e e e e e e e e e e [Music]
[Music] Happ [Music] a
[Music] [Music]
welcome everybody to the March 13 2025 meeting of the chadam zoning board of appeals pursuant to Governor Healey's March 29th 2023 signing of the of 2023 extending certain covid measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting
law until March 31 2025 this meeting of the chadam 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 far in the order a reminded that persons who would like to listen to this meeting
while in progress may do so by calling the phone number 508 9454 410 conference ID 8001 954 no
842 pound or join the meeting online via the link in the posted agenda this is a live meeting and simoc cast on chadam TV but despite our best efforts we may not be able to provide realtime access we will post a record of this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible
in accordance with Town policy the public can speak to any issue a business item on the agenda during the meeting when recognized by the chair I'd ask you at this time to shut off any um objects that make any sort of noise if you would
and we start proceedings with a roll call vote of all members and then we ask that anybody participating on a call uh only just provide the last four digits of their phone number and for identification purposes our notices read by our staff
Sarah clar on my right and the representative whether it's you or somebody you hire will present your appeal or application after that anyone in favor of the uh application can speak for up to five minutes and then I will
read or summarize all the letters that we receive we'd ask that if you wrote a letter and you're here to talk you just pick you can either talk or I can read your letter please you know let us know if you've done both both um then anyone
against the appeal or application may ask uh questions and have up to five minutes to um Express their dismay the applicant May then rebut testimony board members may direct questions to anyone present we will hear any further
information close the public hearing deliberate and once we close the public hearing there'll be no added uh commentary from anybody unless for some reason we voted you back in which is unlikely um we'll close the public hearing deliberate we vote on the appeal
or application most of the time unless it's withdrawn and uh all votes are taken by roll call and at the end of the meeting we will close via verbal confirmation and note the time of adjournment so we'll start with a roll call of all board members starting with
Dave vich yes David H Le and I approve of this format thank you uh Ed Acton I approve David as nexton I approve Paul C simple I approve Lee Hy I approve Steven D debor and I approve Virginia Fenwick I approve and Randy podes I approve as
well um so voting today is going to be uh David V Edward Acton D no um Paul simple and for one of the applications Lee Hy and Steve uh dor will be a voter
and so will Virginia Fenwick um we all deliberate and we all give our opinions but only five can vote um so next do we have meeting minutes from February 13th Paul I'll move to approve the minutes of
February 13 2025 as published uh Dave V seconds in votes yes do we have any comments does anybody have any note changes no very good uh Ed Ed Acton votes yes and Paul all votes yes Steve Steve votes yes Jenny votes yes very
good that's unanimous first application 186 Strong Island Road Judith and David Dono of um 30 m Vern Street in Boston application number 25-2 Judith and David Doo 30 Mountain
Vernon Street Boston Mass 02108 owners of property located at 186 Strong Island Road also shown on the town of chadam assessor map 13m block 45 lot c48 the applicant seeks to enlarge extend or change a non-conforming dwelling and a non-conforming lot via
the construction of an addition the existing dwelling is non-conforming and that it is located 14.1 ft from the Easter leab butter and within the coastal Conservancy District flood plane elevation 11 the proposed addition will be non-conforming and that it will be located within the coastal Conservancy
District where a 50-ft setback is required also proposed is the installation of a swimming pool as Allowed by special permit the existing building coverage is 1,75 ft 23.8% and the proposed building coverage is 1,838 square ft
25.6% or 15% but not more than 2800 square ft is the maximum allowed the law is non-conforming and the in that it contains 7,177 ft of buildable Upland where 20,000 ft is required and contains 33,800 squ ft of land area where 40,000
ft is required in the R40 zoning District a special permit is required under massger Law chapter 48 sections 6 and 9 and sections 5B and 8D 2B of the protective bylaw Mr Doo I presume welcome thank you thank you for hearing
us today my name is David Doo my wife Judy and I own 186 Strong Island Road and we're seeking a special permit for the expansion of a garage the expansion of a patio and the addition of a swimming pool um as you noted our lot is
non-conforming um it it was conforming when it was built and then the rules Chang and now it's non-conforming and um we are close to the water we're facing Pleasant Bay and uh and we seek to build within the 100 foot line um we think
that the uh size of our site is adequate for the the modest work that we want to do um we do think it's compatible uh with the neighborhood with the with uh neighbors properties and with the existing structure
um uh the the non-conforming um expansion is pretty minimal we're trying to keep everything kind of the the building expansion is within the um the size of the existing
decks and the patio is uh just reaching out towards the water to try to catch some sun because we are facing north and we um um we do think um that we have uh no impact on neighboring properties uh
we don't expect uh runoff or groundwater problems or any uh uh impact on um the slope or vegetation we do have another permit in front of conservation where we're actually working to rehabilitate
some of the uh wild areas uh that are on our property so we think we're making improvements with that regard and that that uh aspect of the properties in front of conservation um we think we're maintaining the uh a proper mass and uh
prop ER visual character of the neighborhood and the existing building we not affecting other people's views or Vistas um as I mentioned this is a residential neighborhood and uh this is a residential
use uh we are not making any changes to sewage disposal or the source of our water drainage um we don't have an effect on uh our current utilities or other public services we will not be making noise or litter and we will not
be affecting traffic flow or safety in the neighborhood or during the course of the project um uh we think that this will be a pleasing have a pleasing visual aspect uh impact on the neighborhood and um as
far as we know our neighbors are supportive of what we want to do um we are uh uh the the lot is in the flood plane and the this expansion of the garage will necessarily uh Pierce
that 11t line AE 11t line uh and so be in the flood plane um it's a basically the house was built with a garage but it doesn't fit a car the garage is 14 ft deep and I haven't found a car that
small so um uh we're trying to expand it by 6 and A2 feet roughly um and that that pierces that 11 foot line in order to do that but it remains under an existing deck and doesn't really look like an expansion of the building from the
road okay is that your your presentation yes all right very good is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application please indicate don't see anybody here are on
Microsoft teams we have two correspondences one from the conservation commission and one from the health depart Health agent uh so on 311 2025 we have a note from Judith Georgio the health agent that says I have reviewed the plan to add a small garage
decks and pool to this property no additional flow is proposed and the existing SE septic system meets the setback requirements to the proposed pool I have no concerns the Conservation Commission wrote To Us on March 4th 2025 said a
notice of intent was submitted on February 11th it was heard on February 26 continued to March 26 2025 to review revised plan showing requested changes to determine if the project can be conditioned to meet the performance
standards of the Wetland protection act so that's not resolved yet apparently um that's correct there's a requirement that we didn't understand that um uh uh impermeable structure be 35% or less
within this uh 50 to 100 uh foot boundary and the proposed project was 36.5% impermeable surface impermeable is even though it's patio that is permeable or it's shell driveway that's permeable
it's called impermeable yeah um for their purposes and uh we have a a revised uh drawing that cuts back part of the patio and part of the driveway that will bring us within that 35% thing
and that's what they will hear on um March 26 okay we may ask you more questions on that down the road but but for now thank you um is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak against this application or has a specific question now is the
time seeing none questions from the board uh Virginia Fenwick uh yes I have a couple of questions for you um you talked about the garage addition piercing the flood
plane but you didn't mention the swimming pool is the swimming pool looks like it's entirely in the flood plane is that correct correct okay um how deep I know the dimensions of the pool I believe they were 8 by 18 what's
the depth of the pole about 4 and A2 ft so will you have to excavate at all to get that H how are you or is it going to be above uh we will dig uh down and um the net result will be um a a like a
18inch high wall on the patio uh in the confines of the patio as drawn on that uh on drawn on that drawing okay um I I'm not an expert on this but I didn't think that you could disturb has it did that come up at conservation disturb I
don't think you can excavate or disturb in a flood plane is that we did talk about the pool and its Dimensions at length but uh it's basically it's almost 100% contained I think it is 100% contained within um what is existing
garden beds and existing patio so they weren't concerned it's not affecting uh a resource okay um would was there any discussion in in your in your uh discovery of building the pole um i'
I've heard of this this concept called an underd drain that helps with the drainage in a flood plane is that something that you considered or are familiar with I'm not familiar with uh they did ask us to have um a dryw constructed so that if we need to drain
off the pool we have a place that can hold the water uh but also the land is all sand pretty much uh where we're located and there's a natural Swale between the house and the the Dune and
then the beach so um we can't really conceive of any water running off the property okay one last question um I did listen to the conservation hearing and there was mention of a boardwalk I don't know that that's that's not something
that I saw in our write out but is is that part of this 35% mitigation that you're talking about because I didn't think they liked that walk um I I think we do count it as part of the 35% we have two existing Pathways to the
beach but we're also elevated above the beach uh there's a a stretch of Pleasant Bay there that kind of runs from Eastward ho and around um the corner towards Riders Cove uh if you guys are
familiar with the perfect couple home um it it turns out we surveyed uh uh four conservation and four blue Flex who's our representative there it turns out we're the only property without any sort
of staircase or um steps what we're proposing is something that's removable uh uh there's a roll out thing just to sort of protect the Dune and the area that we're try the grass land that we're trying to restore and in the other
steeper case a small set of stairs that again are that are removable um but I do believe they're counted as part of that 35% so so are the St I didn't see anything in our packet about the stairs and the boardwalk so is that
not um I think we're that was presented to conservation and um uh I'm I'm not sure uh if it if it should be part of this presentation we can okay so it's
temporary structure and and it allows us to get down to the beach uh stairs I'm I'm sorry go ahead um we're right next to the public landing and there is a well-worn path for that the public has
made uh across the property and down the the Sand Hill and uh we're trying to it's not that we're trying to restrict people's enjoyment of the beach but we are trying to restrict erosion
and uh make it a Safer travel path um both Judy and I are fortunate enough to have our mothers with us and neither one of them can get to the beach uh so are you is your Boardwalk you're expecting it to run from the where I see this new
path to beach on your draw your rendering here will it go from there able to put the drawing up and then so it'll go across the yard over the Dune if if I if I may the boardwalk is not part of this application correct
I don't believe so yeah you'd have to file another application for that so is that correct Mr Building Commissioner that's correct okay so do you still want to talk about it nope it I thought it was part of this um I was wondering why we didn't have anything on it so yeah it
should be I guess if it's not but uh we can't just magically make it okay all right well enough about the board work for now um that's all I had thank you Steve I have no questions and Lee my only question um maybe for Sarah or Jay
is we don't normally get swimming pools is there a reason why we have this one coming before us to approve well it's part of their application and it's in the located in the flood plane so the flood plane is the I mean the it's we looking at the
whole application you know the addition on the garage and then the expansion of the patio and the uh introduction of the pool yeah okay and I would add that's accurate we don't get a lot and I actually asked Sarah to um print out how many we've had and I'll let her sort of explain if this probably a good time for
that what we've had and what we've done okay so we maintain a spreadsheet of all applications that have come to the board um since 2017 we've received nine applications um of
which seven were granted and two withdrew six of those were in a coastal flood zone and one was in an inland Conservancy District okay thank you so it's it's basically I mean if thank you it's basically because it's in a flood zone
why why we're having to approve it okay thank you and Paul questions um yeah one question I have is when do you plan to do this work uh this year um one of the concerns I have is
that uh when I was out there to look at the property um there was a lot of construction uh vehicles and so forth on the road and uh the area that uh is really the property
around the house itself was was was uh covered with Vans um when you were in here for approval um two years ago one of the issues was uh the question of construction vehicles and so forth being
on the property or on neighboring property with permission of the owners uh because we have a problem uh in on Strong Island Road and on other roads where uh that creates a hazard for
traffic and so forth um so I was a little disappointed to find that the because we imposed a restriction uh saying that construction vehicles would not would be restricted to the property and on noing properties
but that doesn't seem to be what's happening uh what do you expect that you can do about that in the future well I think the guys have been very respectful of where they're trying to park but you're right there are a lot
of vehicles a lot of people coming and going um we fill the driveway uh and then we make use of the side of the road along our property um I'm not aware of any hazards that they've created but uh um well the thing
that disappointed me was that we had a specific discussion about that in connection with the prior special permit approvals uh and imposed a restriction saying that that should not be happening so I wanted to make you aware of that okay I don't
have any other questions David Nixon questions thank you madam chair uh I believe this is the third time you've appeared in front of us is that correct uh and when people come back
repeatedly the first question is well why didn't you think of this to begin with you know why you're doing this and more importantly what's next because it doesn't seem to be an end and so in your case I might suggest
that that Pier you're thinking about building you might want to talk to Mr Cashman about what happened to him when he came in front of us because didn't work but uh what I'm trying to say is I hope this is it uh it does sound like we have one
more with Ard to a boardwalk uh uh so we are learning as we're going um the first visit here was for a rebuild of the deck and that we needed to make a second
visit for the side deck uh and um now this is the the kind of completion of this project we were in a big hurry um previously when we came to visit you cuz we had our daughter 's wedding we were
desperate to get the house in better shape than it had been but uh thankfully all that went beautifully and uh now we're here just kind of trying to finish off the project so I understand your concern and no we're not trying to build
a peer out into the bay okay Ed questions um sorry just to sort of build on what what David said because uh you've been here twice and every time you keep
increasing the the lot coverage so it sort of keeps building and building so um I would just say yeah I don't think if you were to come back again we would certainly I wouldn't you know want to see any
further increase because you're you're already over the 15% and you're you're creeping up close to the 2800 but um other than that I have no questions okay David Beach questions um no I I
have no qu I have no questions um oh well actually so yeah just I I'll phrase a question I I did um see Mr Dono when I went went to visit the the project and he um uh pointed out to me that he
couldn't fit his car in the in the garage as as as had been constructed um so I do you think they they must the originally you didn't have the house built originally right so originally I guess they they thought they would store
small craft in there and not cars or something what do you think I think that's possible or they redid the interior along the way I'm not quite sure but the home heating system extends
you know into that into uh far enough on that ground floor level that uh it would be a very bad idea I think to make a garage all the way across that area Okay I I don't have any other questions
almost thanks so um I my question is and it's you're going to think it's rude but I'm going to say it anyway I don't mean it as rude but you have the Atlantic Ocean in your backyard and you on a pool it just doesn't seem to make a lot of sense especially where it's in a flood
zone and you know I'm not a big fan of pools in the flood zone but lucky for you I'm not voting but you know I just wonder why you need and it's it's not the biggest pool in the world but can you comment on the size of the pool and your thoughts on that yeah uh the idea
is uh I guess what they call a plunge pool or or something like that it's something that we hope to use to extend the season at the house in earlier in the spring and later in the fall cuz it can be used uh heated uh for much longer
over the course of the year than we can use the water itself that's the main idea I think it'll be pretty and I think it'll be comfortable for kids and grandmothers Y no that sounds like I want to come over if you hate it but um all right so
Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations uh dve sson votes yes Ed Acton votes yes all votes yes Steve votes yes Jenny votes yes all right very good so deliberations uh we'll start with Steve
um well I think it's it's a very nice project it looks like it's been going on for a while because there's something going on in every corner of that house I think we're residing and uh there's a lot going on place the windows and the doors were all leaking at this house I
spoke to the plumbers yesterday so there's there's a lot but it's it's going to be very very nice someday and I wish you luck thank you y uh David Nixon deliberations I really have no Calvin no okay Ed
deliberations the only thing I would say is is usually we prefer to have conservation come back to us and have some type of you know recommendation or or some type of feeling on which way they're they're going we we sort of don't have that
yet um although I I feel comfortable with your explanation regarding getting under the 35% but um typically we would you know want to have some type of guidance from conservation regarding usually I think
the languages they see it as a permited uh project we don't we don't have that here so I don't know how the other board members feel let's go to Paul on that Paul yeah what do you think well I uh I had somewhat the same uh reaction and um
given that um I I think probably Mr Dono did not realize that the work he's talking about with respect to the uh staircase and uh the fact that it's removable and so forth is an issue that comes before us uh and would require
another filing uh that it makes more sense to hold off on this until we hear from uh conservation and perhaps he has the ability to amend his special permit application or submit a new application that would
include uh what needs to be done uh so it is in fact the last uh application for this property before us okay so you're leaning towards that we should wait yes okay what do you think Jenny just on that one let's just let's
resolve that issue yeah I I think that that's um it's it's a valid point and I think that that would be helpful to look at the whole project comprehensively and find out that it's permittable yeah yeah what do you think Mr
Nixon absolutely and Mr V yeah it seems this seems to make sense to me uh um you know especially and it might be um beneficial to a certain extent to to the applicant to to be able to fold it all
together and and and and um you know get from there do you disagree either Steve or or Lee no I think it's probably prudent to uh to have all the documentation and 100% correct so yeah I I agree I think
um based on what convers uh con obervation said regarding the 35% and I think you changed a few things so I think it would be smarter to wait we could see the whole thing and make a decision yeah and I like to see what they say about the pool and they're
going to have a lot of you know a lot of questions about that because they don't like that um they don't tend to say no to anybody because of the state requirements or more lenient so people appeal they're not going to win so they just want to go with the mitigation and
uh so I hope that doesn't burden you too much but maybe you can just go through and see every single thing you want to do reapply because you're not really you're not hovering on the 2800 you still have another you know thousand square feet
so you do I know yeah but don't encourage no I'm not encouraging you but you know what you might want to really do a lot of soul searching package it all up uh and uh and just don't have us vote today you know just ask for a with ask for a withdrawal without prejudice
and uh we'll make that happen for you that okay okay all right do that all right soy Paul uh I'll move to Grant the requested withdrawal without prejudice at this time uh David seconds and votes
yes Ed Ed votes yes all votes yes Steve votes yes Jenny votes yes very good it's unanimous we we'll look forward to seeing you again thank you for your time all right next we have 1750 Main Street uh
William F Riley Esquire on behalf of the applicant When Sarah's ready she will read that application and then we should be able to resolve this one in short order application number 25-31 1750 Main Street realy care of
William FY Esquire peel box 707 chattam Mass 02633 owner of property located at 1750 Main Street also shown in the town of chadam assessor map AE block 35 lot 14 the applicant seeks to modify special permit number
17-04 granted on June 22nd 2017 which allowed for the construction of a new dwelling in an alternate location with the condition that the kitchen and one bedroom in the existing dwelling be removed to render it not as a separate dwelling unit the applicant now seeks to
modify this special permit to allow for the kitchen and both bedrooms to remain and the structure to be treated as a protected use Adu the lot contains 3659 Square ft in an R20 zoning District a special permit is required under Mass
General Law chapter 48 section 14 and Section 8 d2b of the protective bylaw Mr Riley welcome uh thank you very thank you very much Madam chair Bill Riley on behalf of Donna and Paul vas H is here with us today
um so uh the property would qualify as a one of the new adus allowed under the state statute in my discussions with Jay he suggested that it would be a good idea to modify the special permit so that there's no issue in the future that
having a kitchen in there would be uh allowed that sounds great so you basically asked asking us to modify the the existing special permit to allow for the kitchen and both bedrooms to remain and the structure to be treated as Pro you um very good is there anybody here
on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application please make it known seeing none I will read the two letters one from the health department and one from your next door neighbor I believe uh Judith Georgio a health agent
tells us on 311 2025 that she reviewed the request um and the property is connected to Municipal sew detailed plans will be required for review the property can have four bedrooms on sewer by right under the wns regulations any
flow over that number requires approval by the Sewer Commission next we have a note from the rocking unicorn Nursery School located at 1762 Main Street in West chadam and they tell us on March 6 that they're writing to support the
application they own an oper at the nursery school on 1762 Maine and the request of Don and Paul um to utilize the front Cottage as protected U Adu makes good sense my preschool was established in 1981 back
when Walter and Hazel Young lived in the cottage having the cottage returned to a dwelling will not negatively impact my business they have been wonderful neighbors to my preschool and even enjoy our Joyful Noise I hope that their
request is approved Gretchen kobby Kell I think I just mispronounced that but that's what happened there so anybody here on Microsoft teams wishes to speak against this application or has a
specific question Now's the Time seeing none questions from the board David vich maybe Mr maybe Jay or our Mr I'm I'm curious I don't want to take up a lot of time but I'm curious about the
the the state law change that enabled uh adus to let's ask our Building Commissioner sure Jay yeah what would you like to know Dave well I'm just I just I actually just first en encountered this I didn't know anything
about it and I'm just curious how it went into effect February 2nd I believe of this year and they call them protected use adus okay it's suedes our bylaw we already adopted the bylaw for adus in 2019 right we've only Built two
so right they're doing this across the state Statewide and and there's a lot of interest in it um they have to be 50% of the gross floor area of the house they can't be larger than that with a maximum of 900 square fet okay they don't regulate the number of
bedrooms in the units they can have okay that cannot be regulated under the state yeah statute but um the Board of Health are Title 5 will kick in on that they do have to meet um all building fire and health regulations mhm um but they can't
be unduly regulated they're tied to the do Amendment yeah um and a special permit would not be required to do a protected use Adu um even you could build one in a non-conforming structure um you could build one above a
non-conforming structure and no special permit would be required required if you were if you're to do more than one protected use ad you want a lot they say you could do that by special permit and the town also has the right we all we're all going to have to amend our zoning bylaws to accommodate this new wording
uh no one's had time to do that yet yeah but we could also have additional adus if the town want to have their own separate Adu the ones that have already been approved may or may not qualify as protected use depending on I think they probably would qualify um because we had
the 100 foot cap as well right yeah but um yeah so a lot of interest I think yeah I think it's a it sounds to me like a good thing all right Ed questions uh no questions David Nixon questions when I was out there uh I it's hard when you
look through the windows to decide what room is what room and all that but I noticed a set of stairs going to the second floor are there two additional bedrooms up there is that where they are if you could come to the mic ma'am that and just no don't talk till you get
there cuz we'll get they'll knock on the window and yell at us if you do upstairs no it's not did you state your name my name is Donna vafides well thank you so the answer is no there are no bedrooms upstairs heed so uh what was the reason
for building the stairway to the second floor it's Storage storage well in the first place they didn't build the house no hm yeah yeah yeah but somebody did somebody many years ago did and those are nice stairs they're hardly the
stairs that LE might have been Walter Young he lived there for many years did you know Walter I did not he was the waringer was a fabulous fabulous guy all right let's go to the there okay and my second question is I noticed you had a
stove ready to unall it's covered up it's not install but uh so you must have been planning this for a while correct stove is for our boat somebody gave us a stove oh we have a commercial fishing vessel in stage Harbor so I put the
stove there because I prefer stainless steel but the the boat stove is ready to go so that's going to go on the boat very good good answer Paul I think questions I think it must
be a staircase to Heaven Dave I think that's probably the concept it look that way yeah I have no questions no questions Steve Steve has no questions Jenny but you could have a stove in this unit yes no what not right now but you
can can if we once you modify the special permit have St okay it also is only one bedroom it's okay yeah okay good so you know that it said the sewer said only four on the property we had to take that wall down that's fine okay yep
no worries all right all right so Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations a each seconds and votes yes Ed Acton votes yes all votes yes uh Steve votes yes yeah and Jenny votes yes all right very good uh deliber deliberations uh David
V uh nothing to I have no I think it's a I think it's a good development and circumstances and um uh it perfectly uh fits um for the town and
and we can easily modify that special permit yeah okay let's go um I agree and I I hope it gets used yeah it will Paul it's always fun to watch people try to control a client it's it's fun when
you're no longer no longer doing it uh I I see no problems uh with this it's certainly not uh substantially detrimental to the neighborhood and Lee I agree with my colleagues and I commend the owners for creating it very good
Steve you know I think especially since since it had been lived in in previously I think it's a good idea and good use of that property and Jenny I agree I like that it's going back to its original use and it meets our criteria so I would support it very good Paul I'll move to
approve the application as submitted dve seconds and votes yes Ed acon votes yes all votes yes Steve votes yes Jenny votes yes it's unanimous congratulations thank you very much thank you for thank you for coming let's see next
application is 44 scattery Road and um Lee huy will be voting on that one instead of Ed Acton and When Sarah's ready she will read the application application number 25 -004
James W saely i 4th and Christen saely car of Thad Eldridge 1038 Main Street chattam Mass 02633 owners of property located at 44 scattery Road also shown on the town of chadam assessors map 16j block 7B lot W4
the applicant seeks to construct a conforming accessory structure on a non-conforming lot the proposed garage with habitable space above will comply with all bulk and dimensional requirements of the bylaw but is considered as substantial alteration and under the second accept Clause of section six of Mass General Law chapter
40a requires the grant of a special permit the existing building coverage is 1,667 ft 5.3% and the proposed building coverage is 2568 Square ft 8.2% where 10% is the maximum allow the lot is non-conforming
and that it contains 14146 ft of Frontage where 150 ft is required and contains 31291 1 s ft where 40,000 ft is required in the R40 zoning District a special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B
of the protective bylaw welcome Mr Eldridge good afternoon for the record Eldridge east Southeast uh the silies are online so if there are questions they're certainly available to answer them so we have a non-conforming lot
with a proposed conforming addition save Le family is growing they have three adult daughters and they'll soon have three adult son-in-laws their property is developed with a home there's a one car garage in
it that doesn't quite fit the boat that's stored out there they would really like to put that boat inside which a garage Bay will enable them to do there's a driveway as Min that extends through the property or for the abut
and they have a somewhat odd driveway I don't know if anybody tried parking in the driveway to the north of the dwelling I've parked there a couple of times and it's it's a funny angle they've done everything they can to not block this driveway and they've
seen that they could use some more parking spaces so when they first looked at this they considered adding to the existing dwelling it just didn't lend itself to it so they changed over and decided a detach
structure would be more conducive to the lot again they have the one Bay um they'd be adding three more they have the wher they have kayaks and bikes and beach stuff and boat stuff and hopefully
they can fit a car or to in their garages when they're said and done they uh they would like to provide more living space for their growing family so the second floor is is living space dedicated to that this would be in the
in the flavor of a um bunk house rather than a guest house um it would not have full kitchen facilities as mentioned we're looking at a increase in the building coverage from 5.3% to 88.2% where 10% is
allowed the compa ability with the surrounding Properties or neighboring properties it's a mismatch of a neighborhood there are some larger homes 44200 ft next door there's a 3500t home being constructed and then there are a number
of smaller homes properties with 1900 1200 and and a mix there are quite a few properties with two structures on them so you can see kind of across the street there's a pair here
here a few few homes on that property so this is certainly not out of the ordinary for the neighborhood so the uh living space is the non-conformity that's increasing
um The Proposal will have minimum impact on the neighboring properties we have some low points that are here that catch the storm water run off before they get to the neighbors driveway and otherwise we have a nice cleared area to start
from We're proposing to maintain the the vegetation along the street it is a a nice Caren Kempton design but at the same time we're going to be maintaining that that visual buffer for privacy purposes we're
residential that is certainly compatible with the neighborhood the existing septic system we've been to the Board of Health requested the additional bedroom and that's been approved there's no impact on the traffic flow anticipated this will be
better because they'll be able to get their cars definitely off the easement maintaining that and with the Reconstruction of the house to the South we're expecting more traffic to be coming through noise and litter adequacy of
utilities those are pretty much irrelevant and it's certainly not a formula business or in the flood plane so if there are any questions I'm very happy to answer very good stand by so anybody here on Microsoft teams that wish to speak in favor of this
application if so please make it known I I do see the owners but I'm not going to ask you to speak in favor we we assume you are in favor um okay that's how the world works so um at this point I'm going to read the one note we got from
Judith Georgio 312 2025 she tells us she reviewed the plan to add one bedroom garage house at this property The Proposal was approved by the Board of Health to include an updated IA system for nitrogen removal in accordance with the uh loading regulation the property
is approved for four bedrooms and will require a deed restriction that concludes the correspondences is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wish to speak against this application or has a specific question there's nobody here with the
hand up and I don't see anyone online either so questions from the board um Ed oh Ed oh I didn't even notice I didn't turn around okay figur it's I one time I pick on Ed
Lee um did you say that there will not be a kitchen up there correct okay this is a they don't qualify for two dwellings on this property okay okay so no kitchen um and did you say more of a bunk room
or maybe I misheard you we've always called these bunk houses it's a it's the main living area is in the main house but this is a bedroom a living room and just additional space okay um I
think that's it thank you Paul questions I have no questions Jenny no questions Steve um the area where this building is going to be is in that clearing sort of so you're not disturbing those larger trees that are there correct okay I just
want to make sure because they add that adds a little buffer to the neighbors and um some mature trees there appreciate that thank you Dave I questions and Dave Nixon sad this is not a small oh I love
your monk house description pretty orate for a bunk house but that's okay uh it seems large but I really like the idea of three Bays for
automobiles and stuff so internally if this was me could I put five cars in here well are you getting smart cars or no no all sizes it just it just seems larger than
necessary but that's not my call um so also the my my just question is the land really slopes in that area looks like it's a big hole you're going to have to bring a lot of fill in I take it there will be fill in the front um
the rear of the building it would be exposed concrete but that will be faced it'll all be level with the rest of the property at the end of the day front will be level but then it drops off towards the back you can yeah any any word from the neighbors to the sort of
up the street um like there's a house right sort of behind it um have you heard or had any correspondence with them their opinion I had a brief conversation with the neighbor I don't mean the house behind it I mean the one
next to it is a driveway next to it so that's the same owner who okay oh interestings here and here oh and so I had a brief conversation with her about everything when I was surveying the property um could you disclose what that did it
include full letter words or oh no it was I spent more time petting her dog than okay than worrying about the project um she said she might oppose it or she might review the plan so she wasn't yeah because we haven't heard anything okay I was just curious um all
right so she has a lovely dog by the way so they all are all right so Paul did I ask you if you had any questions yet I have no questions all right um do you want to anybody else I don't I think I
asked everybody Jenny please go ahead I you did ask me but okay um question about the height I I see that it's seven inches from the maximum but that is because of the way that we calculate height and there's such a slope to that property that it is not going to read
like it's a I mean even though technically it is 294 or almost five is that right am I thinking about it correctly because of we could add a little fill to it and bring it down to 29 ft we could add a lot of fill to it and bring it down to 28 ft we're really
working with the existing grades yeah and you I see that you have have them there showing the okay that's it thank you okay so Paul do your thing I'll move to uh uh
close the hearing and move into deliberations Dave each seconds and votes yes uh all votes yes J uh lee I vote Yes Steve Steve votes yes votes yes all right very good so now we'll do deliberations and uh we'll start with
Steve um well I you know I don't see a problem with any of this um especially we haven't heard from any of the neighbors and it's uh you know a needed development for the family expanding family and um I think it's a good
project Jenny your thoughts I think it's large for um and I know that it isn't a guest house because it doesn't have a stove but if that is the only thing that it doesn't have it it's actually if if you
were I mean you you would need if it were going to be a guest house you would need 60,000 square feet you have 30 31 you would also need to have it be less than 50% the gross floor area of the house and it's over that so it's a large
structure fourcc car garage for three cars sorry three here and then one at the house um it's it's a large structure for basically the ask I think is large for the fact that the you don't have a stove
that is the only thing that you that's holding you back from having a second home basically on that property so that's why I think it's large in the context of but having said that it's you're not proposing a kitchen and
cooking and a stove and because of that it it's not a guest house but that's just where I'm I'm sort of struggling with the size of it so you're struggling with whether the size of it is substantially detrimental to that neighborhood yes and actually you know I
think that brings up a good point that it that neighborhood is has a is very eclectic it has very large homes and it has some smaller ol is so I I don't know that I could say it's detrimental but um substantially detrimental substantially detrimental but that is that is where
I'm struggling right and uh Steve you what say you did I am paying attention to a [Laughter] degree go ahead Lee Yes um I think first
of all I think it's very attractive um it's really and I totally get the um garage space because who doesn't need garages my first instinct would be like
would be could you would you consider maybe not having that third garage and not having that deck although it would be very nice um I think that adds to the mass of it um you know it it it it is a
very um congested is the wrong word um populated neighborhood um but you did point out a lot of homes have a second structure on their property I mean it meets all the dimensional the Bulan dimensional
requirements so um you know yes it's it's it fits um and the fact that it's set down a little bit it fits um my gut was just maybe you could get rid of that third Bay but um once again I don't I
don't I don't think it would be substantially detrimental to the neighborhood Paul well I agree with the comments by Jenny and and Lee uh it does seem large and um probably larger than is actually
necessary but at the same time it does meet our requirements I don't think you could conclude that it's substantially more data metal for the neighborhood as a whole so uh I would support it David V yeah I didn't you know I I didn't uh um
I we're in North chadam here I I I really didn't make an association of thinking that that the building looked too large uh um it's it meets as as Lee puted it meets all the dimensional
requirements the bylaw it's um it's a goodlook structure uh it it looks like a a perfect fit to me I think it's I mean it's actually going to look better than that field that's there right now uh we don't have many fields left in chadam to
look at so um no I I very much it there's no way that it's um more detrimental in the neighborhood and certainly not substantially more so um and so I I will um I'm happy to support
it Mr Nixon what say you well um if I were voting which I'm not but uh I would determine this to be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood because it is so large it looks to me like another home and it's
not being presented that way but um uh to me it's just too much and therefore is substantially detrimental to the neighborhood and lucky you I'm not voting either but um I came in here thinking that it should be a two-car
garage and not a three um I do think there's nothing that looks better to me than a field so there's that you can't improve on nature so um but I also think it's very handsome and I'm not going to be uh too upset about it but I would
have asked you to to reduce it to two if I were voting so given that I guess we can uh ask Paul to I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations or did I we just do that oh we so um that was brilliant so let's
talk about conditions okay uh in that case um I will move to approve the application uh as submitted um with the standard conditions um given the location that all construction activity and vehicles to be contained on site or at a
neighboring property with the permission of the property owner that between June 30th and Labor Day no exterior construction will be allowed no work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. only um Dave be seconds and votes yes
Paul votes yes uh lee I vote Yes Steve Steve votes yes and Jenny I vote no okay well you you won four to five I mean I'm sorry four to one four to one four to one four out of five is what I meant to
say four out of five and uh timing is everything isn't it I guess so thank you so much yeah well congratulations ation and uh we'll ask Mr Mr Acton to come on back in maybe
yeah no he left his coat oh okay yeah yeah so unless anyone wants to take a break we'll go on to 13 Captain no's way does anyone need to um have a five minute break raise your hand if you do no okay okay so we won't and uh next
application 13 Captain NOS Way minglewood Homes k of William G litfield Esquire when SAR is ready we'll read this step application application number 24-16 minglewood Homes care of William G
litfield Esquire 330 Orleans Road North chattam Mass 02650 owner of property located at 13 Captain n's way also shown on the town of chadam assessors map 11c block 5 lot h13 the applicant seeks to construct an elevated stairway Landings and kayak
rack under section 4 a3a of the protective bylaw the lot contains 57,500 ft in the R40 zoning District a special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 9 and section 8D 2B of the protective bylaw
this was continued from November 21st 2024 and January 23rd 2025 welcome thank you very much Bill Lichfield here in behalf of Tim Smith of minglewood homes who is in the rear along with our engineer David Clark of
Clark Eng engineering we are here for a standard special permit uh not one based just on the question of substantial detriment resulting from change to a non-conforming structure but rather one that requires a finding by you that's
what that what is proposed is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and is consistent with the purpose and intent of our bylaw this has been continued a couple of times to allow the Conservation Commission to review the plans and to accommod some requests and suggestions that they made which are
incorporated into the plans that you have before you today we're seeking approval to construct a set of stairs to allow for access to Oyster River along with a kayak rack which will be located in an area chosen to minimize disturbance of underbrush and tree
workor and the bottom section is now proposed to be uh seasonally removable as suggested by the Conservation Commission in addition the width has been narrowed to to 3 ft in accordance with the commission conservation commission's preference and the location
was found by the commission to be the logical place as you probably saw when you went out there uh so I will go into the criteria as to adequacy of the site in terms of the size for the proposed use we have a
57,500 squ ft lot which is entirely adequate for the use we've got 165 ft of Frontage uh of shorefront on Oyster River as to suitability of the site for the proposed use the exact site going
down the Coastal Bank is suitable for very little but a water uh related use or water access use and as you know a much more intensive use of boat house is allowable permitted use in all zoning districts the bylaw provides
specifically four stairs and Conservancy districts and allows from proximity particularly where as here there are several sound environmental reasons to locate the stairs in this specific location no traffic flow and safety
issues as to Neighborhood visual character there is none it's a large lot the stairs were redesigned to preserve trees and they're without impact the neighborhood visual character there are no noise uh Public Utilities or sewage
issues involved one that is involved is the compatibility of the proposed use with those on surrounding land uses uh several neighboring Homes at 70 and 72 judges way to the left or west and at
two Captain noes uh to the east or right have stairs necessitated by the natural natural topography for that matter 22 and 150 Captain Sears a little bit further to the east have docks which were not proposing as an accessory
residential structure or use in a water oriented neighborhood stairs are completely compatible with surrounding neighborhood uses as to impact the natural environment slopes and wetlands this will actually have a positive environmental impact stairs are
preferable to the potential for exacerbating erosion by clamoring up and down the bank especially with the mitigation we be removing about 800 square feet of honeysuckle uh planting of Pennsylvania sge below the stairs themselves which will help to make sure
that what is in fact a very stable Bank remains so uh Conservation Commission saw this is the most logical location the only bare spot uh they are satisfied with the mitigation and again the plans have been revised to address the conservation commission's concerns
particularly to make the lowest section removable the chair will read a couple of letters which I know all be provided an opportunity to respond but in the summary this special permit requires a finding that the use will not be detrimental to the established their future character of the neighborhood and
the town and that the use will be use involved will be in harmony with the general purpose intend of the bylaw one of the cited purposes and intents of the bylaw is to encourage those qualities that make chadam or desirable place in which to live and being able to get to
the shore over one's own property and be able to do so in an environmentally sensitive manner is plainly one of those qualities that's all we're seeking to accomplish on these facts and circumstances in this location I think that you can readily make a finding that the stairs will not be detrimental to
the character of the neighborhood of the town and that they are in keeping with the purpose intent of the bylaw be happy to answer any questions thank you very much standby is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application seeing no one responding to
that I will read the three correspondences the uh Conservation Commission tells us on March 4 2025 that a notice intent was submitted February 11th 2025 the project was heard February 26 March 26 uh on 2020 in 2025 they had
some request of changes and the project may be conditioned to meet the performance standard under the wetlands uh protection act I think you're going to meet with them like next week if I'm not mistaken correct I'm sorry you're going to meet with them again I think one more time yeah they the conservation
always defers to your expert judgment before they issue in order okay very good uh now we have a note from Robert and Andrea dods dods 82 judges way um Andrea tells us that her husband and
herself would like to go on record to object to this application um they don't want the elevated stairway staircase because it's quote dangerously close to an existing staircase in an area that has seen some serious erosion in re
recent years and I if I didn't say it that was uh submitted Tuesday November 19th 2024 then we have a note from November 12th 2024 from Everett and Joyce husing
70 judges way also objecting um they they completed a project with a goal to stabilize eroded Coastal Bank by installing 10 by 12 feet of erosion control blanket under around and around
the existing stairs there's quite a bit of erosion in this location especially especially when increasing heavy winter storms hit in particular when ice laabs float from the river a prior project addressed the consequences of the
2018 uh winter storm and resulted in a new seasonal aluminum staircase from existing platforms uh to the coastal beach now replacing the prior Timber steps the seasonal stairs was strongly recommended by engineering and conservation their objection is that
having concluded this restoration project this month at considerable expense they concerned about a concentration of new steelway structures all in a few all a few yards apart with probable future stairs in between two properties as well there is an easement
there is an easement path path Pathway to the Coastal Bank given the inevitable erosion progression it is preferred that the suggested elevated stairway Landing in kayak be seasonal and moved more to the east of the property this would
minimize the concentration of activity in one concentrated Point reducing erosion risk if the main reason for the positioning of the stairs is the an existing path please be informed there has never been any human activity there other than deer making their way up and
down the hill resulting in a modest Deer Trail so um is this the time you'd like to very briefly Madam chairman I I would note that two things first of all those letters were both written in November before the plans were revised uh and I I
don't know that you need to hear more from me I have several things I could say but unless the board wants to hear more I Shan no no um I think they speak for themselves and now we can make our own conclusions or or not um so at this point is there anybody here or microsof
teams that would like to speak against this application or has a specific question if so please indicate seeing none questions from the board David Nixon not so long ago we had a situation on cranberry
Lane where the erosion was a big worry and we had a revetment on both sides and what was going to happen and uh you spent considerable amount of time with an engineer uh explaining to us uh
why we shouldn't be that worried but maybe a little worried you know so uh I did not go and look at this that's one of the reasons I'm not voting today so I have not been able to see what the erosion has been there but if you
indulge with me just for a moment I would like to ask my fellow member uh lee who has a property just north of this uh if she could tell us about the erosion along your side because you're what
several hundred feet away from this is it is it as presented in these letters or well the amount of time that I spend you know going down Oyster River checking
out um the erosion and the B embankment and stuff um is is limited to the summer first of all um and I would say that there has been some erosion but I would say that it is not
nearly as substantial as some areas in chadam um because it's it's relatively calm in the Oyster River um I think what's causing a lot of the erosion is the rising tide and the tides are higher
and so there's maybe more Force um I have no noticed um a large tree actually in that area that has come down um probably because the tide gets high it rots the roots and the tree dies
but um in terms of substantial erosion I would guess not but I you know I don't really know okay thank you so uh going back to your scenario um I guess I'm disappointed
that we don't have you presenting an engineer's opinion of all that well if if I could Mr well there you go uh we had some discussions on this issue at the as David Clark comes up to join me we had
considerable discussion on this very Topic at the Conservation Commission in light of those letters and while the abutter or the neighbor a couple of lots to the left had apparently some erosion issues there's no history of that problem on this lot excuse me the Conservation
Commission echoed what Miss Huffy said that there are often higher tides in than in Years Gone by but there's no history of winter storm damage here this is after all Oyster River and there really isn't a storm damage issue uh
I'll defer to David if I could and then respond further yeah please do and and David welcome um I I listened to the conservation and can you talk about whether or not also there's any icebergs that you know icebergs uh ice ice ice
issues as that was stated in the letter because I didn't get that impression from conservation um David Clark Clark engineering for the record um so rest of the icebergs um in in the wintertime when it gets very cold and this was a
winter when we had a significant cold snap um you do get ice and Oyster River and uh in the oyster Pond particularly because so much fresh water dumps into uh oyster Pond so that that ice uh
during the tides um gets pushed up on the beach um and and most of the time it just sits there um back in our youths youths oyster Pond used to freeze solid and I remember seeing coh hogers cutting
holes in the ice and and long raking for cogs noise toon that was a long time ago um but we still we still get ice um is there erosion uh on this property there is we show it on the plan there is an an
escarment right where we're putting the stairs but uh that escarment goes all the way down the beach and it's less than a foot high um there's no sign and in the top of that escarment is about elevation 6 there's no sign of the water getting
higher than that in pulling material from higher up in the bank so I think it's just Longshore currents um as as Lee stated uh because we got a little bit higher Tides now than we traditionally have and it's causing that
that visible escarment but I would I say it's significant by no means it's it's common Up and Down the River uh just in this stretch um it's visible uh and uh and fortunately in this particular
location we don't have the wave activity that you'd have in other open areas in town um so uh we we chose this location uh because it has the least impact on the bank um uh it's not only is the
easiest place to to to put stairs um it's the the shallowest in slope if you look at the Contours we're in a little a little uh Swale along the bank um so so 90% of the stair is protected by the
adjacent land forms because it's tucked into the slope and uh anywhere else along that slope it's going to sit proud of the bank and be visible from both sides uh when you're on the beach we thought this was the ideal
location uh because of because it is nestled in that Swale um and uh we we did take into consideration conservations concerned about the seasonality uh we that last set of uh
stairs was was redesigned uh so that last plat platform is at elevation um the bottom of the platform is elevation 8.2 um which coincides with the storm of record for the stage Harbor complex
which is still 1944 hurricane um based upon even all the stor we've had since then the 1944 hurricane is the record high water for the stage Harbor complex which is elevation
8.2 so we don't foree um and the other uh fact about that is hurricanes occur in the summertime everybody's Ducks everybody stairs everybody boats are in the water
during that time and uh and and taking this out in the wintertime will will protect us from any North Northeast storms Coastal storms but the water's never going to get that high but it'll it'll be out of Harm's Way for the
winter time when we have especially when we have ice thank you both very much and my apologies to Mr V who usually gets to ask the longest question why don't we just go to that was only 10 minutes we haven't gone to
you yet Mr V have you well I I did I did go out there actually this morning after see reading the letters and um uh first of all I know and I walk down just is question time oh okay so I have uh let's
see no I have no questions okay very good questions Ed no questions all right Paul sounds like we should be saying remove these stairs in the summertime when we're going to have hurricane and the water's going to hit
it I have no other questions and Lee questions uh no questions Steve um I guess just to get it on the record is this is any part of this stairway um part of an easement for other folks do no this is on the on the
locus itself on the lot owned by the applicant so the only folks that are going to be have access to this stair or the property owners correct okay and bless you're invited as a guest well that would be nice you're a nice person yes thank you
um because it did look like it was heavily you you could tell where people were maybe walking through there other than deer occasionally so it did look like it was getting some use from from somebody and and yeah having been out there several times over the last six
months um one of the important things that this board knows despite your original thoughts is that stairs in areas like this are environmentally preferable to people
continuing to clamor up and down that obvious area for Access so with the the planting of the Pennsylvania sge underneath the stairs and because the tread the the planks are rather widely spaced 3/4 of an inch
David um yeah I think it's 3/4 of an inch the S should grow quite well so it's going to be an environmental Improvement which will help any potential erosion issues okay all right thank you Jenny questions I did just have a I was just
curious where the eastment was is it to this to the northeast of to the left or west when you're facing Oyster River okay so okay so actually closer to 70 and 80 yeah it's closer to them uh
it's immediately adjacent to 82 I well whichever one is closest I was going to ask you Mr lvi your opinion on an easeman having stairs but I think I know where you stand on that um this is goes back a few hearings um no that's I was just curious that's all
I have and I would just um add for the record am I correct in assuming that that Sandy Beach that's there can be shared by anybody that makes their way down there uh below the high water Market can walk from the Rhode Island border to the New Hampshire border oh um
don't don't T me under the colonial ordinances but it's sort of tricky to walk across the South shot and waterways near Mr Simple to get there yeah it is a Sandy Beach though is it not it is it's it is s and we had we discuss had discussions with conservation as to
whether or not the bank was a siment source and the Conservation Commission felt that it was not the sand is just there so are you saying that the uh the county dredge does not deliver sand there as far as concerned that is correct as far as I know they generally
put sand along the uh South Coast uh in South chadam and recently along the scattery cot penut area I'm not aware that they've done anything within Oyster River Miss huy may know but I'm not aware of it not that I know no yes so
that's a Sandy Beach period very good good to know uh Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations Dave seconds and vot yes Paul votes yes Ed act Ed votes yes uh Steve Steve votes yes and Jenny Jenny votes yes all right
very good so deliberations um Lee um well I I don't have any problem with this I I think you know stairs are preferable as you said environmentally um they have a right to access the water
um I think these will be fine and Steve um yeah I think the stairs in that location is kind of the logical place to put those stairs um it's probably the least steep um and it looks like it's
already been used um for access to the to the river and I think it the stairs will only you know benefit the environment there and and prevent the sand from eroding any further and and maybe get some vegetation to grow on that bank so I think it's a good idea
and uh David Nixon if I were voting i' I'd certainly vote Yes having come into this not knowing I think the thank you very much Mr Clark and Mr lvi okay uh David let me
just go to David V and then we'll go to yeah well actually this was might have been my question that I wouldn't asked but but I'm I'm in my going by memory uh the the bylaw specifically allows um stairways to be closer to a
property line I think it's like within 3 ft so um the the the concern being expressed by the neighbor um I don't know I I mean I like think the byot sort of presumes that you can have stairways relatively CL as
close as six feet three feet or well if you to three feet on either side right it could be six feet and and the bylaw would allow that so I think it speaks favorably to that kind of situation um I did go down there and walk down the the path that's the only place that I would even attempt to try to walk down that
bank and and walk the shore and um it's good to have gotten Dave Clark's expert um assessment of the situation it kind of kind of matches what I saw I'm just a Layman but if there's any kind of bank it's no more taller than like that
and pretty well vegetated all along there uh and not looking like any kind of active erosion area to me um so I I and and the rest of and and the other the rest of I walk the shore a little bit under the on this property and the
rest of it is quite Steep and it would be the a staircase as Dave pointed out going over that would be more disruptive I think uh certainly visually and um probably uh would not be able to
certainly wouldn't be able to follow the slope of the bank uh so would have to I don't know how they would solve all that but it wouldn't be a great situation so this is really the only spot on the on the lot that this should be sounds good
Dave I mean Ed Acton yep uh I agree with my board members I think it's the the right location and um I think the the having the bottom section removable is is a good idea and U I think it'll be better for the environment to have the stair so I would vote Yes and Jenny
yeah I I walked down there and I actually walked all the way and I noticed that the folks that rode in to object to the stairs both have stairs I just wanted to point that out um I I've watched the numerous conservation hearings and there have been a lot and I
think the applicant has been completely accommodating um reduced it to three feet removable end relocated the front um portion and I agree with Dave Clark that um they're t in very nicely and they're very Vis they're very uh barely
visible so I would support it yeah and uh Paul yes I think this is example or the expertise that has come in to give us some justification for it makes sense and uh it does help us make our decisions so I think uh I agree that it
would certainly not be more detrimental to the established or Future character of the neighborhood uh and uh the uses in harmony with the general Purp purpose an of the byw yep and I I think so as well I enjoyed listening to conservation really said everything in gear for me to
come in here and say that I would support it um and uh thank you for your presentation and Paul let's I'll move to approve the application as submitted seconds don't think I see a need for any conditions no uh Ed votes yes all votes
yes Steve Steve votes yes J any votes yes it's unanimous you very much congratulations all right does anyone need a break before we do the last one the last one might be a little lengthy um no okay I'll go by you 52
depole road is the next application last but not least uh Paul and Mildred Ford care care of William F Riley Esquire When Sarah's ready she will read the application application number 24-34 Paul and Mildred Ford car of
William FY Esquire PO Box 707 chadam Mass 2633 owner of property located at 52 depole Road also shown in the town of chadam assessors map 2B block 36 lot 20 the applicant proposes to change alter or expand a non-conforming dwelling on a
non-conforming lot VI the construction of additions and a deck the existing dwelling is non-conforming and that is located 14.6 ft from deole Road where a 25t setback is required and 12.8 ft from the EAS Lea butter the proposed addition will be located 11.2 ft from the Easter
Lea butter the proposed de will be located 4.7 ft from the easterly a butter where a 15t setback is required also proposed is the removal of two non-conforming sheds the existing building coverage is 1,330 ft 133% and the proposed building
coverage is 1,484 square ft 14.5% where 15% is the maximum allowed the LW is non-conforming and that it contains 10,871 ft where 20,000 ft is required in the R20 zoning District a special
permits required under Mass General Law chapter 4A section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw this was continued from December 12th 20124 and January 23rd 2025 okay Mr Riley uh good afternoon Bill Riley on behalf of Paul and and M
Ford the um we had a lengthy hearing back in December yeah can you tell us what's new since then perhaps we have a new plan right okay cu you put it up Sarah please the
uh so the upshot of our our last meeting was that in general uh you had no objection to the changes to the house or the small Edition uh the deck was Pro problematic
uh and the long and short of the discussion uh which I watched again today riveting just riveting discussion uh was that uh the deck uh would be allowed to
remain as a walkway to the shower which is in the same location as the existing outdoor shower uh and otherwise the deck would uh be modified so that is at least as far from the property line as the
corner of the addition which is 11.2 ft and so that's what is shown on the plan I can talk more oh no oh very good so that's your presentation you um very is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of the
application if so please make it known seeing I will read the three correspondences first for we have a note from Judith Georgio from 311 2025 I've reviewed the plan to the addition index to this property no additional flow is proposed and existing and proposed
dwellings uh has uh two bedrooms I have no concerns regarding this project Christina basted from uh the historical commission tells us that the home is not historically significant and that was on December 13
202 4 then and then we have a note from Teresa Redmond but I see her here would you rather speak than have me read it very good so just hold on for one second till we get to that segment all right so that concludes the
correspondences is there anybody here are on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak against or has a specific question you have five minutes please approach the podium ma'am state your name and your concerns doesn't matter
okay my name is Teresa redond I am the Easter Leah butter 252d Road um I have a couple of issues um I'm let me start out with I'm fine with the 11.2 feet for the addition of the new room fine with all that um my biggest concern right now is
the outdoor shower which is not in the current location it's proposed to be further towards my house and um it is in direct line it with my the main entrance to my FR to
my house my front door as I walk out my front door I look over the current shower is there the proposed location is even closer to my front door I'm in and out of that door several times a day and it's also the access to my my
backyard um so it it brings up privacy issues for sure so very opposed to where they want to put the the new out shower I know you said it was in the same location it is not I have a picture with
me that I have notated that I'm happy to let you guys see if that's allowed if not that's fine is do you mean that your picture shows where the C photo we we saw it so we know okay yeah so rest assure that we go there and I know for a
fact we've all been to this one maybe more than once okay okay um because we didn't talk about that specifically in the December meeting so um having so you get all that um a portion of the deck is proposes to be less than 5 feet from my
property which I think is unreasonable um and I know that's where they want the only the only reason for that portion of the deck is to get to the new outside shower which is also unreasonable so giving all given all of
that and all of the um non-con conforming setbacks I'm requesting that a privacy fence be put up to start at the southeast corner of the house at 52 deple Road running all the way back to the North End of the property along the
boundary line so in general I'm asking that nothing other than the privacy fence be constructed no closer than 11.2 ft that's all I had to say thank you very much is there anybody else here on our Microsoft teams that wish to speak
against this application or has a specific question if not I will let Mr Riley rebut anything that he has heard that he doesn't agree with uh thank you very much Madam chair the uh Sarah uh we did
discuss the location of the outdoor shower at our last meeting uh if you could pull up I think it's sheet three and the uh plans the on it the photos or the actual plans
yeah the plans this plan number three all right thank you okay so as Mrs Redmond testified I I spoke earlier she said that the shower was
behind the house and now it's not behind the house again this is the house which is not moving here's the shower which is also not moving and so uh the shower location has not
changed and so we discussed it at length in our last meeting the the U I Believe Miss Fenwick principally thought that it was reasonable for for them to be able to
use the deck to walk to the shower uh we don't have an objection to putting up a fence we don't intend to put it up the entire length of the property line because that's I think unreasonable it's as Mr Nixon noted in
our last meeting the portion of the Redman proper proper that's uh closest to our property is the garage and there's no wind you can't do that ma'am I'm sorry please
don't uh is the garage and there's no window in the side of the garage so the uh uh I think you know a fence that begins where the outdoor shower is and
goes back uh so it's past the end of the deck uh would be a reasonable request and we're happy to accept it we don't think we should have to wall ourselves off from the rest of the world uh so that's that'll be my position my
client's position okay so um where are we I read the correspondences we talked against questions from the board Le I don't have any questions right this
minute but maybe okay come back Steve want me to go to someone else or know go ahead um if the Rin station or shower is in the current uh position what are do you know
what the dimensions is it change what's changing about the shower that's bringing this to light now that is it getting bigger or is it becoming somehow more prominent the enclosure might be some somewhat
larger okay um also is it I think we talked about this the last time is the deck elevated and what is that height it's just one or two steps that's what we discussed last time because it's it's one step down from the first floor of
the house so it's just one or two steps up there we have some pictures showing the the existing back of the house with that stone patio yes so you see the mhm so you can
see so the deck will be at that height the height of the the sill of the door uh well right there we where the little hand is waving yes I okay so in other words so that's the existing patio yes and
so the addition is going to go in that location the deck is going to extend further into the yard and will be at the same height as the existing patio so it's just a two-step up so would you would you say the N you know a
foot or a foot and a half above the ground about that yeah okay if you were then to install a fence between your property and the Butter's property I'm assuming it can't be higher than 6 feet that's correct so the fact
that the deck is a foot and a half above the ground and the fence is six feet that essentially makes it a four and a half foot fence okay but but Steve how much time do you really think the forge question going to go over the questions are going
to go this way we ask you the questions and you give us the answers yeah um all right so this is a foot and a half of the deck the fence is six feet have you ever considered an alternate spot for that rent station maybe on the
other side of the house it would require a complete rep Plumbing of the of the system so no would they have not considered that I mean rent station has been there for you know years yes but you also said
it's changing it's getting said the enclosure is a little larger okay okay and we're going to have a we just offered to put a six foot fence you know beginning where the ren station is running back okay all right all right we're
gonna go to Dave V and then we're gonna go to Jenny because I know they both have some Yeah question so uh Bill uh I'm having some problems here so let me try to nail this down and most of my problems res revolve around the outdoor
shower now you've stated it it I don't know you stated that the outdoor shower has not moved that's correct well uh so I don't see how the outdoor
shower can't move when where it's presently located is cons I don't know if consumed would be the right word but is is is engulfed by the addition
it's not engulfed by the addition it is entirely I was out there I looked at it it's it's it's flush with the edge of the deck yeah there's a picture of it right up there right yeah it's flush deck all right so it's going to be flush against the side
of the house it is not the The Proposal is not in the same location now let me also ask you is so you said there's a a there has been there's somewhat of an increase in
in in size my by my count uh and and measure which was not with a tape measure but stretching my arms out and it is the the existing
shower is more or less 6 feet by 3T to 39 in so 18 to 19 Square ft now what I read is that the proposal is 6
foot5 feet by 6'5 feet right that's correct that's correct all right so uh would you then agree that by my calculations anyway say the existing is about 18 or 19 Square F feet that proposal I know Math's not your strong
suit but that proposal goes to 40 to be over slightly over 42 Square ft would you agree would you think that's not an in an in do you think it's an insignificant difference I do think it's insignificant
and the reason I I know the difference in the numbers but the the the proposal that we're making now is that there's going to be a six- foot fence running along the property line uh beginning at the location of the outdoor shower and
running back uh you know 2third of the way along the property line so the okay so let's let's let me try let's F can we focus a little more on the shower I've heard I've heard about the fence I understand that now I believe
and I guess so this the the outdoor shower was didn't appear anywhere in our ad or anything so given that I'm I'm going to ask is is it correct that you in it in the original shower location is
not shown on the site plan the shower is in the same location D it is Bill it is not in the same location in the same location I I strongly dis obviously strongly disagree with that okay in in
one dimension in one dimension it might be in a similar location in the other dimension it is not what dimension what are we talking about okay I I'm going to Let's comment down for a moment you can cast your
opinion but Sarah's got a a little point to make if that's okay with you we'll go back to you question so Bill question for you is there decking under the outdoor shower as proposed I believe not okay okay because
if there was they can't put decking because that would be closer than the 4.7 ft that was advertised because that's showing the fence at 4.1 ft from the property right here okay so so that's that's okay then yes yes as long as they're not getting
any closer than the 4.7 ft that was advertized in notice to a Butters then the board could proceed with the hearing as is can I address Mr V's concerns please all right so
David Mr V was good no I like I like the formalities the honor I'm a court person yes The Honorable Mr V so the shower with its smaller
enclosure is behind the existing house and the proposed Ren station is also behind the existing house and it's yeah and it's immediately adjacent to
the side of the addition which is where the existing one is it's just hours is hours is 6 and a half by 6 and a half instead of well so when excuse me then when when you say immediately
adjacent um well the pipe comes out of the wall so okay so but but I did notice that from the plan the previous plan the first plan to the the the the revised plan that the shower actually so on the
first plan I got a the right pair of glasses on here because this this is very small but on the first plan the proposal was the corner of the shower was proposed to be 4.9 ft to the property line and that was the October
23rd plan so so now when we get to the January 23rd plan that's been reduced to 4.1 ft so the act the shower enclosure is actually slightly moved away from the building in the first in the first instance it was not directly against the
building anyway so there's some kind I mean there's a need for exhaust pipe or some such thing I don't know but it it sh I think so but I what I'm what I'm prepared to suggest is that the outside
wall the wall closest to Mr Redmond's property will be no closer to miss Redman's property and the edge of the deck leading to the shower I'd like to actually ask some few
a few more questions about so the shower and and in I'm not sure in the answering Sarah's question I understand is is the shower is the the the the um base of the shower going to be essentially at grade
yes okay and then because and so now I Jay tells me that it can't be higher the surround can't be any higher than six feet otherwise it can't it would not be able to be in the setback is that correct I don't know well it is
according to the town's interpretations it has so if the shower is at grade the floor of the shower is a grade then the fence or the its surround cannot be higher than six feet above the grade is that correct Jay Jay please yeah so we
treat this type of scenario as a fence right out of the bylaw so fences under six feet in height are exempt from the setback okay so if it's over six feet it needs to meet the setback okay okay and we measure from grade to the top of the panel and and just to clarify something
that I think might be helpful so right now they're looking to 5.6 ft from the neighbor's property where as last time it was 4 something that's to the structure now the the shower is not we're not this shower is not being
considered structure so the the shower actually from the the original so the original plan showed right 4.7 ft to the deck they're now saying saying that be
with this uh um ex I'm just call it a little bump out on the deck in order to get to the shower is 5.6 that's correct that's what that's the proposal yes I yeah okay and so uh but the shower
is down is going to be down um a step or it two Rises probably one step to get to to get to the grade deck level we we talked about was going to be you said the de is the deck going to be built um a step down from the
floor level of the house the U we're not showing any steps all right you because you're not showing any steps there and that's why I'm trying to I'm trying to get a a picture of this in three dimensions in
my mind the I did notice that the uh the shows the the the pl shows uh the first floor grade the first floor elevation at um
51.8 and I see uh some Contours in here that go as high as 50 there's a 51 Contour 50 51 so we're anywhere from one to three rises from that that um
probably two Rises to the the um grade in which the shower is proposed to be cited and if one of those Rises has taken place from the back step to the
deck level that helps identify where the deck's going to be but it's one step down apparently you're not showing any steps that I can see and so it's conf it's very confusing and um um
that's and and you have said that that they haven't considered any other uh location for the shower yeah and just to refresh memories last time I I did listen to the hearing and everybody well not everybody um except for Mr Nixon and
to an extent Miss Fenwick everybody said 11.2 is their drop dead cut off you you said you listen to it yourself so that was really the big thing that nobody wanted you to get almost nobody wanted you to get closer than 11.2 to that
neighbor and as I indicated before you're now asking to get 5.6 is that right I just want to just make sure we're um no my understanding and I watched it again today too yes my understanding was
at the end of the meeting uh at Miss fenwick's urging uh there was a general agreement at least with my understanding it was a general agreement ment that it was okay to have the deck wrap around the corner of the house to get
to the uh shower but that the deck going towards the back had to meet 11 feet 2 in well I my my memory and I just listened to it as well is that Mr vich Mr
Acton um Mr Simple Miss Hy and um Steve D'Or and myself all said don't get closer than 11.2 to that neighbor or we're going to frown on that um Virginia Fenwick had some wiggle room for you in
a certain area and Mr Nixon was happy with it it as presented so I just wanted to just lay that out there for you for a minute well perhaps we should take a straw poll and see where we are because understanding is that nobody had an objection to the walk around to the
shower and and if I I miss quoted anybody um I'm sure they're going to let me know and I I'm a big girl so I'm just going to go to miss Fenwick now and let her ask you questions well let me if that's okay I agree that everybody said 11.2 feet we did but my understanding
was based on the interaction between Miss Fenwick and I was it was okay to have a walk around to the shower that was her so let's let let's let her speak now for herself and I did not say she said 11. to is a drop
dead number for her however I did mention many other people that did say that and as you know you need two twoos too many for you so um two NOS is too many Jenny please this is questions or
clarification okay all right I too kept my notes from last time so I have notes about what Mrs Redmond said I have I'm in agreement Mr Riley with what you said that I said um um and it so my question was similar to
Mr V's which to me it looks like well let me back up um my note said that Mrs Redmond said agreed to the neighbor approves the addition that was and she you said she said the same thing today
the shower she approved if it's in the same spot and the same size no objection okay now it does look to me like it's the same size but it has shifted to to the right a little bit and you you can see it goes from 49 to
41 um and then Mrs Redmond also said that the deck um uh did did not want the deck to go back that far and go within 4.7 of the and what I drew in my drawing last time
or on the site plan last time which doesn't mean that's what everyone agreed to it could just be what what I was thinking was yes this the step out from the shower was deck and it went a little bit over and then it cut in and and the back part was cut off
which because of the way the land is sloping created um the 11.2 with the exception of the part that's by the outdoor shower so so so your drawing is similar to that yes except for the top
part yeah I yes my drawing is similar to that jog from the shower to sliding over so that you could turn and get to the body of the deck on the left hand side but I do agree that the shower has shifted now what we've heard Mrs Redmond say today is she now objects to the
shower because it's not in the same location that's what I heard right and it it is in the same location but the enclosure is larger okay oh the enclosure is larger all right well it's it's saying the outdoor shower is 66x 66
is that not right so well it's nobody brought up the size of the enclosure at the last meeting so yeah I'm a little but you know the the shower is in the same location the enclosure is larger as David noted okay
it's 6 and a half by 6 and a half and he measured it is basically 39 by by six feet yeah something like that so if that's a concern for everybody I can
say that we would bring the enclosure in so it's no closer to the property line than the line of the deck going back to the enclosure so so what we would do if this
is a concern is that the enclosure would be a continuation of this line so would be no closer than this part of the deck assuming that part of the deck's
approved I mean you know the the uh so well that was another there only the other small change that I saw was the original portion of the deck that went from the shower was 4 feet the new drawing says
it's 5 feet so that's a small change okay I I don't recall you see the five feet right there I don't I don't recall that discussion yeah well I don't know that we discussed it but I'm just saying it it did get larger there and the previous one was four
um I have in my notes that the shower enclosure did not get larger it's 66 by 66 but what is changed is it has shifted over closer to Mrs Redmond and that may be what she's referring to the the site plan says it's now 41 and in the
previous it was 49 the corner of the shower okay it wasn't supposed to change okay well good because if it can change back to what it was then maybe I don't want to speak for Mrs Redmond the neighbor but she said last time that
shower if it's in the same spot and the same size had no objection okay sorry that was more than a couple questions but who didn't ask questions yet that wants to yeah that would be the yeah there did you did you want to I
have no question can I just ask one more question if it's a question yes so Bill I just couldn't help but take a look around and on the other side of the of of the proposed Edition uh and I see a spot on the wall there uh in between some sets of Windows
to me looks like a real a would be a good place to uh to put a shower David we have a shower already in this location if if if you're not going to approve the new enclosure we'll just leave the shower where it is
well then that would be inside the addition it's not inside the addition right now it's Jesus right now it's behind it and moving to put it on the outside of it that's I don't I don't understand Bill yeah you know I'm sorry
but the the the um Eastern here we go that right that that side of the shower is an is within the footprint of the main house I
agree so that's where the addition is proposed to go so that is within the footprint of the addition I agree okay all right so I I see it now yeah so thank you yeah and that's why you throwing it it caused concern for
everybody because you know we all make mistakes we all yes we all do but now you can see on that picture right up there the shower is reappearing and I happen to notice that would you not I I happen to notice that in this other location I'm talking about you said
while the showers there the this other location I believe it's a bathroom that's on the inside of that wall is that not correct I have no idea well let's look at let's look at the floor plan is there a reason for that question well yeah
because because he Bill indicated that well you know it's already in place but one the one of the features of a bathroom is that plumbing is uh there located there so okay well you know all right so um okay if there's no other
questions we're gonna ask if I could just make a comment okay and then that's going to be the end of your comments because we're going to close yes so please make whatever comments you'd like to make so the um uh so what I would
propose from this existing from the plan we submitted so if if the walkway is now wider than 4 feet the walkway would be brought back to four feet as was shown on the original
plan uh the enclosure uh would not extend past the end of the deck would it be 11.2 no Clos sorry it wouldn't be 11.2 away it
would be closer yes yeah how close um 1122 so it's four feet so it's basically uh basically be eight looks like it' be eight feet or n eight or nine feet eight okay can we say can
we say nine if it's 9 fet away that's a lot closer to 11.2 you may have a you may have a chance yeah all right nine feet may I I don't know that's fine I'm not voting nine feet would be fine okay good good
information and then the you know you always have the opportunity to put a patio instead of a deck and then we and the and then for the for the privacy fence that Mrs Redmond would like we propose starting the FY fence uh at the
forward edge of the shower enclosure and extending back about two thirds of the length of the yard so past the end of the deck substantially past the end of the deck okay well
just Mr Nixon could I suggest that you start that fence 3 feet closer to the street it gives instead of having it at the edge yeah just 3 ft it gives a
little more privacy yes that's fine okay well we're not going to get a chance to speak to miss uh to Teresa Redmond I think it is um or anything but um I can read body language so we'll we'll have to see about that in a few minutes um
all right anything else Mr Riley no okay um all right so Paul close the hearing unless you have a question uh yeah I guess I do have a question I think the way the way it's been left
right now I'm a little unclear as to whether are you suggesting that there's going to be a 4 foot walkway as opposed to a a uh five foot walkway coming on the deck to the outdoor shower
yes um and if that's the case then your distance from the property line is going to be 7 feet or 69 it looks like that
I'm oh so it'll be sixer and change right yeah and your proposed uh outdoor shower will be oh wait so the so the corner of the house is
uh so this is the the end of the shower closest to the street is 12.8 ft so the shower enclosures we're proposing four feet wide same width as the deck leading to
it so that means uh you would subtract so that would be 8.8 ft from the sideline at the at the corner closest to the
street and it would be you know maybe a half a foot closer because it gets closer As you move back but it would be 8.8 feet at at the corner of the addition in the house
so instead of 11.2 be 8.8 yes oh sorry instead of 11.2 it'll be 8.8 so um when when Paul's done I'm going to bring um the neighbor back because we didn't close the hearing yet absolutely and we'll see what after this discussion we
met as well absolutely yeah yeah it see you know it's people's property so you know how that is yeah I understand biggest ugliest fights in court uh brother sister and neighbors probably tied for bad I love my brothers and I love my neighbors so
yeah but then yep yeah Paul um all right well uh so where we're at is uh you're talking about extending the fence another three feet
or so towards the road from where the edge is of the outdoor shower that's correct and you're talking about a walkway to the outdoor shower from the deck that's approximately that is 4 feet correct
right correct and uh so your your outdoor shower container is not going to be the 6x5 by 6x5 correct it would be 6x5 by 4 feet so the 6x5 Dimension will be
running from the roadside to the uh backyard to the deck right mhm okay I have no further questions I'll unless there are I'm gonna I'm gonna I'm gonna with my question I'm going to ask the neighbor to come back and uh just
let us know where she's at not that you know we still have to vote based on the criteria and it's the extent of the uh change in uh non-conformity not just that there's a non-conformity that's getting perhaps more non-conforming it's
the extent of it so this is less extensive correct um it's I don't know I don't really okay so what I mean is right now it's 11.2 feet away from your house and what they're proposing now they came in with
5.6 and now they're saying maybe 8.8 away from you unless I have this wrong what is that I I I I would actually have to look at the number the shower the shower yes I I I can someone put the numbers
back up or the yeah the plan with the numbers yeah yeah so with the extension it's saying it's got use the pointer oh I don't know how to use this
thing yeah use Point okay push that little button okay yeah there you go so um yeah so this is 12.8 the the whole issue is the house sits diagonal on the property so
if you wanted to do the straight line as you go back towards my backyard it gets closer in a straight line so it makes it very difficult to put a bunch of stuff on this side of the house and not encroach on my property
line they have a whole yard on the other side and in the back to do stuff seems to me like they're trying to cram everything in right on the side of the house agree you asked me about the numbers I'm a numbers person yeah great
I need I need to study it to really understand it better I but in general I still think that that shower sitting right outside my front door is way too close for privacy concerns and whether
it's 11.2 feet or 9 ft or 8.5 ft right still too close and and you know though that if it was 11.2 then you know it's no closer than the property is to you now right yeah that's why I I'm fine with that yeah as long as the fence is
up so anything closer than that anything closer than 11.2 I'm objecting okay that I just wanted to clarify that okay thank you y yep all right so if you're done Mr Riley um we'll close the hearing and move to deliberations and then we could
take a straw vote if you'd like um all right so can we just run over the numbers one more time you're going to have to do another plan if we allow it anyway so you know what I'd like what I'd like to do assuming we can vote
today is that we would submit a plan yes after the vote right so what we're proposing yes is that we be allowed to have a walkway back to the shower it would be four feet
wide the shower enclosure would be no closer to Mr redwells property than the walkway so it would be four feet wide 6 feet long but only 4 feet
wide uh and then the deck once you get past the little walkway to the shower would be 112 and would stay that way we'd have a fence that would start at least 3 feet
closer to the the road and the shower enclosure it would extend back about 2third of the way but definitely well after the end of the proposed
deck but if at the end of the day with this the walkway and the shower are closer than 11.2 correct that's correct okay so with that why don't we um close public hearing I'll move to close the the hearing and move into deliberations they each davich
enthusiastically seconds and votes yes good it votes yes all votes yes Steve Steve votes yes and J very good okay deliberations why don't we just go to uh Paul first okay well
uh you're uh you're with your proposal you're not going to be uh 11.2 or more away from the property line you are going to be more consistent with the last hearing that we
had uh which would put the deck at uh um approximately uh 8 feet 7 ft rather away from the property
line um and going back towards the uh back of the yard um you're still going to be uh approxim 6 feet away from or maybe uh 7.6 feet on the first corner of the
deck away from the property line and then cutting in and going back to the 11.2 so your 11.2 really only exists at the very end of the proposed deck towards the backyard as I understand it oh no we're not going to we're not going
to um entertain anything further from the uh non board members but I'm serious is actually going to clarify that um not to your advantage Mr applicant but go ahead so Paul if they're reducing the what I'm
understanding The Proposal is to the walkway to the deck will be reduced to 4 feet in width so if the current setback to the proposed walkway deck is 5.6 they're taking a foot off of it it would go to
6.6 yes rather than eight okay okay so Paul can we um yeah well I I guess what do you think you how do you think you'd vote I guess I guess when I'm looking at it now it seems to me it is going to be uh a problem uh in terms
of the increase of the nonconformity there so I'm heading toward saying no based on that initial proposal okay and Ed um so the existing setback is
12.8 um we're allowing you to go 11 by to 11.2 because it it makes sense it squares off the house uh but anything less than that does not have my vote Dave yeah that's the way I um that's the
way I I thought I presented my feelings at the last meeting it is can I can I just point out one more thing here and and I mean I I I would prefer that they move the shower somewhere else as Miss redond has has
indicated I would like to point out that this the the walkway to the shower that extension of the deck is not necessary the Lo the the the if we if
you took off from the corner of the the 11.2 ft corner and it and made the with the and made the deck parallel to the property line it would
remain at the 11.2 feet and at that point without that walkway it's one step down to the grade that walkway is is is up eight less than eight 8 in from the grade according to this the the so
that that extension that's getting even closer to to isn't necessary okay so I I can't I can't support this I'm I'm I'm toying with the idea of proposing a condition that that shower not be
located there okay well you might not have to worry about well the shower apparently um if let's if I'm thinking clearly I if the shower meets the fencing requirement
in the even the size that they've proposed by the bylaw it can be there because it's not a considered a structure so they can put it there unless we say they
can't okay so sounds like you're a no it sounds like Mr Acton would be a no it sounds like Paul may be a no uh um Jenny where are you going with your deliberations I I think what has been proposed as an improvement to what was
here last time and I I didn't like how the deck went all the way back and went within 47 but again I go back to the notes I have no objection to the addition no objection to the shower if in the same spot we've improved the location of the
shower I believe and the deck my notes say that 4.7 was way too close which we all agreed that it was but the proposed plan is substantially um improving that so I and you're you're consistent with what you said last time yes you are
Steve if you are voting so let's say you um well I don't like too much of anything of the way that this is being proposed um the elevated deck um even with the six- foot fence affords no
privacy whatsoever any anybody who's standing on that deck can see over into the neighbor's property without any issues the shower doesn't need to be there if you're going through the trouble of adding an addition you can move that shower any place um you need a
plumber that's it um the stairs instead of having the deck come around and stepping down into the shower the steps could be made at the corner the back corner of the addition and just have a gravel path to go in to the ground level
shower so that might eliminate that whole issue of of having that that deck leads leading to the shower so you I think it's also way too close to the property line I I wouldn't vote for that you would vote no okay
Lee if you were voting if I were voting um I I'm afraid I would have to say we need to go back to the drawing board and Mr Nixon you liked it last time you probably still like it still like it okay yeah if I was Voting uh I'm
looking at what we have now okay and and what's proposed particularly with the privacy fence and so forth uh this actually is an improvement for the neighbor over what's there now because of the fence and yes it could be closer
and all that kind of stuff but I think overall uh is this substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood not just one house the neighborhood absolutely it's not
substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and I'm not voting but I think it's a nice looking addition I do and it's a no you don't get to talk Mr Ry sure I do because you're going to say what are you going to do so I'm going to tell you but I'm talk okay so all right
I won't talk go ahead we be happy to accept a condition that nothing be closer to the property line than 11 feet 2 inches nothing as in zero things nothing in any way shape or form I think you have well we're talking about the
deck well we're talking about any structures right but shower enclosure is not a structure but that's you know but the deck yeah but it's part of the application and there's not even any showers allowed in chadam as we all know so it's kind of a
funny thing here uh it's a fiction my condition would be nothing is no structure is closer to the property line than 11t 2 in2 that's not going to fly if you want to come back with a new plan for us to consider that's well I I think
you should take a vote on my proposal take a vote on that yes okay sure all right uh are we ready to do that uh yes so we need a motion oh but that that still includes the
fence so nothing closer than 11.2 feet but a fence comes out closer to the street than the shower is still there well whether the shower is there or not there's still going to be a privacy fence there I know but I don't think we like it that I mean I
think the people have spoken the board has spoken we can vote if Paul can come up with a motion that makes sense well I don't know if he you know it's not his fault well I guess the uh I
guess you've left me a little confused bill when you say nothing is going to be closer than 11.2 what you're saying is that there's going to be no decking closer than 11.2 uh and that it's going to run from the corner of the proposed addition to
to uh where it's located uh at 11.2 on the site plan yes and uh there's going to be no uh 6x6 uh proposed outdoor shower correct and then if there is any shower
there I take it it's going to be a uh it's not going to be considered a structure so you're simply going to comply with those regulations whatever the regulations are yep all right well I'll move uh to approve the application with that with
those changes uh but also in subject to submission of a privacy fence uh plan and the uh plan for the deck as as revised by Mr Riley
orley Dave Dave vich will second but vote no okay Ed Ed will vote Yes okay uh Paul Paul vote
Yes um please Steve sorry I'm looking right at you without seeing another set of plans I would vote no and Jenny I vote Yes so that loses sorry well then I'd ask for a continuous so we can provide
the plan was that a straw vote sure no it wasn't it wasn't though it wasn't it wasn't a straw vote but um he comes back if you come back with
another plan I suppose we could B Grand either withdraw withdraw without prejudice all right we're gonna have to ask you to withdraw without prejudice all right thank you yeah that's the best we can do for you that's I'll I'll move to Grant the
requested withdraw all without prejudice I'm sorry this is the this is the tag the tail wagon the dog these people want to get going on their house improvements they should have come back with a patio what they
should have come back with a patio maybe it would have been easier yeah maybe it would have been but we were left with the impression that as long as it was 11.2 feet it would be fine and it wasn't 11.2 feet yeah it's not though so well we were following the
recommendation of one of your members yeah one of our members but we have we have we have have understand that all right I'm going to I'm going to stop it because we all heard everything I'm going to ask you to approve the house and we'll withdraw the request for the deck can we do
that I don't know if we I have to do see if we can even do that can we the board could approve just the rear addition and the Dormer
Associated work um if there is an outdoor shower I know that either the inspector commissioner will most likely require that that be uh dimensioned on any site plan for the building permit as well as an as built
with details on it um so it's something that the it's up to the board but it's it is with within the realm of the legal advertisement I'm going to let I'm going to let Dave Nixon speak to that well yeah before we we're turning this around
and that's okay but uh we have taken a vote it wasn't a straw vote and to all of a sudden say the vote didn't count I don't think we have that in our
power to do that that the vote has to stand we're trying to give you a break by saying that you can draw without prejudice that's the best we can do okay thank you thank you and the only way we could justify that is to say
that that motion was requested before you declared the vote you didn't announce you have lost 3 to2 and that's the only way I think we can get around that would do you agree to that
Sarah I would good so so I'll move to Grant the requested withdrawal without prejudice Dave V seconds and votes yes uh Ed Acton votes yes PA votes yes Steve votes yes Jenny votes yes okay well and I also
appreciate everybody standing by their word because that's the only way we're going to have any credibility and that you all did a perfect job on that everybody stood by what they had originally said and uh I I appreciate that okay so with that motion to adjourn
I'll move to adjourn dve sson votes yes Ed votes yes I vote Yes all votes yes Le I vote Yes Steve votes yes Jenny votes as do I and it is what time 6:25 p.m. and good night chadam
[Music] what