could probably look at the other plan to see what the elevations are
but if I I would and the sidewalks on the other side there's not even a sidewalk on this side. So >> correct >> the sidewalk's on the other side of the road. So um it's not um
it's as as screened as we could we could do. um for this area considering that >> well I I'm sure you can understand we're somewhat sensitive to this issue because >> we've seen some pretty ugly looking installations uh as it turned out
>> um >> okay I have no other questions >> so I just want to make sure everybody that asked questions these questions that you asked were geared toward both application 79 and 80 right we can do deliberations separate because we have
to deliberate on different criteria but um okay so with regard to the pump station um that you want to put there um that is all in accordance with trying to clean the water and and um and help the
sensitive areas in that region of Chattam correct >> correct and all of Chattam I mean it's it's all for the bigger plan but yes that is to address that area stage harbor oyster pond oyster pond river. >> Yeah. So although it's in a sensitive
area itself, it's servicing many sensitive areas. Correct. And and with regard to the generator, if that pump um fa was unable to function because there was a power outage, what would you have
to do to keep it going? >> So during a power outage, it has an automatic transfer switch. So it detects that primary power. >> No, without the generator. >> Oh, without the generator. >> We would have to have our vector truck. >> Set it up for us. Why you need this
generator? What would happen? >> We would have to have our vector truck sit there and pump out of the wet well. But of course that has a certain capacity. And if it was say summertime when flows are greater and if that whole other area was fully developed, there
would be a lot of septic flow into that wet well. Our vector truck may not be able to keep up with it and it would have to go back and forth between that site and the wastewater treatment plant. >> It would be a disaster. >> It would be challenging. >> Yeah, it would be a lot worse than this is going to look. >> You'd also have you could have a
temporary generator which would be louder and sitting above grade and running all the time and >> and that's all on this narrow seed of street. >> Correct. >> Yeah. All right. >> Randy, I thought of a question. >> Yeah, please go ahead. >> So, I I'm just thinking this just came
to me. So the generator and generator location are allowed by special permit because of the change in the law that took place for annual town meeting. >> That is correct. >> Okay, that's what I thought. Thanks. Otherwise, they'd be here for variance for that as well. >> Correct.
>> Okay. >> Okay. So, um with that, I think we're going to close the public hearing and uh Paul, >> I'll move to close the public hearings and move into deliberations. >> Dave V seconds and votes yes. >> Ed votes yes. I vote yes. Paul votes yes. Jenny votes yes.
>> Okay. So, now we're going to do deliberations and let's just go in order. Um, as to the variance 079, let's just we're going to deliberate on that and then we'll go around again and do the other. Um, if that works for everyone, unless anyone has a better idea. That good.
>> That's fine. >> All right. So, Dave, deliberate. >> Which one? >> On the variance. No, >> for 70. >> I'm sorry. >> Which? >> Oh, which Dave? I'm so sorry. David Nixon. >> Okay. All right. Well, um, you know,
with with variances, uh, I I have wants and needs and, um, I'm convinced that from what you've said, this is needed to continue what the town voted for
15, 20 years ago, whenever whenever it was, that this is just part and parcel of it. I I don't believe that my concern about this being premature in relation to where the other three should go um would change my vote.
I mean, I I like to see things in order and lined up, but uh that's not the way you folks are doing it. So, I have to kind of live with that, I'm afraid. So, u uh this is a need and I would vote for it.
and David. >> Yeah, I I would agree that it's a need and and um so it it um you know I think it meets it meets all the criteria. Certainly certainly meets the hardship without much difficulty at
all because uh if we didn't have this we experience a continuation of the kinds of difficulties that we've been having with septic system things. um and um certainly not uh does not deriggate from the intent purpose of the bylaw and also
I can find uh that variance going to be granted. >> All right. And Ed, >> I agree as well. I I believe it's um for the better good of the public um that it meets our criteria
and um I would be a positive vote. >> And Paul, what do you think? I agree with the the conclusions of uh each of my colleagues before me and as a result I will be voting favorably.
>> And Steve >> if you were voting >> well I think um you know they that they made um an effort to find an alternate location for this and this seems to be the most advantageous for everyone. Um, I think, you know, it's going to help out the community in that area and I
think they've made every effort to um to try to protect and enhance the um environment in the area. So, I think it's a good project. >> And Jenny, >> I I think you provided a very thorough presentation. Um, it is a need for the
town. We have three criteria. Have to meet all three. You know that. Um, topography, I agree with my colleagues. Hardship, I agree with my colleagues. relief without detriment. I agree with my colleagues. Um, so I think you meet all three and I would support it. >> Yep. And I was going to go over the
criteria, but Jenny pretty much just did, but it's it but it's important for people to understand that we have different criteria for variances and just uh I know we have another variance coming tonight. So just um I'm just going to say that you know the three criteria owing to circumstances relating
to the soil condition, shape or topography of the land or structures and especially affecting such land or structures. you know, you you've clearly met that and you've done yman's work um in terms of setting it up and I'm really impressed with how you dealt with the neighbors and said, "What would you like
to look at across the street?" That that's touching. It's very nice of you to do that. Um a literal enforcement literal enforcement would certainly be a hardship to all and it would really just negate all the money that has been spent and the intent. It would it would just
make no sense to not see it that way. and um and certainly it's a a doesn't derogate derrogate from the intent and purpose bylar. It is in harmony. So if I were voting I would vote yes. So Paul >> um I'll move to approve the
applications. Uh we're dealing first with the uh variance. Correct. >> That's right. >> Okay. I'll move to approve the application as submitted. I do want to ask uh what's your intent in terms of construction? Uh Cedar Street, as you know, is a busy street, especially in
the summertime. >> So, the town has restrictions on work in the summer. So, there's no uh summer construction between I believe the dates are uh Memorial Day till I think September 15th, I think, is
>> or Labor Day or thereabouts. I think sometimes uh depending on when school's out, sometimes it's June 15th to September 15th depending on the neighborhood, but that's they the town has a a restriction of no work during the summer. So that would be continued
here. And then um the project is intended to uh we're going for funding October 3rd. We're hoping that we will be putting this out to bid um in the spring of next year and it would
probably go to construction uh the fall of next year depending on the contractor and their schedule and there are other roads in other areas of town that are included. So whether this is in the first year of their construction or the second or third it
it's intended to be probably a two and a half year to threeyear project overall for everything. Paul, before you say anything else, unless you were going to say this, I don't think it's the town that has no summer. I think it's this board that provides that criteria. I
mean that those conditions. The town doesn't have that. The town, my understanding is you can't start work outside before like seven, but we could put those conditions on or not. >> So the the So the town's mandate from >> we try to keep the peace with the Cadam
residents and visitors. You're in a court then with what we do. >> Yeah. The town, >> the other town then. >> They've uh they've they've they've told us when uh what those what those dates are. >> All right. So, Paul, >> would would you anticipate that all of your equipment and so forth could be
contained on site given the site that you're dealing with? >> Um well, they're going to be doing sewer work in the road as well at the same time. And it is very likely that during the construction there will be work that will have to be in the in the in the
roadway at least one of the lanes while they're trying to get into the site and and clear it. But the intent is while they're doing their majority of their work there will be within the limits of work of of that site. >> So you would anticipate the public have
access to Cedar Street during this period of time just with some limitations on it? the access will be very similar to probably what they experienced for uh stage harbor down to the old mill boatyard. So there were times that the road was open, there were
times the road was closed. The advantage is that you although it's a longer drive, you do have a loop that you can go out towards battlefield and then go down and come out Champlne and go up and around. So, you know, we'll try to send
traffic in various different directions so that the contractor the the the reality is to keep the road open during construction um slows the contractor. So, it's uh it's do you want them to get through
quicker or do you want to just have that one lane that you're going to still be sitting waiting for them to go by? So if they can close sections and keep people moving in one direction or the other so that they're not stuck, that's what we prefer to do. So that's that's what
would happen. >> That's a that's a big loop from Battlefield up and around. >> You know how narrow Cedar Street is. So imagine digging say a 10-ft trench down the middle of Cedar Street or even the middle of one lane. You know, for traffic safety, it'd be safer to just to
detour them during those periods. >> Okay. Well, I'll move to approve the application as submitted with the condition that uh uh between June 30th and Labor Day, no exterior construction will be allowed. No work will be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. only. >> Dave each seconds and votes yes. >> Uh Ed votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> All votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> It's unanimous. Congratulations. Now we'll take care of the special permit uh deliberations on that. Uh Dave V.
>> Uh well I I think that um again um that I think it's fairly clear the the need for um the generator and the circumstances and uh it's not uh it would not be substantially um more detrimental to the neighborhood
to have that gen I think it would be more detrimental the neighborhood to have a truck sitting there trying to stay ahead of the pumping of the you know of the um of the well. So, um, it meets that criteria and and it meets our other criteria and and I can support the special permit.
>> Right. Okay. Ed. >> Um, I agree with Dave and I believe that, you know, the mitigation that they're doing and the uh thoughtful process they've sort of gone through um will relieve any of the concerns, but uh
it it meets our it meets our criteria. and Dave Nixon. >> Yeah, this is uh something that uh the alternative isn't acceptable. And I recall when we had the flooding at the intersection of Mars Island Road
uh and Little Beach, uh I think u I was sent over either a 10,000 or a 12,000galon tank truck and they were trying to pump the stuff in there. It did not work. It did not work and it wouldn't work today actually. Uh, so
yes. >> Okay. And Paul, >> I agree with my colleagues. >> And Steve, >> I agree as well. >> And Jenny, >> as do I. >> All right. Very good. So Paul, >> I'll move to approve the application as submitted with the condition that all construction activity between June 30th
and Labor Day. No exterior construction will be allowed. No work will be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8 a.m. and 5:00 pm only. >> Dave V seconds and votes yes. Uh, Ed votes yes. >> Yes. >> Paul, >> yes. Paul votes yes.
>> And Jenny. >> Jenny votes yes. >> Okay, very good. That's unanimous as well. So, as you were. >> Thank you. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> All right. So, let's see what we're going to do next. I believe it's going to be 25-068
if I'm not mistaken. Yes. Application number 25-068 Terresa and Gregory Clark care of Victoria Clark 45 Blackberry and Road Weston Mass >> 02493 owners of property located at 69 Morris Island Road also shown on the town of
Chadam's assessor's map 16A block 5 lot C1 the applicant seeks a dimensional variance from the required setback to the coastal conservancy district for the installation of a swimming pool. The proposed pool will be located 18 ft from the top of bank where a 50ft setback is required.
The property contains 29,990 9993 square ft in the R40 zoning district. A dimensional variance is required under Mass General Law Chapter 48 section 10 and section 8D2C of the protective bylaw. >> Welcome. >> Hi, my name is Victoria Clark. My family
owns the property at 69 Morris Island Road. Um we are here today seeking a dimensional variance that would allow us to build a 400 square foot swim inground swimming pool. Um just a little background on how we came to be here is that um we decided we wanted to install
a 16x 25 square foot pool. So 400 ft as it's smaller than the 650 ft asphalt basketball court we are removing. Um but it's slightly larger than a plunge pool so that children can swim in it and it is safe. Um, so due to the nature of our
lots topography, our lots topography, the location of the house, as well as our septic system, this was the only logical location on our property for us to install the pool. Um, we began designing this pool in the summer of 2024 in association with Ryder and
Wilcox as well as Blue Flax Design. um because we knew we had to bring this in front of the conservation commission and at the time we were unaware of the proposed change to the bylaw that is now a part of the bylaw that is the conservancy district setback. So we got
all the way through conservation board of health and then as we were going to apply for a building permit we realized that this uh proposed change could not nothing could be approved in the year while it had been proposed. So we had to wait and see what happened at town meeting. Obviously the change was approved and
thus that is why we are here today applying for the variance. And so I know um dimensional variances have three different criteria. The first is with respect to the particular land or structure or building owing to circumstances relating to soil shape or topography. We are here regarding our
topography. So our lot has a little under 30,000 square ft and only about 17,000 of that square feet is buildable upland. Um the conservancy district and the top of the coastal bank wrap around the southern and western portions of our
lot as well as we have an easement on the northern portion of our lot for our neighbor 67 Morris Island Road that runs the entire length of the property. So our area is li was limited before the new conservancy district setback to begin with but now it is extremely
limited. So we believe that our property is unique. Similarly, a plan I sent to Sarah as well as provided you all. I had Ryder and Willox build this up over a few weeks ago. If you apply the um
50-foot conser conservation conserv cons conservancy district setback as well as the 25 foot a butter setback to our property. This red block of 978 square feet is all that would be buildable in this new under this new law
bylaw. And obviously our house exists under this setback. Which takes me to the second prong of the dimensional variance criteria which is uh literal enforcement of the provisions of the bylaw would involve substantial hardship financial or otherwise. As you can see
with only 978 square feet um a that falls outside of any of the setbacks, we can't build anything. And obviously not having a swimming pool is a hardship. But if you apply the bylaw literally and not we we cannot put any sort of accessory um structure on our property
whether it's a retaining wall, a shed, anything of that nature. So we find that to be within that criteria. And then the third prong is that desired relief may be granted without such substantial detriment to the public good without nullifying the intent and purpose of the
bylaw. All the letters Sarah Clark received were in from our neighbors and abutters or all the letters last I saw she had received were from neighbors in a butters in support of our project. Similarly, as I mentioned, we had to bring this project in front of the conservation commission and so we worked
with them um through this project and they evident through the order of conditions. They were amendable to the exchange of the um asphalt removing an asphalt basketball court as well as a brick patio in exchange for the pool. This change
netted a decrease in 250 square feet. 153 of that square feet decrease was in the no uh disturb zone and 117 square feet is in the no in the outer aura zone. As well as evident from this plan,
we agreed to mitigate the property by removing invasive species, the traditional lawn as well as mulch and growing and growing and planting native um plantings that would encourage growth
and um in the area as well as um part of the order of conditions is that the pool must be a saltwater pool. So again to add to make sure that there is a protection of resources in that capacity and
okay thank you very much. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application? If so please raise your hand. I don't see anybody wishing to speak in favor. So I'm going to go to the
correspondences. There are one, two, three, four, seven. And uh starting with con let's see Judith Giorgio a health agent tells us on 910 2025 she reviewed the plan to add a pool fence and pool
equipment to this property. The new pool will necessitate a relocation of the septic tank as proposed. The board of health granted a variance to allow the leeching area to be 14.8 ft away from the pool where 20 ft is required.
Additional variances were granted for the new location of the septic tank from the coastal bank. I noted on the planting plan in the packet that a drainage unit is proposed in the same location as the existing leeching area. This is a concern and must be relocated
and shown on a revised plan. Um I'll give you a chance to read about any of this um in the appropriate time slot. Okay. Next, we have a note from conservation from August 26, 2025. And they tell us that the applicant
submitted a notice of intent in November 2024. The project was heard in December 2024. And they will uh it was conditioned to meet the performance standards on February 26, 2025.
And that is that. Next, we have a note from someone named Cameron Reynolds Hardy um on behalf of uh the family's partnership and they tell us on August 30, 2025, we own the home north of 69
Morris Island Road at 63. The Clark family has shared their plans from Blue Flax in Ryder and Wilcox. I am writing to advise the zoning board of appeals of our support for the Clark family's proposal to keep the existing fence as
well as to install a swimming pool in their backyard. The specific piece of fence serves as a separation between our properties. We appreciate the Clark family installed the new fence as the old one had been overtaken by shrubs and had become dilapitated. They have our
full support for their proposed project. Next, Paul um I'm sorry, Tony Dogget writes on, let's see, not quite sure. I'll get to that though. Um they live across the street at 64 Mars Island
Road. They want to share their support for the application. Um both and they uh support everything completely. That's Tony Dogit and they give a telephone number but not anything further. So, >> they're at 64.
>> Yeah, 64 Morris Island Road. I just didn't have a date, I guess. But anyway, that's not that important. Um, David Chapman from 67 Morris Island Road tells us that um he lives there on Morris Island Road directly above 69. The Clark
family has shared their plans um from flat blue flags from Ryder and Will Clarks to remove the asphalt basketball court to install a swimming pool as well as applying for a special permit to keep a piece of existing fence and lines the
that lines the driveway. We fully support the clock's proposed plans. Um the fence along our easement has made the travel easier as it makes our passage smoother by restricting the renters at 65 Mars Island Road and previous overgrowth of abuing trees and
shrubs from obstructing our passageway. It will not negatively impact us and we take no issue with it. Um then we have a letter from Margaret Nicholson.
She resides at 87 Mars Island Road. She Louise Nicholson How is my daughter and trustee of the Margaret Nicholson irrevocable trust which owns the property. The clocks are my neighbors. I am writing in regard to their three applications in front of the ZBA for a
pool, special permit for exterior mechanical and special permit for fence. I fully support the clocks installing a pool, the pool equipment, and keeping the existing fence on the property. While working with conservation uh commission in exchange for the
installation of the swimming pool and the removal of the basketball court, the Clarks have agreed to mitigate the 6,250 plus square footage of invasive overgrowth on the southwestern side of their property, which my property abuts.
I would consider it an improvement. I take no issue with it. and they have my full support. I'm writing uh and this is um Stefane and Marie Pauline Grufat, 33 Dune Drive,
C Chadam from September 3rd, 2025. I'm writing a letter in support for the con construction of a swimming pool at 69 Mars Island Road. We are the owners of 33 Dune Drive and our house is directly east of the property and the proposed pool. We fully support the clocks
installing the pool um and keeping the fence. The clocks have agreed to mitigate the area of overgrowth on the southern side of their property which is along our property line and we think it'll be an enhancement. Additionally, the basketball court that's being removed is currently along our property
line and the proposed pool is over 30 feet from our property. We support the project wholehearted Lee. That concludes the um correspondence. Is there anybody here that would like to speak against this application or has a
specific question? Sir, you raised your hand first, so please go ahead and then you be next. Um, sir, so you can line up. Yes. >> All right. For the record, Brian Phillips, 374 Orleans Road. Um
pools are luxury items and putting uh non-p permeable surfaces in you know flood zones and not giving them proper setbacks um doesn't allow the land to properly mitigate flood waters when it floods. Um I think putting pools and other things
in um these flood zones sets a dangerous precedent. putting one pool wouldn't matter, but when you it's a slippery slope into everyone, you know, putting things in flood zones. Um, I did speak with conservation and I am aware of the, you know, getting rid of the basketball
court, but they were kind of and I do they do like the quid proquo. Um, and they were kind of an impression that you guys had already, you know, approved this. So, I don't know if they made that deal because, um, they thought this was already approved. So, you know, I'm pretty consistent. I'm against that
people putting things in flood zones. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. You are next. >> Questions and speaking against. >> Yes. My name is uh Charles Sabbat. I'm an attorney in Hyannis and I represent
uh Russ and Alina Haddleton who reside at or who own the premises at rather 65 Morris Island Road which is due north of uh 69 which is the subject of this hearing. Uh and um my clients are
opposed to this uh this request for variance. And I know that the applicant addressed uh or attempted to address the three prongs uh that are required for variance. But I would submit that with respect to the first one, namely the uniqueness of the site in terms of
shape, topography or soil. Uh any uh uniqueness there is is you have to show the uniqueness is unique in the zoning district. uh and uh there hasn't been any evidence to that effect. And as a matter of fact, if you look at my own client's property uh which is
exceptionally undized and is located uh in uh the same approximate location from the coastal bank etc that this property is located from. It really suffers from the same uh impacts that the 69 Morris Island Road property suffers from. In
addition to that, any limitations on the site result from the fact that the that they previously raised and replaced the pre-existing structure with the current house that limited uh there the the applicable site that they could have
with respect to hardship. Uh I would suggest to you that you cannot have a self-imposed hardship. Uh and the fact that you want to have a swimming pool uh does not create a substantial hardship. Uh it is that that that is a desire uh
that is um uh that is self-imposed uh and uh doesn't rise to the level of a hardship that the variance uh statute in the section 10 envisions. And thirdly, I would say that uh when this project uh
when this this basketball court was approved by a an order of conditions uh from the conservation commission, which I believe was in 2006 on the landscape plan that was presented and I have copies of it here. Uh the
area was labeled as infield mix basketball and I think it says play area. It was not labeled as asphalt. Uh and I was too short to play basketball, but I did play baseball. Uh, and infield mix
is either grass or sand. And sometimes today in play areas, it can be bark mulch. It's a pvious uh material uh that uh that happens to allow the infiltration of of uh of water and and uh and water runoff. So somewhere along
the line, this basketball court changed from infield mix to asphalt. And I would suggest to you that you cannot argue that you're ailarating a condition uh that maybe shouldn't have been allowed in the first place or at least was not allowed uh by by permit. And this is the
only landscape plan that is in connection with that 2006 order of conditions that I'm aware of. Finally, I want to mention that uh with respect to the fence uh that is lo that was installed by the Clarks uh on the on the lane.
>> We haven't done that application yet. So, I we'll give you a chance when we get to that one. >> All right. I'm just Well, this is the other fence. This is the fence that's in front of our property. Uh, but I just wanted to mention All right. I'll wait until the next one that's your desire. >> I have these plans like you need a
microscope to see that section. It's an 8 and 1 half by 11, but I'd like to submit them to the board in any event. >> Um, okay. Thank you very much. And you if you just hand them to our cleric at the end, that's how kind of how we do it. Sure. Just right there. Yep.
Thank you, sir. >> Thank you very much. >> Appreciate it. >> Anybody else that wishes to speak against or has a specific question? >> No. Okay. This is when we do a rebuttal. >> Okay. Take it away, Victoria.
>> Um, and I'm sorry I did not catch your name, but >> Brian Phillips. >> Brian Phillips. >> Brian Phillips. We don't talk from the audience. >> Um, Brian Phillips mentioned that we are in the flood zone. Our property is technically not in the flood map zone.
We are on the edge of it, which is neither here nor there, but it's just a quick clarification I wanted to make. We are on the edge of it, not actually in the flood zone. In regards to the um other the other gentleman's attorneys,
I'm sorry, I forgot your name. Sa Savage. >> Savage. >> Savages um notes. >> I think it was Savvette. >> Savvette. I'm so sorry. Um, in regards to the topograph him saying our topography is self-imposed, we built this house in 2003 when we purchased the
property. At the time, we met all dimensional setbacks. The house did not require um special permits. The elevation at the time, the flood 100-year flood zone was at elevation 10. It is now at elevation 13. So, our buildable upland has since shrunk in
that time frame. I believe Sarah has the original site plan map which shows the original elevation. So I think saying that because we built a large house is not necessarily um a good argument that it's self that we self-imposed the
>> I think he means the fact that you want to put a pool in. >> Yes. But I that goes back to what I said about it's not just about a pool. We could not build. The hardship is we can't build any sort of accessory uh structure in due to this new bylaw and
that is why we are here. Even though we are specifically requesting a pool, it has to do with the overall change to the bylaw and how we believe that affects our property. >> Yep. Okay. Very good. Um so questions from the board. Jenny.
>> Um, Victoria, can I just ask you to reexlain the red triangle that's on the side? >> So, the red triangle is from the dimensions if you are I'll wait till it's up. So, looking at it headon, the dimension coming from what is the left,
so from Morris Island Road, >> that is the 50-foot setback that is now required from the top of the coastal bank, which is the 100red-year flood zone. The one coming from the south of the property is the 50- foot setback from the um coastal conservancy district
and then the other side is the 25 ft setback from the abuters. So that triangle is what with taking into account all setbacks we have to meet now where we could build on this property. >> And what do you what I think you said
what was the setback when it looks like you did your building in 2004. There was no conservancy district setback. There was still a 25 foot abutter setback if I remember correctly. But the 100red-year flood zone was at elevation 10 which I
believe you can see more on the front of the property as well as yeah this is this is the original site plan which shows the um flood zone the limits of the conservancy district at the time. So that changed, but it
changed to 13 from 10, but it would have been going um in the opposite direction of the pool area. It would have been towards the front of the house. >> Yes, it's it more affects the front of the house than the back of the house. That is correct. >> Okay. Um
but that's all I have right now. Thank you, >> Steve. Questions? Um, is there anything that's surrounding the pool? I see there's like a brick pack uh pathway that would lead up to the pool. Is there anything else that borders the
pool itself? >> Right now, no. Um, we have what was a garden that is a fenced on the edge of the property that will be removed as well as a fence that was in front of what was the asphalt basketball court that would be removed. We kept that
fence to prevent the um invasive species from climbing up into that area, but there's nothing else in that area >> around the pool itself. There's no sort of concrete pathway or walkway around the pool. >> There would there would be pavers, but not a walkway of any kind. We could the
exist the p brick patio was existing. We extended it, I believe, maybe six inches to a foot to meet the pool. So, it wasn't a whole new design. >> So, that's the only axis is that brick path. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um what what becomes of the of the
basketball court if you were to remove it? How is that being mitigated? >> Um it micro I I believe the terminology is microl lawn. So it's the natural type of grass rather than traditional grass. >> Okay. So >> but it'll be a grass dairy, not a a planted.
>> No, that there'll be some plantings within the space that the conservation commission decided upon, but it will be mostly open. >> Okay. Um, in the event that the pool does not get approved, are you still going to remove
the basketball court? >> I I don't know. That's potentially, but it also kind of depends on >> Okay. >> how we move forward. >> Okay. >> All right. I appreciate it. Thank you,
>> David Vch. Um, well, one question that I had, Sarah, I don't know if anybody can tell me. Um, uh, so you're seeking to put the pool, uh, I think the number is something like 18 feet from the top of the bank. What
how the current, um, house andor deck as a structure. What's the what's the shortest distance to the top of the bank now from structure, existing structure? So, it looks like >> looks like maybe the corner of the deck is the closest.
>> It appears to be, let me just pull up that plan. Uh, the corner of the deck right here on the plan is 11 ft from the top of bank. >> So, they're seeking to they already have structure that's closer than than what they're seeking for the pool. >> For the pool. Correct.
Um and um when and so so when the uh Clarks applied for this with KCOM it was in November. It went through hearings and was finally granted in December. What what was the
date of the first advertising of the change to the uh proposed change to the bylaw that they had to you have to go by? So the the date that we had to start enacting the proposed amendment to the bylaw was the date of the first
publication which was March 6th of 2025. >> So that was um >> after they had received the approval of the conservation commission >> 25. So they had finally gotten their permission from consom but had not yet applied for the building permit. >> Correct.
>> And then uh when they did apply it was after this 316. >> Yes. And once it's advertised, we have to go by. >> Right. Right. Yeah. Um, so I I've been paying I mean this is a
little closer attention to the changes to the bylaw that that that were enacted. And um uh one of the things that I that I've noticed in and um in my looking at this
situation is that there are a couple of pools on in and in in in the unabudding properties that that were permitted by um zoning board of appeals. I asked Sarah for the dates was back in the 90s
sometime. There are a couple of pools that already exist that are now in and it looks like at least one of them was they were both in the resource area at the time that they were permitted. >> Is there going to be a question Dave?
>> Yes, I'm getting to a question. What I'm So my question and so I'm trying to think how this this change of the bylaw impacts us and others. So, by my reading of the change in the bylaw, and I'm going to ask Jay this
with the change in the bylaw, someone in the resource area would not be able to short of a variance get a pool or a garden shed or any number of other things that that were made
changed. Is that what you see in it? >> That's correct, Dave. >> Okay, >> that's what I see with the new bylaw. So, the new bylaw really closes some doors on things that we had been able to uh grant special permits for in the past. I'm not so sure that was made
clear at the town meeting, but we did what we did. What we've got what we've got. Um, okay. I think that's all I might have for questions. Uh, >> if you know, Mr. Building Commissioner Jay, was that twothirds of town meeting that that needed to do that? Was
>> it was unanimous. The vote was unanimous. >> Yeah. So, it was unanimous, but I don't know if every single person voted, but So, was it required to be a twothirds vote or or majority vote? >> I believe it's two-thirds vote. >> Yeah. Okay, fair enough.
>> Yeah. >> And Ed, questions. >> I guess this is for Victoria or or for Sarah. this variance request is it um is the request for a variance based on the
change to the the bylaw basically now is that's what I see >> that's correct because prior to the first advertisement this could have been done as of right >> as a special permit >> no as of right >> okay
>> um who miss Paul >> well I I don't think I have any questions. Um, >> question. >> Okay. >> I do have some thoughts with respect to the whether to var whether to grant the variance and the arguments that are being presented. >> And Mr. Nixon has indicated you have any
questions? >> No questions. >> Um, >> Mandy, I I have just >> Yes, please. >> Sorry. Um, yeah, I was reminded of um, so attorney Savit was talking about the uh, basketball court. Um, was there a special permit granted for that that
you're aware of? >> I am I'm not aware of it. Um, but I do know that when we built before we tore down the existing house and built our new house, that's where the asphalt driveway of the original house was. Um, but I I can't speak to if we had to
apply for a special permit for the asphalt. I I'm not aware. I'm not positive. >> Okay. Um and then actually I I Mr. Phillips reminded me that um I had watched the conservation hearing also and I too was
surprised that there wasn't a ZBA hearing because they referenced ZBA. So do we do we have any um there was reference in the do do you know? Okay. Um, since I do the comments to conservation for the zoning board, um,
in my comment, I had let the conservation commission know that the fence that was on the plan presented to conservation is what required a special permit from the ZBA because at the time the advertisement for the pool had not been in. So, they were able to go
through the conservation process without filing for the zoning board because at that time they didn't need to for everything except for two sections of fence. >> Okay. So, they were referencing it as if there had been a zoning board meeting and it had been approved and and that
didn't that wasn't accurate. Okay. Thank you. >> Um Dave Nixon, question. Yes, I did have a question for the attorney for uh number 65. If you wouldn't mind going back up there, please sir. So, you've heard the discussion about um
what town meeting voted and so on so forth. Does in any way that change your opinions on um the variance and the three musts under that? >> No, because uh a variance is required.
It's required under the standards are section 10 of chapter 48. Uh you have your own standards under your own bylaw. Uh so in in my view it it doesn't change the criteria for a variance at all. Is
that what your question is is asking? >> Okay. Thank you. Right. >> Could you stay up there for one second, sir? Thank you. So, um my question is all this um mitigation, you know, the basketball court coming out, all the
invasives, right? You know, all of it. It's a it's a lot that doesn't change your client's point of view. >> No. And I think I think the the the fact of the so-called mitigation uh doesn't take away from the burden of the applicant to show a hardship.
>> Yep. >> Uh and must show that it's not a self-imposed hardship. So while even if you find that there is is mitigation, it doesn't necessarily um it doesn't necessarily support that argument or or
or or help them with respect to that prong or in fact the first prong which is the uniqueness of the of the site, >> right? It's not in the law. >> And then the third one is the whether it derates from the uh whether it has an impact on the district as a whole. And
here clearly having passed this this this bylaw unanimously apparently in the con conservancy district there was a there's an overwhelming desire to make sure that there are no new structures that are in installed or erected within 50 ft of the of the uh of the bank.
>> Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much. And so um Victoria, now I have a question, a couple things for you. all these mitigation um promises, they're all very helpful to your very expensive property there, aren't they? The mitigation
specifically in the so in the front of the property towards the street side. That mitigation is because they would prefer it to be more filled with plants. That's not necessarily our opinion because you have Okay. But on the side
of the property on the southern side that we've tried to mitigate previously, but it's a lot of invasive species. So, and because it goes down in it's a steep drop. I don't know if anyone went out to the property, but it's a very steep drop. >> We all go. >> So, it's so it's very difficult to maintain and it goes into kind of a wet
land. So, we we've tried in the past to cut it back to a certain degree, but it always comes back. So, this type of mitigation, it's a it's a lot more aggressive than we've ever tried, which is why we've just never done it because it you have to do it for a couple of
years to make sure it sticks and you have to fully clear cut the land in a certain way that we just haven't done before. >> It's an expense. >> Yes. >> I think you have to dig six feet or something like that. Correct. you have to remove to the root and you have to have uh the I believe we have to have the landscape designer on site while all
the work is done to make sure it's done properly. So it's >> you know it's definitely an expense. Um but even with that um it it's an improvement to the property, isn't it? To get that invasives get those invasives out of there. >> Yes. >> They don't help you in any way, do they?
>> No. >> No. And then the basketball court, what do you use it? >> We did. My younger brother played uh high school and college basketball. So he was all summer he was in Chadam using the court. Um he is now out of college a
full grown adult. He sometimes uses it but not as regularly as he once did because he's >> Does it do you any good to have it there at this point? We've kind we kind of sometimes use it as a sturdy surface when we have to put a table on if we have a barbecue or
something just because sometimes the grass isn't as always consistent. But I I can't speak to always. Sometimes we use it, sometimes we don't. >> But wouldn't it be better to have an imperous area there as opposed to an asphalt basketball court given the
location of this property? Wouldn't it be better not to have that there? >> Realistically, yes. >> Yeah. Okay. It'd be better to not have the oils going into the ground and removing it and all of that, >> right? The runoff. Yes. Okay. I know that answers my questions. Thank you so
much. Um, so Paul, >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> Wait a minute. I'm sorry. Um, this is questions from the board, not questions from the >> Oh, yeah. Okay. Did Go ahead. I'm just trying to keep my
agenda straight here. Good afternoon board. Greg Clark for 69 Mars Island Road. I just want to point out a couple of things also in your discussion uh and we looked up a couple of your recent approvals of variances
for pools. So um you go back a little over a year ago, you gave a variance for pool at 103 Abzagami run. And the argument that they made was that the 75% of the lot was buildable, but
25% was not buildable due to a hardship of the setbacks. That's less than 25% that wasn't buildable. On our lot, it's more like over 80% isn't buildable. And the 20% that is buildable, there's already a
structure on. Okay. Um And and on that vote, if you look at it, you go back and look at the plan that they presented, >> we don't have precedent. First of all, there's different arguments. There's different people voting every time. You know, there's different applications of
the various criter variance criteria every time. So what you're saying is not falling on deaf ears. We hear you, but at the same time, we're not bound to that. >> Please understand that. >> Understand that. Yes, I do. >> Okay. >> Anything else? >> That's it. Thank you.
>> Yep. Sure. Thank you. Okay. Um, any other questions from board members in any way? No. On the variance? No. Paul, then please. >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> David seconds and votes yes. >> Ed votes yes. >> Yes. >> All votes yes.
>> Jenny votes yes. >> Okay. So, uh, deliberations. Let's start with Steve. Um well I think it's been said that a pool is um a nice to have and not necessarily something you have to have.
But where this is going is in a fairly isolated area. Um but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have to abide by the bylaws and the need for variance.
So, um I think I might I might have some difficulty approving this because I think this is a a nice to have and not a necessity. So, I don't think I would approve. >> Do you think it meets any of the three criteria? Um, the only one that that could be is
the is the topography because that's the only place that they have any any anywhere on their property to do anything. Um, even if they were to remove the basketball court and put the pool there, I don't think that would fly either. But, um, I don't think anything else.
>> Okay, Jenny. >> With respect to the hardship criteria, um, let me put that aside for a second. I I want to just talk about the mitigation discussion. I I'm a little uncomfortable with kind of bargaining for
a structure for mitigation which should be uh I think as a property owner and protection for this vulnerable area which is close to the ocean and with you know very close to the coastal bank that that should be done anyway. Okay. So,
I'm uncomfortable with that. And also the fact that the basketball court, it's a question and the homeowner or the representative of the homeowner um doesn't know whether that was ever permitted. I I don't think that should be part of the the uh proposed exchange.
But getting just so setting that aside, um I do not see how the topography is unique. Um there are many homes that are near the water that have their lot areas reduced to buildable upland because of
the proximity to the water and the requirements that we have in the town for um you know important separation setbacks. Um so I I don't think that the topography is unique. I also don't think the
hardship there's a hardship because um it the the home was purchased in 2002. The the uh home was demolished, replaced with a larger home that took up a lot of the buildable upland for things like a
pool. Um, and so that was self-imposed even though the laws have changed a little bit with regard to elevation and I I I don't know that I agree that it would have been allowed years ago and now it isn't because of the change of
the bylaw. So, I I I do think it's a self-imposed hardship and I do not at all agree with relief without detriment because the town in just this year unanimously or close to unanimously voted for structures uh you know for
pools specifically to not be within proximity of conservation um protected you know that the conservation protection is in place for a reason. We have a very special area in Chattam and so it's very important and that's why it
was put before town meeting and I think it was unanimously voted uh in favor. >> Thank you Paul. Well, in looking uh at the application uh when I was thinking about it over the past uh couple of weeks, um
the two areas that I particularly had problems with was one the uniqueness of the property with respect to soil condition, topography, and so forth. Um because as is pointed out, it's very close to the same lot or similar to the
one that's next door to it. Um and in terms of the question of hardship um I have difficulty saying that a ability to have a pool or not have a pool amounts to a hardship under the meaning of u the
statute uh dealing with variances. So, it's it's a dimensional variance, but it's a variance. And um um I feel badly because I know you've been before this board before, but at the same time, um we're bound by how we
have to apply this these standards. So, um I don't think that I can support it. and Ed. >> Well, honestly, I' I'd like to help the applicant out because I feel like
timing, you know, has really been the problem, but I I have to go by the criteria and uh I've been struggling with hardship. I I just don't see um our hardship not having the pool. the the other two criteria I think I could
personally make an argument for but um hardship but I just don't see and I wish I could help you out but I don't I don't feel I can >> and Mr. beach. Can you >> um Well,
boy, I don't like I don't like being where we are on this at all. Um, but this may be a a novel stretch of the concept of hardship, but my first
thought in putting myself in the place of the Clarks and I saw those two pools on a budding properties and I put myself in a place. to me
being denied the ability to have this pool and sit there and look what watch my neighbors pools I consider that a hardship. So I topography
I I'm not sure I I hear all the arguments and I guess if if I if I felt bound to the most conservative interpretation of things then I I guess I would say
that I can't vote for it. But I just don't this is just something's not right here in my mind. And so I can find that it meets the criteria. I don't think this dergates from the purpose and intent of the bylaw. Honestly, I don't
I'm not sure. I mean the the point of pools was made at town meeting. So and town meeting has spoken. So um I take that and I have to answer that. I I I I also think that I don't know that the town meeting really thought through that they are also
banning um you know accessory structures within not not in the this this was a change in the bylaw to the the setback to the resource area not the resource area itself.
So, you know, we we we were able it was before any of us, I think, were on the board. We somehow we were able to allow those pools and I think there are some others. I know there's a pool over on Old Harbor Road in North Chattam that I think is in the resource area that we allowed.
So, I I just and I look at the timing of all this and and I I'm sorry. I I I'll support it. >> And Mr. Nixon. >> Well, the three criteria that has to be true,
uh, it just doesn't work here, as has been mentioned by a number of the folks up here. The topography doesn't work. There's many other folks who have this
problem as this is not unique. Um, in the hardship world, I use the wants versus needs. And a pool is not a need.
And as Miss Fenwick mentioned on criteria number three, this is something the town does not want. So, I'll be voting no. >> And I'm not voting, but um I would also vote no. And I can't I can't imagine,
you know, looking at the town's people with a straight face where they just made this bylaw. Um, and I think they knew exactly what they were doing because if if I'm not mistaken, uh, Thad Eldridge presented it and he spoke so well that he and then everybody was
overwhelmingly in support of this. So maybe it doesn't substantially derade, but it nullifies it. in my mind it nullifies it. So the other two, you know, number one and number two, a good lawyer can, you know, finagle those
probably somehow and they do it all the time. And uh but number three, and that's usually the one that I think is easy, but this one, you know, it's not possible that it doesn't derate from a brand new, you know, newly minted bylaw.
You know, it's kind of ridiculous to me the idea of us granting it. So, I'm sorry about that, but I wouldn't I wouldn't have voted yes either, in case you're wondering. So, would you like us to vote or would you like to withdraw? >> Yes, I'm going to >> Okay. All right. Very good. Paul,
>> I'll move to approve the application as submitted. >> Dave seconds and votes yes. >> Ed. >> Ed votes yes. >> You you you approve it. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Just checking because of what you just said. >> No, no, I don't approve it. I thought we
were I >> That's how motions have to be in the affirmative. >> Yes. Okay. >> Not to be tricked. You're not Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, how do you vote? >> Ed votes no. >> Dave, >> I vote no. >> Paul votes no. >> And Jenny,
>> I vote no. >> All right. Well, it's unanimous. Almost unanimous. No. It's four to one. Four to one. So, I apologize that um you did not prevail on that. We'll go to your next application though. Would you like to continue with that? >> We're gonna Sure. Okay. Whenever Sarah's
ready, we'll move on. I don't think you read that one yet, did you, Sarah? No. Okay. Hold on a moment. We'll we'll get there. >> Okay. Application number 25-071. Teresa and Gregory Clark care Victoria Clark 45 Black Bernian Road Weston Mass
02493 owners of property located at 69 Morris Island Road also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 16A block 5 lot C1. The applicant proposes to install an exterior mechanical system appliance. The proposed pool equipment will be
located 22.1 ft from the Northly Butter where a 25 ft setback is required. The property contains 29,993 ft in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under section 8D2B of the protected bylaw.
>> Please go ahead. >> Um so we're looking for a special permit for this mechanical equipment specifically. Um while it does not meet the butters um the distance, it is further from the conservancy district and it is just out of the 50 foot um
setback. We chose it because it's close to what was the proposed pool. Um, it's hidden by existing shrubs and is not visible from the gravel drive or the street and that's kind of just why we chose it. >> Sure. Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams
who wishes to speak in favor of this particular application? If so, please raise your hand. Speaking in favor, seeing none, um, are they the same letter, Sarah? They're >> they are the same, but since this is a separate application,
um they will need to be read or summarized. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Really condensing. >> Yeah, I'll do the best I can here. Conservation. Um I can just uh state No, actually the first one is from a health agent. Um she re she reviewed the plans
and uh she was concerned uh about the drainage uh unit in the proposed same location as the existing leech area. Um and that it must be relocated and show her a revised plan. I forget did you you talked about that last time? Um the
board of health we went to a when we applied for the building permit the board of health noticed that the septic system wasn't on the plan and we had to redo things with them. So that was kind of not an afterthought on but it was done later than the conservation >> it's resolved though. Yes.
>> That's resolved. All right. Very good. And then the conservation commission uh told us on August 26th that they um will be able to condition to it to meet performance. Um, and then we have several notes. All in favor from your
neighbors, are you satisfied with that for this? That'll be great. Thank you so much. Is there anybody here or on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak against this special permit? If so, please uh walk up to the podium.
>> So again, for the record, Charles Sabbat representing uh Russell and Alina Haddton, the owners of 65 Morris Island Road. And with respect to this request, um it's unclear to me and my clients what is meant by pool equipment. Uh and
I see a reference on the plan pool equipment. I don't know what that means. One of the one of their requirements of um of the special permit provisions in your bylaw is that uh you would have to find that um
uh the ones that I'm focusing on is is under 4D delta impact on neighborhood visual character including views and vistas. Well, it won't I don't think it will affect the view or the vista, but I don't know what how large this is or what the visual impact is going to be. And then I would
would would go down to number 4G which I think is more significant. Noise. Uh it has noise and litter but I don't see a litter issue. My question would be noise. Uh it we don't know what's meant by pool equipment. Is this a generator type of of device? Is it going to be
running 24/7? Is it going to be running 10 hour uh you know uh 10 hours a day, seven days a week? I don't know. And the other thing I would point out is that um under the conservancy district bylaw,
it also requires um a special permit for the installation of submerged pipes or cables used for swimming pools. Uh and this particular application addresses only the question of the setback uh from
the the abuing property. It doesn't address submerged pipes or cables. And I would suggest that they would have to have a separate I'm assuming that this pool equipment, whatever this device is, is going to be connected somehow to the swimming pool. So those cables and those
conduits would have to be separately permitted. Thank you. >> Okay. So Sarah can answer some of that. Yeah. >> So as far as the pool equipment, um, typically it's filters, heater, those types of things. Um because the pool is not located within
the conservancy district, it cannot be done by special permit. Otherwise, there wouldn't they wouldn't have applied for a variance previously. Um if it had been located within the flood zone andor conservancy district. So that section of the bylaw in this case wouldn't apply.
And um due to the bylaw amendment they can come by special permit now for mechanical equipment exterior mechanicals within setbacks so that they are properly before the board. >> Okay. Anything else Victoria that you want to rebut on that? >> Um answer uh regarding the pool
equipment we we were vague because we had not yet we designed a general concept of a pool. Obviously we did not go out and hire a contractor pick specifics before getting approval. So, we have a from a few different contractors, we got a general size of
what typical pool equipment would be for this size, which is what we mapped out on the plan. Additionally, the pool equipment would that we've looked into run silent. So, it wouldn't make noise or affect the neighborhood, and it would not run all the time. I believe it would
only run when the heat is on, which would be when sparingly. >> Okay, very good. Anybody else have uh negative uh or a question? Yes. Go ahead, Mr. Phillips. When you get to the podium, questions are speaking against
the special permit. >> Brian Phillips, 374 lanes road. Um again, just against putting stuff in flood zones and not meeting the setbacks, although I don't know if it applies to this because I just read. >> So don't come and comment if you're not sure if it applies. Next time. >> Thanks. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. Anybody else speaking against or has a specific question? Nope. Okay. Questions from the board. Mr. V. >> Uh, Shar, I believe you just said this, but once again, uh, this was able to come as a special permit request because
of the change in the town meeting. >> Correct. >> In that the change to that portion of the law, >> the change to that portion of the bylaw. Correct. >> Okay. Okay. Um, I think that's all for now. Thanks. >> Yeah. Okay. Ed questions. Um, was were
was there any other locations considered that wouldn't require relief from us? >> The only other location would have fallen within the conservancy district setback and we chose to put it further away from the coastal bank rather than closer to just because of in front of
the conservation. We felt that made the most sense. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Mr. Nixon. Questions? >> No questions. >> And Paul, questions? >> No questions. And Steve, >> I have no questions. >> And Jenny, do you have any questions? >> Yeah. Victoria, where if it had been contemplated to go there, what what
would have been do do you know what would have been the ask of the >> conservancy district? >> Well, like the the what you're asking for here on the northern side is 22 feet. >> I assume it would be less as the pool itself. It was 18 feet from the coastal
conservancy district. I think that it probably would have been about the same. So I would guess around 18 feet or so. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Well, you want to close the hearing and move into deliberations? >> I will move to close the hearing and move into deliberations.
>> Dave seconds and votes yes. >> Actton votes yes. >> Yes. >> All votes yes. >> Jenny >> Jenny votes yes. >> Okay. Very good. So deliberations. Um Mr. V. Well, um you know, there's certain
advantages to um looking at special permit criteria. Um and um I don't I'm not tremendously familiar with pool equipment and the amount of noise it generates, but I think they're it's fairly quiet. Um so
that I'm not concerned about that the the the concern about noise. Um I would like to point out um to u Mr. Philip's comments, we aren't in the flood plane here. So, um, we're not
in the flood plane. We're outside of it. We are, and actually in this case, we're outside the setback, too. Okay. So, anyway, I I think that this um can meet certainly can meet the special permit criteria that we have and uh and I can
support it. >> Okay, Ed. >> I I agree with Dave. I I believe um it can uh meet our or does meet our criteria criteria. Uh we have approved
um you know similar setbacks like this. In regards to noise, there is a fence also along that property line. So I think it should contain any any noise on the site. And uh typical pool equipment, a heater, filter. Uh the heater only runs
when the filter's running. Um, so I I don't think it would be detrimental to the neighborhood. >> Mr. Nixon, >> uh, this would not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. So I would vote yes. >> Okay. And Steve, >> well, I guess I question the need for
pool equipment if there is no pool. >> The elephant in the room perhaps. Yeah. Well, this is how they want to proceed. Um, you know, I guess that it can be installed um in in the hopes of of getting approval for a pool someday, but
um I I don't see anything wrong with it, but I kind of question the need for it. >> Sure. And Jenny, >> um I the reason I asked about the a different location is because um there's a road here. I know it's called a drive
or a way, but um it it it is someone's driveway and pool equipment right there could be um you know I I mean I I don't know that I really like the location of that right next to a neighbor's drive.
>> Well, because we're in um we're in deliberations and we've closed the public hearing. I've um in it's been indicated that um the applicant might want to respond to that. Would you like to >> Yeah. >> hear that? >> Sure. >> I I can see how it conruses as a road.
It's technically our property. It's an easement for our neighbor at 67. So, it's just we maintain it as a road because one of our neighbors has an easement. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a gravel driveway. That's just the only thing I wanted to note is that it's technically not a public way or
anything. It's just >> Okay. Thank you. It it is however the driveway to the neighbor. Um two neighbors I think that are yeah it's the way for two people. Well actually maybe even three. One of the houses doesn't have a driveway but there's a pro
there's a home. There's something there. I couldn't really see through the fence. Um so that part of it is um I do agree that it's this is where town meeting was favorable to this one and so I um am not as uncomfortable. you know, it's
only three feet they're asking for, but I do um I just have a reservation about the that being the driveway to two of the neighbors. And just to be clear, this is the one
where Sarah Town meeting changed this um application from a variant into a special permit. Is that right? >> Correct. >> Yeah. Okay. So they made it easier to just um have let people get their mechanical systems without a variant. So
you you are up on this one. So that's good. Uh and Paul, >> yes, I think uh this is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. So I will support it and as would I. So um Paul, >> I'll move to approve the application as submitted.
>> David seconds and votes yes. >> Ed votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> All votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> Okay. So that's unanimous and you've prevailed on that one. Um now you have one more and I think yes. >> Let's see this is about offense. So this
is application 25-076 when Sarah is I'm sorry two when Sarah's ready. Uh application number 25-072 Terresa and Gregory Clark Cara Victoria Clark 45 Black Burnian Road Weston Mass 02493
owners of property located at 69 Mor Morris Island Road also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 16A block 5 lot C1. The applicant proposes to install fencing under section 4 A3A of the protective bylaw. The lot contains 29,993
ft in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 9 and section 8D2B of the protective bylaw. >> Welcome back. >> Hello. So, my name is Victoria Clark. I'm here about a specific portion of our
existing fence. Um, I pro the packet I handed out at the beginning included some photos that I sent to Sarah as well. So, when we purchased this property in 2003, there was an existing fence that lined the northern portion of our road. It served as a separation between ourselves and 63 Morris Island
Road as well as 65 Morris Island Road. The specific portion of the fence in question is against 63 Morris Island Road, which is the Row Reynolds family. Um, and they had shrubs that grew against the original fence. As time went
on over the last 15 years or so, the the shrubs overtook the fence, which became a problem for a few reasons. The first was that um it began to infringe on the gravel drive, shrinking the driveway for um our neighbors at 67 Morris Island
Road who have the easement to use it. So it became a problem for them. Similarly um ourselves 67 Morris Island Road and 65 Morris Island Road all use the same private waste management contractor and they started to have trouble getting down the driveway because the shrubs had
shrunken the road so much. So what we decided to do was we cut back the shrubs and installed a new fence in its place. At the time we did not realized that the flood zone had changed. We only became aware that this portion of the fence was now in the flood zone when we went to
the conservation commission um for the pool. And at the time we decided to remove the portion of fence from the um conservation commission plan because they could not approve the plan as existing with the piece of fence on it unless we had gotten a special permit
from the zoning board. And at the time we had not had the opportunity to speak with the Ro Reynolds family to make sure they wanted to keep the fence. So we circled back over the summer or as the months went on, we spoke to them. They agreed that they wanted to keep this specific portion of their fence
specifically because their house is a few feet from the property line. So it in addition to the shrubs they have, it creates separation between our two pieces of property. And um in a in the R40 zone, there are quite a few fences.
Many of our neighbors have fences that separate property lines as well as for different purposes. So we feel it's compatible to the neighborhood. it. The conservation commission as I mentioned was okay with it as long as there was a special permit for it. So that we don't believe it has an impact on the
environment. It doesn't affect the noise litter um sewage water drainage. So we think it is um allowable by special permit in this area. >> Okay. Thank you so much. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wish to speak in favor of this
application regarding the fence? Please uh raise your hand if you want to speak in favor. Seeing no one, the uh the the letters are the same. Please. >> The only one I think might be worth rereading is the neighbors who specifically >> are against this property, 63 Morris
Island Road. The I believe it's from the Row Reynolds family. I'm not entirely positive who wrote the letter, but I know that that specific neighbor who shares this fence spoke wrote a letter for in support >> in support. You had said I thought you just said a minute ago not in support. >> Oh, sorry. I meant to say they wrote in.
>> I was wondering why you would say that. But yeah, I was like, did I miss a letter? Yeah. >> Okay. So, these two that are folded are the ones that speak specifically to the fence. >> Okay. There's two that are folded that speak specifically to the fence. So, I will grant you that um request and thank you for not having us read all the
others. Um so, we own the home on 69 Mars Island Road. The Clark family has shared their plans um writing to advisor zoning board that we um their proposal to keep the existing fence as well as to install the swimming pool etc. Um we support it. Uh the
specific piece of fence serves as a separation between our two properties. We appreciate that the clock family install a new fence as the old one have been overtaken by shrubs and become dilapitated. So we fully support it. And then the other one is uh 67 Mars Island Road
directly abuts us uh at 69. This is David Chapman. The Clark family has shared their plans and they're going to remove the as the asphalt basketball court, install a swimming pool as well as applying for special permit to keep the pieces of existing fence that lines the driveway. We fully support their
proposed plans. The fence along our easement has made the travel easier as it makes our passage smoother by restricting the renters at 65 Morris Island Road and the previous overgrowth of abuing trees and shrubs from obstructing our passageway. Um, okay.
Satisfied? Very good. Very good. Um, anybody here are on Microsoft Teams wishes to speak against or has a specific question? Walk up to the podium and then line up if there's anyone else about this one. Sir, >> again, Charles Sabbath for the
Haddleton's at 65 Marsh Island Road. Um, no pun intended, but we're sort of on the fence about this one. Um, we're not necessarily here to oppose it. Uh, but I just want to be clear, uh, if you would, if you are inclined to approve this, uh, that in your decision, you specify that
you are going to allow preservation of that section of the fence that adjoins or abuts 63 Morris Island Road. and that that's what they've asked for. But I wanted to be want to have that clear in the ultimate decision with respect to the fence as it fronts on 65, which is
my client's property. Uh these we just completed some litigation uh over the way and the fence and the superior court has ordered that four sections of the fence that fronts on 65 be removed. Now that that decision is being appealed, I
should say that by way of a footnote. So that could be reversed, but the court has ordered that four panels uh of the fence. >> Is that relevant to this part? >> No, but I want it that's the reason I want I would request that you be specific. >> Hold on one second, Sarah. Please.
>> So the only relief they are seeking is for the portions of the fence that fall within the flood zone. That's it. The other fencing is that's a civil matter between >> The only thing is on the plan it doesn't really show me. I couldn't see where the flood zone is or or is not and what
sections of the fence they were talking about. So, I just want to be clear in the if you would in your in your your uh your decision assuming you're going to approve this to specify that it that section of the fence that adjoins or
abut 63 Morris Island Road >> and I saw our vice chair Paul who does conditions jot it down. So, he heard you and he already wrote it down. How do you like that? >> All right. Okay. Great. Thank you very much. >> It's not for hire. Just thank you very much. >> Yeah.
>> All right. So, um we're on questions and if anybody has any uh negative uh anyone's against it questions and are you against? I don't see anyone else at all. So, uh we will go to Paul and close
the public hearing and move to deliberations. >> I'll move to close the public hearing. >> Have a couple questions. >> We didn't get this side of the room. >> Well, no, we we didn't do questions. question. >> We didn't do questions and we're going to do them now. Sorry. I'm >> just so I'm clear because this is I
found this confusing. >> What you're talking about, Victoria, are it's like a couple of sections closest to the road. Yes. Where it kind of sweeps down. Anything below the 13 foot line is what you need approval from us for.
>> Yes, that is correct. That having been said, the I know that the rest of the fence, it's my understanding if watching consom that you're you're going to need to provide 6 in of space underneath the rest of that fence, but we're not
involved in that part. Correct. I believe so, but I believe um that the conservation commission and the building inspector make sure those criteria >> well and because because they're going to want to make sure that the overall
height does not exceed six feet. >> Yes. And I see I know this was a problem we had I think maybe last summer that um the fence is 6 feet and with we left originally the 6 in below for conservation and then the building
inspector informed us we had to fill in the 6 in. So it's because they don't self fences that are >> that's why I'm I mean I was sort of focused on because I watched the hearing I heard and then I know that there's good reason for the concom you'd probably be 6' 6 in a fence I'm
guessing and that's that's contrary to the zoning bylaw about adjacency to a lot line I Okay. So, is that correct, Jay? And I'm sorry. >> Correct. Fences six feet and above are required to meet the setback. So, uh
you're exactly right. If they have to have a gap for conservation, then they would have to cut the panel down so that the overall was met the requirement. >> Okay. Thanks. Just wanted to clarify that. Thanks. >> All right. So, just to be clear, we're on questions from the board on 25-0
I'm sorry, 072. So, questions, Mr. Actton? >> No questions. >> Mr. Nixon? Paul, >> no questions. >> Steve, >> um, is is this this the fence that we're talking about run the length of the house along the along the gravel
driveway? >> Yes, it runs the entire basically the length of the northern side of the property. >> And I think I read some place that you're removing all those arrivites. >> We were going to replant, remove and replant. >> You're just moving them back basically. >> Yes. Yes. Adjusting them.
>> Okay. Okay. And then is the the rerouting of the driveway part of this application or is that totally separate? >> That was totally separate. That was conservation. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. >> And any questions? >> No additional questions. >> No. Okay. So now Paul,
>> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> A second votes yes. >> Ed votes yes. >> Yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> Okay. Deliberations. We'll start with Mr. um I'm sorry. We're going to start with Mr. V and we're just going to go this way so I don't mess it up. Well, this again special permit. Um, it's not
substantially more detrimental to have that fence remain. Um, I I know there's some some concerns with con talking about stockade fencing in a in a velocity zone, but this is an Azone and they didn't feel that that was really going to be problematic. So, uh, I I
would I don't think there's I think it's uh it meets our criteria to allow that fence to be there in the flood zone. >> Ed, >> uh, and I agree. >> And Mr. Nixon. >> Yeah. In no way is this substantially more detrimental. In fact, it makes for good neighbors. >> Yep. Good. Paul,
>> I agree with my colleagues >> and Steve. >> As do I. >> I do to agree with my colleagues. >> All right. Very good. So, Paul, >> I'll move to approve the application as submitted uh with the uh provision that the uh fencing uh involved will be that
which is adjoining or abudding 63 Morris Island Road. David seconds and votes yes. >> Uh Ed votes yes. >> Yes. >> All votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> And so it's unanimous. Thank you. >> Very good. This has been a part-time job for you, I think. Maybe a full-time job.
I don't know. But we are going to uh take a five minute recess and we will be back on the other side of that. We are back. Sarah, whenever you're ready, the next application. >> Application number 25-059,
Jazelle Lemonani, 114 Squanset Road, Chattam, Mass 02633. owner of property located at 107 Squanset Road, also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 8D block 7 lot R10. The applicant proposes to install an exterior mechanical system appliance.
The proposed generator will be located 7.2 ft from Geranium Drive and the proposed AC condenser will be located 6.8 ft from Geranium Drive where a 25 ft setback is required. The property contains 11,187 square ft in the R20 zoning district. A
special permit is required under Mass Turner law or under section 8D2B of the protective bylaw. This was continued from August 28th, 2025. Attorney Lichfield, welcome. >> Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Bill Lichfield here on behalf of the applicant, Jazelle Lementani, who was in
the rear. You will recall that Miss Lamentani was here uh on August 14th or whatever the date was. And at that point, the attorney general had not yet approved the change in our zoning bylaw, which was enacted at the May town
meeting. That in fact happened. The AG approved it. Uh it was posted and all the appropriate things have been done. So we are now happily seeking only a special permit rather than a variance knowing of course that you give
variances on a regular basis. We are nonetheless happy uh to be seeking only a special permit as allowed under the change in the zoning bylaw. Uh what is proposed is what is shown there. You've been out to the property. You know a couple of times you know that Jazelle
and David uh her husband or the owners of the property are renovating what was a very deteriorated and difficult property. Uh and we uh at the time the plans were developed, frankly, there
wasn't consideration of where exterior mechanical appliance systems might be placed. The gas line is on the north side of the property and putting them anywhere else would be problematic. Moreover, uh what is shown there as Geranium Drive at the top or north side
of the property is a paper of what the town acquired. Uh and it is a of what the town acquired. Uh and it from a subdivision to the east of it. So the fee interest, the underlying ownership
is owned by the two abutters of whom Chiselle is one. So I'll go into the criteria for the placement of the generator. 7.2T 2 ft from Geranium Drive and the uh compressor 6.8 ft from Geranium Drive, which again is is
frankly just a non-existent street. As adequacy of the site in terms of size for the proposed use, we have an 11,000 square foot lot, somewhat larger than many in the area, which has been and remains adequate for residential use. It
is supplemented by approximately 2,000 square feet of fee ownership in that spur. Uh both units, the generator and the compressor will be further from the paper road than is the allowed house.
The uh generator is I think 7.2 ft, the compressor 6.8 ft, and the house itself is 4.6 ft. It's the suitability of a site for the proposed use. And as you know, this is what's referred to as a straight special permit rather than a non-conforming change. Uh the site is
suitable for external mechanical appliance systems which are as you know an increasingly common adjunct or accessory uh aspect of residential use. There's no impact on traffic flow and safety because there's no traffic there uh as to impact the neighborhood visual
character including v views and vistas. There's no impact on visual character. The generator is 50 feet back from the edge of of the pavement of Squanset. The compressor is 42 feet from the northerly neighbors uh fence, stockade
fence that you've seen with vegetative screening to be provided. And the compressor is tucked behind the uh addition under construction. Uh sewage and water water uh sewage disposal and water drainage are not at issue nor are
adequacy of utilities or other public services except that the gas line happens to be on the north side of the lot which is why the generator uh needs to be located there. As to noise and litter again the compressor will be more than 40 ft from the neighbor's fence.
And interestingly enough, because the spur so-called geranium drive is 35 feet wide, 17 1/2 ft of it belong, the underlying interest belongs to the applicant. So if we add the 17 1/2 ft and the 6.8 ft, we get the 24.3 ft,
which is awfully close to 25 ft and it's more than the abuted setback. uh and the generator of course is far from the actual road as well as the compatibility or noise and litter. One other aspect the uh compressor will
operate between 52 and 62 sorry between 56 and 62 dB. Uh because it's a heat pump unit when it's heating it could go up to 65 dB. a standard
office or conversation is at 70 dB. So it is not going to be a loud noise emitting uh compressor or generator. And of course as we all know when a generator is running except for the five minutes a week of testing we all have bigger problems than the noise of a
generator. So it shouldn't be an issue in that regard. as the compatibility of use. Uh it's an accessory use or adjunct use in a purely residential uh neighborhood and the effected a butter on the north side beyond what you can see on that plan has no objections
whatsoever as to impact the natural environment slopes the and environmental issues generally. The elimination of the bittersweet and the poison ivy and god knows what else was growing in there has already been an improvement. Um, as Jazelle indicated last time, there will
be planting of appropriate vegetation. The generator and condenser themselves will have no environmental impact. As you know, the special permit we are seeking requires a finding for the use will not be detrimental to the established or future character of the neighborhood. I know Mr. Vich always
wonders how the future character can be predicted, but that's another issue or of the town. And that the use involved will be in harmony of the general purpose intent of the bylaw. The voters made this change uh by unanimous vote at the last annual town meeting. And this
is a prime example of why a variance ought not be required for placement in a logical location dictated in part by the gas line uh and can be granted. And I think this fine I think you can find that this warrants the grant of a
special permit uh and be happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application? If so, please make it known. Raise your hand. Seeing none, I will read the
correspondences. There is one. Judith Giorgio, our health agent, tells us on 82125 2025 that she has no concerns regarding this application. With nothing to rebut, I would say uh now is there anybody?
Well, actually we would have to get to that with this next part. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wish to speak against this application or has a question? No. Now there's nothing to rebut. All right. Questions from the board. Are there any? Anybody?
All right. Ben Paul, >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> DV checkins and votes yes. >> Edwards yes. >> Yes. >> All votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. Okay. And deliberations. We'll start with Jenny and work our way down.
>> Um I uh originally you didn't see it because it was had all the trees and vegetation. So I think uh it was a shock to see it with everything removed. But Mr. Lichfield has explained they share it with the neighbor. The neighbor is
not has no objection. And I remember um the homeowner at the last hearing mentioning that it's been cleared for for everyone's for the good of everyone and it's going to be it's not going to stay cleared. It's going to be better and it's going to be replanted with
beautiful things. And so I don't think you're going to see that the side personally driving up right now. It feels like it's right there in front of you. But I think if it's masked it we'll be fine. That's what I think. >> And Steve Well, I think this is the
logical place to to install this and I don't think it's detrimental to anyone. >> Paul, >> I think it clearly meets our criteria. It's not judgmental to the established or future character of the neighborhood and the town and when it is found that the million use will be in harmony with
the general purpose and intent of the bylaw. >> Mr. Nixon, >> I'm for it. >> And I'm for it as well. >> And Mr. V. >> Yeah. and uh an another example of of an improvement and a change to the uh to
the zoning bylaw. I'm I'm not so sure about the other thing that got passed. Uh but we'll wait and see. >> Logical, though. That's the operative order, >> but I will support it, sir. >> Well, >> I'll move to approve the application as submitted. >> David seconds and votes yes.
>> Ed votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> All votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. It's unanimous. >> Thank you very >> congratulations. Moving on to the penultimate. Remember that one. Second to the last. >> Yeah.
>> Application number 25-070. Edward and Joanne Cutting 31 Willowdale Road, Winchester, Mass 01890. Owners of property located at 46 Dair Street also showed on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 14G block 61 lot
B 101. The applicant seeks to enlarge, extend, or change a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the conversion of the existing garage to habitable habitable space and under the second accept clause of section 6 of Mass General law chapter 4A requires the grant of a special permit. The law is
non-conforming in that it contains 10,454 square f 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 protective bylaw. >> Welcome sir.
>> Thank you. Uh first, thanks for letting me stand up here and talk about a little bit. Um so we are the >> Can you just state your name? Sorry. >> Oh, sorry. Uh Brad Cutting, Edward Cutting. I'm the owner of 46 Dair Street with my wife Joanna. >> Okay. Uh we are hoping to get a special permit um for the purpose of converting
an existing garage into basically a den or a playroom for our kids. Um it's a non-conforming lot due to its size. We are not adding any space to the building. We're not changing the building. Uh we're literally intending to take the garage off the front of the garage door and turn it into two sets of
windows. Uh we think it'll make the house a little bit better. Um definitely it will be better for the neighborhood because we won't have the kids running around screaming and yelling and being teenage boys. Um that's our request in short. >> All right. Thank you. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wish to
speak in favor of this application? Please make it known. Seeing none, uh do I have any correspondences? >> Yes. Very good. No worries. We have two. We have one in favor and one from the
health department. Uh let's see. We have Judith Giorgio, our health agent who always uh opines on anything that we have before us. And this was 99205. She reviewed the plan to convert the garage to the f to a family room at this
property. The room must have a cased 5 to 6 foot opening to eliminate privacy so as not to be considered a bedroom. The dwelling is approved for only two bedrooms. Detailed floor plans of the proposed remodel are needed for review.
Then we have a note from Maryanne Lewis from I'm writing in response to Edward and Joanna's cutting cutting application to turn their garage into habitable space. My name is Maryanne Lewis. I live at 21 Card Lane directly next to the cutings.
They are wonderful neighbors. Two teenage sons are valuable summer employees in the town of Chattam. They alerted me to their plans ahead of time and I have no issues with it. But I have no doubt that their main motivation is to provide additional space for the two young men living under their roof. As my
house is the closest to the garage in question, I think it's s a sensible request and there's no reason why the application should be allowed. Denied. Um, plus my two dogs love them. Okay, that does it for me then. So, um, is
there anybody here that might on Microsoft Teams that has a question or wishes to speak against this application? No. Um, questions from the board. Are there any? >> Yes, Mr. Nixon. >> So, who dropped a dime on you that made
you come in front of us? >> Uh, so we are learning a lot. Um, which is great and actually kudos to Sarah and and I think Jay. Um, we have done some work in the house. Uh, we bought the house and it needs a little bit of love.
Um, I do a lot of the work myself just cuz it's a little less uh expensive. Uh, but we did a couple projects with a really wonderful human being who didn't quite do all the stuff he was supposed to do. Uh, and that alerted us that we
needed a special permit. Uh, so we're now going through this process to get all the permitting correct so that they can get all the building stuff correctly done. So, uh, it we no one really ratted it out. It was more of a we didn't do things correctly. >> Well, and it's our fault.
>> The town needs your money for >> Yeah. Very. >> All right. Does anybody else have a question as to this application? If you do, please feel free. No. Okay. Paul, >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> DV seconds and votes yes.
>> Ed votes yes. >> Yes. >> Paul votes yes. Jenny votes. Yes. >> Okay. Deliberations. Uh Steve. >> Um well, I I guess you admit that you got a little bit ahead of the permitting process, but you know, what's done is
done, and I think it looks okay, and I don't think it's going to cause any harm to anything. So, good luck. Thank you, >> Jenny. Yeah, I I think it looks like a nice and and and appropriate change and I would have approved it if it had come
before us, you know, properly. Um, and I think it's a great project. So, I don't have a problem with it. >> And David V. >> Yeah. Well, the upside is it's a lot easier to envision what the what the end result will look like and we don't need a model. We So, uh, or you could say
it's a fullscale model. How's that? So, we thank you for that. Um, no. I Yeah, >> good one, Dave. Yeah. And Mr. Actton. >> Yeah. Uh, I it it looks great and meets our criteria. >> Mr. Nixon, >> I'm fine.
>> And I forgot to ask, uh, did you go back to um the board of health and deal with that layout? Uh, will that be done? >> Uh, so that'll that'll definely be done. We did not go back and do it because I think I just learned about it a couple of days ago. >> But you will. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Yeah. And Okay. Very good. I just didn't
want to let that go unquestioned. Um, and Paul, >> yeah, I uh certainly meets our criteria. It's not substantially more detrimental. >> And Jenny, did I ask you yet? Yeah. Okay, then. Paul, >> I'll move to approve the application as submitted. >> Dave seconds and votes yes.
>> Uh, Ed votes yes. >> No conditions. Huh, Paul? >> No conditions. >> Uh, I vote yes. >> All votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. Hey, that's unanimous. Congratulations. Now you can sleep at night. >> Thanks. is not in the addition. >> Yeah. I would actually just like to say
I want to compliment Sarah and Jay with all the questions we had. They were actually great walking us through the process. So we walked in sort of educated and comfortable, which was not common in other other towns. >> No. >> So it was really well done. >> Not even Winchester. That's where you're from, right? >> Uh yeah. No.
>> Yeah. Good to know. Yeah. >> Definitely no. >> Yeah. Good to know. All right. Thank you. Sure. >> All right. We have one more >> application number 25-075 Galaxy Nominee Trust Care of Michael D. Ford Esquire, PO Box 485 West Haritch,
Mass 02671. Owners of property located at 149 Cut Pinikut Road, also shown in the town of Chadam's assessor's map six 16K block 2, lot one. The applicant proposes to change, alter, or expand a non-conforming dwelling on a conforming
lot via the part partial demolition of the existing dwelling, relocation of the original historic section, and incorporation into into the construction of a new dwelling. Also proposed is the installation of a shed 14.2 feet from the road as allowed by special permit
under section 3D3H2. The existing dwelling is non-conforming and that it is located 36.4 ft from the road and 25 ft from the coastal conservancy district. The proposed dwelling will be non-conforming and that it will be located 37 feet from the road
where a 40ft setback is required and 25 ft from the coastal conservancy district where a 50ft setback is required. The existing building coverage is 6.8% and the proposed building coverage is 7.3% where 10% is the maximum allowed. The lot contains 68,632
square ft in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under master law chapter 4A sections 6 and 9 and sections 5B and 8D2B of the protective bylaw. >> Attorney Ford, welcome. >> Uh thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the board. U Mike Ford here on behalf of
the applicant along with John Barker from uh >> welcome >> PSD. Um PSD is the designer and architect on this and builder. Um we anticipate on this particular project. So um first a
little bit of history um why we're here. We're here we've got a very large lot a conforming lot um an area. It's conforming in frontage. Uh we've got a couple of uh non-conforming dimensional situations with the house. One, it's non-conforming in terms of the
conservancy district. We've got a deck that's 25 ft where 50 is required. And uh it's non-conforming in terms of the front yard setback. Uh it's 36 feet where uh 40 is required. So given the uh changes that the
petitioners would like to make to the house, which Mr. Barker will run you through in a moment. Um those two require um the special permit. Um little history. Uh this is the area.
Uh Locust is marked in in red. Um we gave you that just to kind of show you it's kind of a unique geographic area where these houses are out on the point. And uh we've listed those other um houses because uh when we get to uh the
criteria uh we put together from the assessor's records um gross floor area and coverage and uh size of those to give you an idea of what the neighborhood is to kind of judge it as to what was being proposed here uh in support of our position that uh we think
we uh uh fit in uh with the neighborhood. Um that said, we had a couple of hurdles to uh uh get over before we came to zoning. The first was uh historic and uh if you could show the
the plan of the house. Uh we had an historic house I think in this uh here it is number um it's number one but it's really I think it's the second number one on the slide list there.
>> There it is. Okay. So, flashback to 1920. The tennis court was still there. Tennis court's 100 years old. And you can see uh by the outfits they were wearing uh what the age was uh in that court. And
uh there is a small ball boy running across there. I didn't know whether Mr. Nixon, you might have some knowledge of who that was. Um but uh clearly you weren't one of the ones in the in the long dresses or outfits there. So in anyway, historic tennis court, no doubt
it's got a different surface on it now, but it's still there and uh still utilized. Um the petitioners have lived here about 11 years, and the house does need considerable work. It um uh it's been kind of uh built in fits and starts
over time. Uh when I went through the form B and the history of it, the oldest portion was the portion that has this kind of uh uh porch that's closed in porch off of this side. You'll see given
the uh dormer uh construction on top that that was that barn and that barn was was brought according to the form B from somewhere in the Southshore to this location and placed here and it was obviously used in conjunction uh with
the tennis court uh early on and uh u you know as an outbuilding but it was the principal building on the site for many years and then the house kind of got built around it got wrapped around it. The uh the current owners, as I say,
they've been there for 11 years, had that picture of the barn. They also have a little model of the barn, and they like that barn look very much. And so, they instructed the PSD team, we want to save that. and we know it's all gobbled up with these additions that are around
it, but to the extent we can, we'd like to separate it off and use that as kind of the piece to get a new house that they had an idea they they wanted to build around it. So, uh we went to
historic and uh u we proposed uh just that uh to try and isolate that piece. Maybe if you go to the next uh slide um I can kind of or maybe if you went to the the site plan. Let's go back up to the site plan. I'm sorry, Sarah.
So, the barn uh gets picked up and gets moved to where it's uh the dark color is back towards the road and to the tennis court again. And when Mr. Barker goes through the elevations and so forth, you'll see that uh we're bringing it
back using that same kind of unique dormer structure and it will be um although it has some living space in it, principally a garage and will be used in kind of a garage format uh as an accessory building, but it fits nicely
back into uh that corner of the tennis court where the old barn building used to be. will need to stay historic like this and they like the way the rest of the house fit in uh around the barn. Um they like the fact that it was being
more isolated. The uh structures, the porch and then the structures that were on the north side of it have now been taken off. So it kind of the historic piece will kind of set by its own uh and and be able to kind of show off that bit of historic look that uh we're trying to
keep there. So that's what drove this development plan, believe it or not. That's what they wanted to do. They wanted to save that and those are the instructions given to PSD and this is what we came up with for a design. So uh historic jurisdiction
uh was under the demolition delay bylaw and clearly we were demolishing um uh a substantial part of the house. Um the parts of the house though we demolished were not that old but they have a rule that if one portion is over 100 years old it's all in before them and we
understood that. So we applied for a demolition permit for the rest of the house um with the idea that we'd move the barn piece. um that got approved with a finding what's in your record uh from historic that while the house is uh a significant
historical and architectural house uh this change and bringing back the old barn piece uh will not affect the actual uh architecture and historic of the piece that really is the store. So, um, we got through historic, then we went to
conservation and we went to conservation. It It's kind of a complicated site. Um, there's flood plane. Um, uh, you'll see it. It runs along the top of the coastal bank. It's elevation 11, I think. Um, the only thing really in the
0 to 50 for conservation, uh, was the guest house that was approved. That little small guest house. Hopefully, you went out to the site and saw it. It's a wonderful little spot. um over there on that side of the property. There's no changes proposed to be made to that. That was authorized by a special permit issued by this board. And
what we did, we we uh changed the the configuration within the 0 to50. Um but one of the most important things we did was to take the septic system which was in conservation's jurisdiction and we're moving it outside conservation jurisdiction up towards the road. You
can see that up front. So that together with some uh removal of a large portion if you went out there you saw a lot of invasive species all along that coast that's up there. conservation encouraged us and we got into a a mitigation um
commitment, large mitigation compli commitment at conservation and uh with that they liked uh the fact that um led by the septic system getting out of the outer aura um that this plan was one they felt they could live with. So we're
on in conservation after public hearing for September 24th for an order of conditions. So they've they've pushed it over for an order. So, we've gotten by those two. So, now we're with you here with this board. And of course, with this board, um, given the
two-dimensional non-conformities we have, and we still end up with two dimensional nonconformities at the end of the day, um, we need your relief. We also may need your relief. There is a shed where the new septic system is. There's an existing shed there that's in
the front yard setback um, uh, which is 40T. and it it doesn't meet it is 20ome 25 26 we're taking that down and we're putting another shed up over there and that's still in the setback and so I think you can handle that in
one of two ways we applied uh alternatively we included it under the uh non-conforming section change alter or pre-existing non-conforming structure and and we argued that we got a shed that's under 100 square feet now we're demolishing it it's in the setback we're
putting another one that's under 100 square feet. It's about 83 square feet in the front yard setback and and we'll make the arguments on those when we get to the the plan. The other way you can handle that and we applied the alternative um is to apply for a straight special permit for that being
in the front yard setback. So we applied alternatively for the change of that shed. Um so with that, let me go to Mr. Barker and have him kind of walk you through what this development plan is that's uh wrapped around the um historic
barn portion that uh will be moved on the site and connected with the new house. John. >> All right. So what if we Yeah, we can start right there, sir. Thank you. Um so this this is the site. We're at the end of Kacha Pinikut road. Uh Kacha Pincket
continues down to the beach. Um so what is perceived as the front entry the front approach to the building um is the culde-sac but the uh roadway continues down along this the side of the use
property um providing a front yard setback to which uh attorney Ferd was referring. Um but if you move forward to the floor plans um these are the existing uh we'll move through from lower level up to the second floor. There's a small portion of
the existing lower level that's finished. Um, the majority of the current living space resides on the main floor. The outline of the barn is shown uh with the blue dashed outline in the the light blue shading. That barn
structure, as attorney Ford mentioned, is getting lifted, rotated, and relocated on the site. Uh significant portions of the side elevations have been demolished over the years through various uh additions, renovations. Um
we're preserving the of iconic uh three uh shed dormers, uh the roof lines, the main massing. Uh but the majority of the kind of integrity of the structure has um been removed over the years. Um
continue on to the there's some second floor living space. The existing structure uh does appear as it actually is to have been added on to over the years. There's no order or organization.
Um it's happened in pieces um and is uh in need of uh some attention and um some upgrades. Um kind of continue on to so this is our proposed
um the new lower level plan. Uh the new garage structure is the extension to the bottom of the page underneath the garage. Uh we are finishing a significantly larger portion of the lower level with full uh daylit
basement. Um a good portion of the existing structure does not have basement underneath it. So while we are increasing gross floor area, which I know we'll get to, um a
good portion of that is here in the lower level. Um, as we move up, we'll see the in blue again the uh relocated um existing structure that becomes a garage. Um, main living space
um with a little bit more, you know, some additional square footage up on the second floor, uh, including the space above the garage, um, and the main living quarters. Um so we move into the elevations. Um
you can see specifically in this bottom image uh which is the northeast elevation. Uh how we have differentiated the um kind of aesthetic and articulation of the existing historic barn structure which is something that the historic commission really likes to
see that we've set that off from the the new structure. um while maintaining the characteristics um the three shed dormers. You'll also notice that the the window patterns, the grill patterns in the historic barn
match the six over six um window configurations of the historic structure. Whereas the newly constructed portion of the building um incorporate a different window configuration, the two over two um further kind of
differentiating the old from the new. Um can you continue around to the rear side of the property uh where you see the daylight basement um as the natural grading um slopes down towards the marsh um at the rear of the
property. Um I think we included a yes a 3D rendering um view from the street where you see the historic barn structure on the left side of the the building. Um the house has oriented the front entry
um to the kind of southwest towards the tennis court um and and kind of really meets the characteristics the size the scale of the uh neighboring structures on this part of uh north chatam.
>> Uh thank you John and John certainly available for questions unless you wanted to do those now we could do it when we finish our presentation. No, we're going to use do the usual. >> Okay. Thank you, Madam Chairman. So, um we'll get to the uh criteria. Before I
go there, I should tell you the the the figures that this board is always interested in and and is now part of your application. Um the gross floor area existing is 5,500 and the proposed gross floor area is 8,600.
Much of which, as John has indicated, is in the in the uh uh garage. Um that's the uh this is based on on assessor's records. Uh these are the properties that were identified on the
spit that we went through. Um 95 cotch binet um currently has a building coverage of 2824. Um square footage above ground uh 4350 and
then a gross floor area of uh 5574 108 cotch pinikut um 4712 for a footprint or building coverage I should say uh square footage above the ground 7,
674 and their gross floor area is 8,784 138 cotch finet um 3,995 and the uh square footage above ground 7,159 and again a gross of over 8,000 um 8 8
327 141 Cotch Pinikut 5,000 for for footprint 8,274 square footage above ground and uh just shy of 10,000 square feet in gross floor area nine
six and then 156 is a single family home. I should have told you that in the last three that I've read um most of those are a house and a guest house and that's how you get to some of those numbers. Um
156, the most modest uh house in the uh area, but certainly part of the neighborhood, uh has a uh a footprint of 1880, square footage above grade 27, and a gross floor area of 35. So that's kind
of the outlier in in terms of uh the houses. Immediately adjacent and abuing to the south is 36 Raccoon. That's just one house. It's not multiple houses. um that's 3,553 for a footprint and then a square
footage above grade 6,47 and a gross floor area of u you know north of of 8,000. So it brings it to us. We're 3,698 in terms of building coverage. That's the footprint. And our building coverage
is is just going up to 3,953. I'll get into those percentages in a minute, but they comply. Um, you're authorized to have 10% here and we're we're well under that by three percentage points. Um, square footage above grade currently is is 42 uh29 and
um that will go to 52 55 and of course that is taking into consideration the guest house we have on the property too, although that's a very modest structure. Um, and then the gross floor area, we end up with the numbers that I started with, 5501, and we go to the 86. But
that's kind of how it fits in with the neighborhood in terms of mass and size and and uh neighborhood character. So with that, let me go to the specific uh criteria uh adequacy of size of the site including but not limited to maximum lot
or building coverage. Um, as I indicated at the outset, the the the lot is conforming in terms of area. It's over 66,000 square ft. Um, we do have two dimensional nonconformities on the site currently. One is a 36 uh foot setback
from the front yard. And this, of course, as John showed you in that initial um aerial, has a very long frontage, very long front yard of over 270 square feet. Um the front yard will uh stay about the
same. Uh if we can go to the site plan, you'll see a little set of stairs. Um and if there's a is there a clicker up here? Can you point those out, John? So right there there's a little set of stairs. We put a note on the plan um
that we'd keep them under 30 feet uh stairs and stoop in which case they would not count towards a setback. And so we're pretty comfortable this house is going to end up being 41 feet which is the closest point uh of the house um without those stairs and and actually
become conforming in terms of setback. Uh but it was advertised uh at 37 just in case the stairs and stoop went over 30 feet kind of give us a if we got out there and we were 31 ft. I I know this board does not want to see me back in
here with PSD saying, "Hey, it's only 31 and a half and we were supposed to be 30 and so we're trying very hard to stay away from that." So, we we've actually come in for the 37. So, we're not going to have a problem if that turns out to be 31 ft, but we're comfortable it'll be
30 or under. And you'll really get a setback of of 41 ft. So we think we've improved that front yard setback. Um the existing guest house of course is is not being touched. That was authorized under a separate special permit. Uh but
all these uh dimensional numbers include the area of the of the house. Um the existing shed which I indicated is just under 30 ft uh where 40t's required because it's in the front yard. Um and
uh that will go um same size 84 square foot shed as I talked about will be about 14 feet off the um that long uh frontage that heads up uh uh towards the beach. Um and we think you can you can authorize that under the special permit
under the uh VB that we've applied for, but we've also applied for a special permit um for that on its own if we need it. We still maintain the 25- foot uh setback in the conservancy district. Um
you you'll see the deck uh were proposed to be 25. The current deck is 25. Um given some of the other changes we're making, conservation did not have a problem uh with that. Um and did not have a problem with the fact that it's in that 0 to 50. given other changes
that we're making um below the bank and getting that septic system up and out up into the front of the lot um and and out of their jurisdiction. So um we'd suggest to you respectfully the site is adequate uh for the uh proposed changes uh particularly where I
didn't mention the building coverage is six currently 68 and it's going to 73 where 10 is allowed. So, we're not taking that building coverage up uh anywhere close to that uh 10%. Um compatibility of the size of the
proposed structure. Um we just went through the chart. We think it's similar in size. Um and even though gross floor is not part of your uh dimensional requirements in the bylaw, we know you want to see that helps you with mass and and so forth. So that's why we put that
table together as best we could uh to show you where it fit with gross floor area. Extended proposed increase in non-conforming nature of the structure of use. Um it stays just about the same in both. Uh maybe a better story to tell in the uh in the front yard setback with
the house, particularly if we keep that stairs and stoop under uh 30 ft. Um the uh the sheds are really a swap out. They're both 84 square feet. We take down one that's in the front yard and put up one also in the front yard, but
it's farther down uh the roadway. Suitability of the site, including but not limited to impact on neighboring properties or the natural environment. Um including slopes, vegetation, wetlands, groundwater, water bodies, and storm water runoff. Uh we've been to
conservation. Um uh they worked hard on the plan, gave us some suggestions. Um and as I indicated, you have a memo from them. They believe it can be properly conditioned. In fact, they've uh pushed it to September 24th for their uh issuance of an order of conditions.
Impact of scale sighting and mass on neighborhood visual character uh including vistas and views. We think and maybe if you went back Sarah to that 3D elevation, we think it's going to have a pretty good look. We know that uh as you come in off the driveway now um it's
more down in a hole than than it is uh in this one where we bring the barn around, swing it in. The tennis court's obviously behind the barn on the other side. Um but we think it has a uh a good streetscape uh form and uh fits the
visual character of the neighborhood. Um there's no negative impacts that we're aware of on views and vistas. Uh the proposed use continues to be residential. Brand new septic system going in as I've indicated outside the jurisdiction of
the conservation commission. Uh we don't think there's any traffic flow or safety. We're not increasing the number of bedrooms. Uh noise and litter we don't think is an issue and the utilities are adequate. Formula business is NA and none of the house is in the
flood plane. So it's NA as to the question of of impacts of lateral expansion. So, we think that you can find uh that what is proposed is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Uh there are some letters from abutters, I'm sure the chair will
make note of or read uh depending on her discretion uh that are in favor of the proposal from various people in the neighborhood. Um we think you can do the shed demolishing and putting another one in the front yard setback under that VB special permit. In the event that you
feel you can't, we've applied alternatively on that for a special permit. Um we're suggesting that uh of the criteria in that section that apply that uh the shed in the front yard being removed and another one being put in
there. Um we think you can find it's adequate and suitable and otherwise meets requirements for a special permit under section 8D24 of the protected bylaw. So Madam Chairman, that would be our presentation. We're happy to take questions. >> Yep. Thank you so much. Is there anybody
here on Microsoft Teams that wish to speak in favor of this application in favor? Seeing none. Yes, we have uh four letters from uh Butters are people in favor and three from uh staff for the
town of Chattam. First one, as usual, Judithio tells us on 910 20225 that she reviewed the plan to demolish, rebuild, and relocate the bond into the new construction at this property. The proposed dwelling has five bedrooms plus
an existing one-bedroom guest house. The property was restricted restricted to six bedrooms by deed. The septic system must be relocated to accommodate the proposed dwell dwelling. plans must be submitted for review and permit approval to the health department. Should you
have any questions, feel free to reach out. Then we have a note from Christina Basset, the um the historical commission, and they found the home to be historically significant, but the proposed changes do not materially diminish its significance. So therefore,
they did not impose a demolition delay, and we received that on September 8th, 2025. Next we have a note from Oh yeah, I I knew we were missing conservation. Yes. So conservation tells
us on a August 26, 2025 that they um heard the project in August and September and they will condition it to meet the performance standards under the wetlands protection act um on actually on September 24th, 2025.
Then Mark Sperry tells us that he has a house on 118 Cotch Pinikut Road located at the corner a few houses up from Lisa and Shep Perkins home at 149. The Perkins recently reached out to him him
and other neighbors to discuss the plan and they are in support of the plans and the design fits well with homes in the neighborhood. And um given the large scope of the building project and possibly taking over two years to complete, he asked that the construction
vehicles and crew vehicles do not park on or along our empty lot across from our home at 118 during construction. Please give special consideration and attention during the business summer months to this dangerous corner since
there's a lot of coming and going to the town landing. The road leading up to this corner needs to remain two lane. Many families with children, strollers, walkers with dogs, bikers, etc. enjoy
the scenic beauty and access to the town landing. Then we have a note from Greg Zyac and he says that he's writing in support of the proposed renovation and addition at 149 Cotch Pinnickette after reviewing the plans. They believe that
the project was thoughtful and the project appears to maintain his standard blending well with the scale and style of homes on that street. Proposed improvements will not only benefit the Perkins family, but also contribute positively to the overall streetscape
and long-term vitality of the neighborhoods. And they urge us to approve the application. Dawn and Michelle Abruise write on September 9th, 2025 that they own home at 138 Cotch Pinikut across the
street from Lisa and Chef Perkins. and they also state that the Perkins uh reached out to them. They flipped through the architectural designs highlighting the slight changes in the footprint and multiple elevations, including a finished walkout basement.
They support the plans. The design fits well. They believe the new home will be a great addition. It's in good taste, so they support it. And I think that Oh, wait a minute. One more. Um on September 9th, 2025, we have
a note from Katherine and Robert Boyd. They have resided at 156 Cotch Pinet for 27 years or so. Across the street from Lisa and Chep, they they understand that there's a plan to tear down a significant portion of their existing home and build a new one. They have been
kind enough to reach out, share the plans, floor plans, um to build a new home on their property. They know they've been that this couple has also communicated with other neighbors. They're supportive of the intentions and plans for the site. The design is in
keeping with many of the newer homes in our neighborhood in terms of construction quality, aesthetics, and scale. We believe the approval of this uh design will make our community more desirable and will help support the home values of other residents. That
concludes the correspondences. Is there anybody here or are on Microsoft Teams that has a question or wishes to speak against this application? Yes, ma'am. Please, if you have a question, you have to go up to the podium. They'll move out of the way so
they don't intimidate you. >> Yeah, this is questions and speaking against. >> Pardon me. This would be a time for questions to us or speaking against the application. >> Question please. >> What is the elevation of this house?
>> The height. >> What is the highest point of this house? >> I'm Mary Walsh. I live at 95 Cotch Penet. >> Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. I forgot to ask you to identify yourself. So, thank you for doing that. >> I've been there for 38 years. >> Very good. Very good. Um, the site plan
indicates the building height is 28T 4 in from average grade. >> 20. >> Did you hear that, ma'am? >> The new one. >> Yes. >> And what is the old one? >> Sarah, the site plans site plans show
ridge elevation existing 44.5 Ridge elevation proposed 48.8. So that's about four feet higher. >> Four feet higher, ma'am. And when you hear 40s, that's not the height. That's another kind of term.
>> The proposed is 28 feet. And what is the old >> 24T? >> So it's going to be higher. >> 249. >> Okay. Well, I heard people earlier talking about views and vistas. That's my concern. >> Sure. Sure. >> Um,
historically, I've had a magnificent view down to the waterfront. Um, the current owners have taken that away because they put up 25 foot trees. So, um, I'm just considering what's
going to go happen to me in the future. you know, a a view in that neighborhood up down to the waterfront and on up into the harbor is, you know, it's a million-dollar view. >> It is. Yeah. >> So, um I'd like to see, if you don't
mind, the >> this would be questions uh for for us more and then we'll address them. >> I would like to see the proposed house as it sits on the whole plot. I can't quite visualize where it is
compared to where the existing house is. >> We'll do the best we can to put that up in a moment. Um, and then you'll be able to see better. I know we go fast and it's confusing. No doubt. >> Madam Chairman, can we
>> Sure. >> Yep. You have to be at the Please can go over to the mics. Whoever's talking, I got knocked at. So >> I don't >> So if I may, the existing structure is shown here in this red outline.
Um >> Yeah. >> And then our proposed structure is shown in the black. So the view from the street, we're maintaining the same setback from the property line >> and the view coming this direction, we're actually getting a little bit
tighter. Um, but we're most for the most part building within the existing footprint. There's quite a bit of overlap between the two structures. Um, we're just rotating the orientation of the the house.
>> So, this this is the edge of the the culde-sac at the street >> and this is where Kachinikid continues down to the beachway. As you look down the driveway, currently
the existing house here in red, um, is the new house is for the most part right on top of where the existing house is currently today. So, we're not impinging on any view corridors to the side from the streetway. >> Um, nor are we impinging further to the
south. >> Um, we were conscious about trying to keep the the proposed house in the same location as the existing house but just rotation uh rotating the axis to be a little bit more towards the the marsh
counterlockwise. >> I see that way. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Does that satisfy your questions, miss? >> Yeah. >> Would you like to have that? >> I would. Thank you.
>> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, where were we? We are at uh Is anybody else um here to speak against or online or has a specific question?
>> No. Okay. So, uh any rebuttal that you have at this point? >> Well, there really wasn't an objection. No question. We we tried our best to to be responsive to it. So, she has the plan with both of them now. So, >> Yep. I just wanted to give you the opportunity. Thank you. Okay. Sure. So,
uh questions from the board. Jenny, I don't have any questions. Steve, >> um, I guess the question I have is that the the the thing that's causing this setback issue to the top of the bank is the deck primarily.
Um, and it looks like the one corner of the house is moving about 5 ft closer to the top of the bank, but the majority of the house is and will be within the 50 to 100 foot uh, >> exactly right >> measurements, >> right? There's less house in the in the
0 to 50 now. >> And the septic is moving. So, >> and the septic's getting out of it. >> And that's even better. Okay. Okay. That's it. Thank you. Um, Paul, >> I have no questions. >> And David Nixon,
>> when I'm looking at your plans, it refers to a reproduction barn portion, whereas the conversation, I got the impression that the old barn was going to be moved. >> So, it it is and um we were very clear
with the uh historic commission that some of it will need to be replaced. Some of it still has good beams that will be saved as as part of the structure, but all of what you see in the uh maybe we put the picture back up of the house or something. Um none of
that is historic. Those exterior materials uh so they'll come off. We're actually putting new windows in to go back to the old windows that match the barn, the the six over sixes that you saw in the original picture. >> Trying to make it more like that. So, so
yes, there will be a lot of new material on that, but that shell in that size is is going to stay that same form. When I look at the u the plans that you provide us with and
it's hard for me without a model, which we're talking about easy, but anyway, uh and I know models cost a lot of money, but it's really really helpful. So I'm looking at what is called the elevation southeast proposal and all
that. So I see twothirds of it has shutters and then the other portion doesn't but it says it's because it's the barn and it looks like it's different materials
maybe three different materials. So, and it's just kind of confusing and you know, it's got nothing to do with what you want. So, >> well, we were encouraged to to do that so that the historic portion of the old barn would be kind of set off and would
look different and people could pick up the image of what the historic piece is. So, they've they encourage you to make a a differentiation between the rest of the house and the historic piece. >> Okay. Um
well anyway okay >> okay Ed questions? >> No I I don't really have any Well, did you did you actually do any like exploratory uh
work into seeing of what's actually left at of that barn because I I'll be surprised if there's much left of it. Um, we have not done any partial demolition or or open things up. Uh, we are able to tell um, sorry to Sarah, if
you could go back to the the photograph uh, towards the front. Um the doesn't show well here, but the the the right hand side um all of the exterior wall of the existing barn has been
removed and opened up to be part of the current uh house when this uh addition was added. Um so a lot of this material on the right hand side of the barn has already been removed. Uh and similarly a lot of the lower material uh of the barn
um at the exterior wall was was removed with the addition um on the left hand side. Uh so the kind of what was below. Um, so we alluded to a couple times the three three dormers and the roof line,
which is really the the portion of the the original barn that remains and is in good standing. Uh, along with parts of the front elevation, which has been completely reworked. Uh, there's now two windows in the center. Uh, the large
barn door has been removed and replaced with new windows. Um, so there is some historic bones to the structure, if you will, but um, a good majority of the historic material has already been lost. Um, so it was our intention to preserve
as much as is as is practical at this point. So we've kind of worked out a protocol with historic. So they'll be involved and as will the building commissioner. So >> yeah, as we go forward, >> it'll be interesting to see what there actually is there to >> Yeah, once we get it up in the air and
start to push it over. Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Hopefully they'll find some tennis balls from the 1920s. >> Yeah. Right. They might be a little crusty by now, but um well, just to follow a little further, so you didn't you haven't really explored whether it's
has post and beam or stick framing or or or that even. So you can tell from exterior materials that have been changed, but you don't really haven't really seen the bones of it yet either. >> Not really. >> So I mean, if it's if it's stick framed,
there's probably not a lot to to uh move actually by time you're done. I've seen I mean I've seen projects that the historical commission has approved and by the time they were done there not
much left but the intent is there and the lines are still there. So >> they they were insistent on our obviously keeping the architectural form of the roof and that those special dormers and that's what they wanted to really >> have us project. >> Yeah. So
>> and Jenny had a question. Yeah, I I actually hadn't noticed that that no uh word reproduction on on this site plan that Mr. Nixon brought up. And Mr. Ford, you said they Is that historic you're referring to when you say they
they asked for that offset? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah, that's that's who asked for it. Um >> well, our clients wanted that barn section saved. That was the direction they gave the architects a start with, >> right? >> But in terms of the offset, Yes.
that that's you know um >> my experience with these u when you got a piece that's left of an historic structure um they do want you to kind of uh separate it out so that one can see
it see the historic lines see the the architecture that was there so that it isn't simply buried within the middle of the house or something and you don't you don't see it >> so let's go back to the reproduction for a second and then I'll tell you my opinion of that. Um
>> the so in the original old picture so charming. >> Yes. >> The shed dormers look so long, right? That's really special. And in the picture that you have, which I know is just a rendering, they're shorter. So like when you say you're redoing it, are
we going to lose like do you see how they go almost to the roof line that shed dormer on the original? >> Yes. >> And uh and that's obviously the original too. Um >> well the this is the current >> well that's the current right but that's I mean that that part hasn't been
changed I I I mean right it's it's >> I think it's substantially similar. Yes. >> Yes. Okay. Um and I think that is that's what's kind of historic and and obviously and and when I went to the site the first thing I said to Mr. Nixon we did the site visit together was oh my
god I love this part of the house. You know so I I I do applaud saving that. But now that I'm looking at this and I understand this is just a rendering. Is are you really going to take that roof line and it will it will be that old roof line and not this one? >> Yes, we're we're going to be picking up
the structure. >> Okay. So, you're not like >> we're not rebuilding anything. >> Okay. That that's that's because and then just my just my opinion, this is clearly historic perview, not ours. We're zoning. But that to me is a much
more contemporary facing and I think the opposite. I think it should I mean it is not being to Mr. Ford your point it's not being in the middle of the house. It's clearly being saved. I applaud everyone for saving it but I I I don't like how it's separate in color. Just my
opinion. >> Okay. >> All right. Um and as far as the uh parking during construction, uh it abuts the town landing. I just wanted to bring that up. Um, so you're aware of that when we get to conditions.
>> We're aware of that. >> Yeah, it's tough. >> And we're aware of the the concerns at least articulated in one of our letter. >> Right. Right. Okay. Very good. So Paul, >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> Dave V seconds and votes yes.
>> Uh, Ed votes yes. >> Yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> Very good. So deliberations. Dave V. Um, well, I think it's a it's a great project. Um, it it's going to be a a real improvement over what's there in in
many many many respects and um and I applaud um working to save the uh the old barn and as much as can be saved. Um so I it's it's a real really good project. Certainly there's no substantial detriment of any kind here.
Um, and it meets that criteria and and I will support it. >> All right. Very good, Steve. >> Um, well, I'm I'm certainly glad to see that you're going to attempt to save uh as much as you could you can of that barn. I have to say that it was
difficult to discern what was the barn when I got there. Uh, because it's been so overbuilt. Um, but your the picture that you had sort of validated what I thought um you were talking about. Um, I think it's a good project. I don't think it's going to be detrimental to anyone and the fact that you're trying to save
some history is it goes a long way. So, I appreciate that. Thank you. >> And Jenny, >> so thank you for saving the barn. Um I think that the shed dormers are exceptional and um I very special. Uh
also, Mr. Ford, I want to thank you for noting the number differences. I did pick up on those as well. the setbacks said 31 37 and I just thought it so that that was helpful. I was going to ask about that. I noticed them and that they they didn't match and your your um
summary was very thorough. Uh so I I do think it meets all of our criteria and I um am supportive of the project. >> Very good, Ed. Um, it's, you know, it's certainly a very large house, but when you look at
that neighborhood, it consists of large lots and and large houses. So, I I believe it'll fit in and certainly won't be detrimental. And it's a a beautiful street, and um it, you know, at first it it uh will
be noticed, but I believe eventually it'll just blend in beautifully with the rest of the neighborhood. >> Yeah. And Mr. Nixon. >> Well, it's a spectacular lot and uh uh I now that I understand what you're
doing with the house, uh I'm all for it. Uh I was quite enamored with the guest house, I must say. >> Yeah. >> Uh just peeking in the window and walking around, I said, "Wow, this is what a guest house should be." >> Yes, exactly. It was called the hen
house. >> The hen house. >> Call it the hen house. Yes, that's right. It said that on it. Yeah. >> I don't know why and we don't want to know why. Right. >> So, at any rate, uh, great job. >> Yeah. All right. Uh, Paul,
>> I agree with I agree with my colleagues. It certainly a spectacular location and spectacular redo. Um, and that tennis court is in fantastic shape. It really looks beautiful. Uh but in any case, uh I think it it certainly is not going to
be substantially more detrimental and I think we can probably handle this as one motion dealing with the conform non-conforming dwelling and the shed, >> right? >> If that makes sense. So do you have any comments that you wanted to >> No, no. I think that it would be really hard to think of this anything but a
good project. I'll move to approve the application as submitted uh with our uh standard conditions uh with respect to the uh summer restrictions that all construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or
at neighboring property with the permission of the property owner between June 30th and Labor Day. No exterior construction will be allowed. No work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8 am and 5:00 p p.m. only. and that this would be uh uh approval for the existing
non-conforming dwelling renovations and the shed. >> Dave V seconds and votes yes. >> Uh Ed votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> All votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> Unanimous. Congratulations. >> Thank you very much. >> Y nice job and uh good luck.
>> So it's that time. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> I'll move to adjourn. Dave seconds and votes yes. >> Ed yes. >> Ed votes yes. >> Yes. >> All votes yes. >> D votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> As do I. And what time is it?
>> 5:20 p.m. >> All right. Good night, Cadam. Thank you, everyone. [Music] [Music]