e e e e e e [Music] oh [Music] [Music] as long as it's not one that people washing machine not that oh good good evening good afternoon everyone welcome this is the May 23rd Zoning Board in chatam meeting pursuant to Governor Healey's March 29th 2023 signing the acts of 2023 extending certain covid measures adopted by the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law until March 31st 2025 this meeting of the zoning board of appeals is being conducted in person and via remote participation every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings provided for in the order as a reminder those who would like to listen to this meeting while it's in progress may do so by calling 508 945 4410 conference ID 2961 35466 pound or join the meeting online via Microsoft teams through the link in the posted agenda while this is a live broadcast and simoc cast on chadam TV despite our best efforts we may not be able to provide for Real Time access we will post a record of this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible in accordance with Town policy the public can speak to any issue hearing or business item on the agenda during the meeting when recognized by the chair to uh validate and make sure everybody approves this form of meeting we'll do a roll call vote starting with Virginia Fenwick Virginia approves please shut off all devices that make any sort of noise including vibration thank you Steve Steve dor approves Lee Hy approves policy simple I approve David S Nixon approves uh David hre I approve and Randy parash I approve as well um if any citizens or n non-board members participating in the call via the phone only um please give your name and the last four digits of your phone number um for identification purposes um the way the meeting is run is as followed follows a hearing notice is read by our staff Sarah Clark on my right and you are your representative will present the appeal or application anyone in favor of the appeal or application may speak for a limited time of five minutes I will read and summarize all the letters received by the board anyone against the appeal or application or has a question we'll be able to ask that um then the will be able to rebut any testimony board members will ask questions um and they can ask questions to anyone present um we'll hear further information close the public hearing deliberate usually we vote on the appeal or application and then all votes will be taken by roll call at the end of the meeting we'll close with a veral confirmation and note the time of adjournment see if we have any minutes we we uh have a minutes Paul for April 25th 2024 I believe we have uh minutes for April 25 2024 I will move to approve those as polished is there anybody that has an edit if not Dave I I second the uh motion and you vote and I vote Yes Dave yes Jenny yes Paul votes yes as do I okay first application take them out of order oh yeah we're going to take them out of order uh today the well just one is coming out of order we're going to go with cape card 5 Cent Savings Bank application 24- 049 to accommodate the applicant we're going you're going first yes please uh application number 24- 049 Cape Cod 5 Cent Savings Bank care of Katherine Anastasia 125 Samuel Barnett Boulevard New Bedford Mass 02745 owner of property located at 548 Main Street also shown on the town of chadam assessors map 15D block 29 lot 104 the applicant seeks an appeals permit under section 22519 of the chadam signed bylaw to allow the placement of an 8 in X 60in 3.33 ft wall sign and a 36 in x 30 in wall sign 7.5 ft not facing a street Frontage and a 12 in x 24 in 2 ft secondary wall sign facing Main Street the lot contains 14,960 ft in the gb1 zoning District the proposed signs require an appeals permit under section 22519 of the chadam sign bylaw hello welcome good afternoon please to just state your name and Richard po po signs I'm here on behalf of Katherine uh who submitted the application and Cape Cod 5 so we have three um three accessory signs that were're seeking approval for um labeled on a plan as sign number two and uh nine and three looks like so if we could talk about this first sign the ATM sign um this is to replace an existing sign uh that is uh over the ATM machine and the whole purpose of the plaque is to identify that this is the ATM machine uh for customers who are approaching the building this is one foot high by 2 feet wide um and it's a very simple sign the next sign is is um on our plan sign 3A we're going to make sure you have the criteria to go through um okay it shouldn't be particularly difficult and we'll give you whatever time you need okay yes so um where requesting the ATM sign is a secondary wall sign um which uh is because it's and it doesn't face a street and so um uh but we we need to label we need to identify the machine itself and so people can find it the um the site the specific site of the location of the sign is a apprpriate because of the purpose of that sign is to identify the machine um it will not be a nuisance or a hazard to vehicles of pedestrians actually be it'll assist uh folks who are trying to locate the ATM machine um the proposed sign will not adversely affect properties in the neighborhood it's a very uh conservative sign in and of itself and um the the special requirements for the permit are in accord with the general spirit and intent of the bylaw any questions what about the second one you have to go through that the second one sure Y the second sign you mean please yeah okay so the second sign is the is a clearance sign to be installed or replace the existing clearance sign um on the drive-thru canopy the overhead canopy so this is a pretty standard type of sign that uh helps to reduce liability um and to uh to indicate to uh traffic coming through that there is a height limit so for for tall Vans or sometimes folks who are hauling a a boat on a trailer behind them uh just to warn them that there is a height limit and what that height limit is the uh the proposed sign is 8 in high and six feet wide which allows us to put a 4 inch high uh message on it so it make it as readable and clear as possible so they can see it from a distance and pull out of the lane uh before they get there if they need to the um again the sign this sign doesn't face a street so that's why we're here to ask for a permission to install it um the site is appropriate for proposed sign it it's very logical place to put it the proposed sign will not be a new or a hazard to vehicles or pedestrians and actually will improve safety um the proposed sign will not adversely affect the properties in the neighborhood uh it's pretty modest and uh the special requirements for the permit are in accord with the general spirit and intent of the bylaw any questions oh one more okay I know that I didn't know if there were any questions about this oh no we we'll get to the questions okay so the the third request is for an operation hours plaque to be installed beside the uh secondary entrance and this secondary entrance uh is uh for the parking area so customers to come into the lot um and and uh park in the parking area behind the branch this this entrance is accessible by them and so uh we have one on the primary entrance which is on the other side of the building and we're allowed that one by right uh because we have a secondary entrance uh it's very helpful to let potential customers know what the operating hours are of the lobby and of the driveway this proposed sign is 2 and 1/2 ft wide and 3 feet tall um and we're able to update those hours when they change uh along the way um and it helps to identify that this is actually a customer entrance as well by providing this identification this the location of this sign is appro is appropriate for its application um the sign won't be a nuisance or a hazard to vehicles or pedestrians the proposed sign will not adversely affect the neighborhood and the special requirements for the permit are in accord with the general spirit and intent of the bylaw so those are the three signs that we're requesting um okay great permission yeah thank you so much is there anybody here or on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application please make it known seeing none oh seeing what no nope seeing none I will read the single correspondence that we have from the um hbdc the historic business district commission uh the commission uh writes to us on May 7th 2024 that they issued a certificate of appropriateness on April 18th 2024 for each of the following wall signs clearance 7t 6 in wall sign rear of the drive-through structure ATM wall sign above the ATM machine hours of operation wall sign rear of the structure thank you signed Chantel K Kil Kenny um is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wish to speak against or has a question about this application please make it known if you do see none questions from the board Dave V I have no questions Dave Nixon no questions Jenny no questions Steve no questions Lee no questions Paul no questions and nor do I Paul I will move to close the hearing and move into deliberations uh Dave reach seconds and votes yes yes Jenny yes uh Le no I'm all yes as do I so um deliberations Paul well clearly meets all of the standards uh for the sign appeal um and will be consistent with the general spirit and T of the bylaw so I'll move to approve Dave seconds um other deliberations all right um yeah yeah before we go there uh Dave deliberations Dave Nixon or Dave no dve oh yeah uh I I fully concur with what Paul had to say I agree and Dave Nixon well I'm not a great believer in uh too many signs and I the the sign about hours of operation when you go up the door and it's locked it's probably closed I mean you don't need a sign to tell you it's closed and you're going to go up to the door and try to you're going to try and get in so I would not be in favor of that one of that one or just the one okay Jenny um I agree with Paul I think that there um appropriate and they're more clear and um I think because that third sign is it almost looked in one of the pictures like it was on a post but it isn't it's on it's on the wall and the wall faces away from the street so you really are going into the bank or trying to go into the bank uh to see it so I I I think it's okay Steve I think all the signs are fine I think they're replacing existing signs and they're much uh more easily read I think with the white background and the darker letters I don't have the problem I I agree I think all the signs are appropriate and um an improvement I think they're passable so um I think we'll uh vote now and if each votes yes Dave well for sign all right well we we're going to do that then we're going to vote one at sign at a time all right what I uh I will move uh for approval of uh the application with respect to uh the sign that says ATM okay Dave Dave be uh seconds and how V yes and Dave ni yes and Jenny yes all vot yes as do I okay and that one passes unanimously I will move to approve the application for the sign which deals with clearance davut seconds and vote Yes clearance how do you vote well I'm going to vote Yes but nobody ever pays attention to that just going to store a drive you know I mean these are Pros they're looking at something else they're not looking up and they're not thinking it could be an insurance issue that is why they're doing it right that's right they don't care but they have to do it okay J so yes I voted yes all right I vote Yes yes um Paul I'll vote Yes um and I'll vote Yes on that one too that's unanimous and I will move to approve the sign which depicts the hours of operation Dave seconds and vote Yes and Dave Nixon no uh Jenny yes all votes yes and I'm going to vote no on that because I think everybody has a cell phone and Google on it and if you want to know when it's open then you can always do that so I'm going to go with Dave dexit on that so that's no so thank you right yep yeah take your time is more all right Sarah whenever you're ready we'll go to the first application on the list uh 414 uh Fox Hill Road application number 23-1 120 Christopher jroy and Kathleen em lroy car of William F Riley Esquire PO Box 707 chattam Mass 02633 owner of property located at 414 Fox Hill Road also shown on the town of chadam assessor map 11m block 5 Lot 2 the applicant seeks to reconstruct a pre-existing non-conforming private residential Pier the existing Pier is non-conforming and that it is 12 ft long the proposed reconstructed Pier will be non-conforming and that it will be 112 ft long where 80 ft is the maximum allowed the property is located in an R40 zoning District a special permit is required under master General Law chapter 4A section 6 and 9 and sections 5B and 8D 2B of the Chad and protective bylaw this was continued from January 11th and March 14th 2024 welcome Mr Riley uh good afternoon Bill Riley on behalf of the lroy family uh this the property owned by the lro has had a dock and crows Pond since the 1930s over the years it's been shortened from its original licensed length of uh 200 feet to down to 110 ft uh Cole baitman of tyan bond formerly Coastal Engineering is here to answer technical questions now the reason we're here is that we're not replacing the dock exactly in kind uh it's a little wider and it's got handrails so I'll ask Cole to address those design features good afternoon Cole baitman I'm a professional engineer with tyan Bond um along here with belt and the uh if the plans aren't up on screen I'll share them right now um I'll cut right to the chase for the sections uh the propo the existing Pier I believe only has handrail on one side of it the new pier will have handrails on both sides um and uh as you can see it will be uh rather a lot more safe than the uh previously existing Pier uh and and also uh flat the um the existing Pier has a bit of a dip at the start uh and and the proposed replacement Pier is uh consistent height all the way down so a goal of this project was to make a safer peer for grandchildren and and the uses of it the structure itself uh and to update building materials um to that which is not deteriorated thank you uh thank you Cole the um I point out that our application is for the pier only uh the uh there's no float and dock no float and ramp associated with our uh requirement today the uh one of those regulatory things where even though uh the peer has been licensed since the 1930s when they shorten the length of the perer back in the 1950s probably they did not apply for an amendment to the license uh as a consequence when they added a ramp in float at the end back sometime in the 1950s uh they did not get an amended license so under the regulations uh for Pleasant Bay no new structures no new peer structures are allowed and the Pleasant Bay Alliance in their Infinite Wisdom decided that even though there's been a rampant float there since the mid 1950s it qualified as a new structure so uh Conservation Commission was not in position to approve a rampant float in the chapter 91 people U would also be prohibited from approving a rampant float so what we have is 110 for 110 foot long appearer with railings that we're asking you to approve is it 112 or is it 110 Cole what what's the length I think the question it depends on the jurisdiction I believe is the ddiction from mean high water if so it would be 90 feet from mean high water and the overall uh peer length is 110 yes we um our bylaw regulates that it's measured from mean high water so the answer would be 90 ft all right so now I didn't bother passing out of zoning bylaw analysis I don't think this is particularly complex but there is criteria in section Roman numeral 8 under Administration which is slightly different than the criteria Ed to hearing so I'll just do a quick run through so adequacy of the size of the for the proposed use we've got plenty of room for our 4 foot wide Dock suitability of the site for the proposed use uh there's been a dock there since the 1930s impact on traffic flow and safety none impact on neighborhood visual character including views and Vistas some people think docs are attractive So to that that we think it improves The View no there's no sewage disposal there's no utilities and uh there may be some children having fun that might contribute to noise but we don't expect any litter and it's compatible with surrounding land uses okay is that your presentation yes anything okay so is anybody else want to speak on this are you are you all set we're all set all right good to know um is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application if so please indicate see none I will read The Correspondents there are a few um Jason Holm our Hara Master writes on May 9th 2024 I I reviewed the application for the proposed paer at 414 Fox Hill Road in Crow Pond Harbor and found that the Reconstruction of the existing non-conforming 112t Pier will not interfere with the navigation or pose any public safety issues the pier would also not interfere with any existing moins within the area if you have any questions please call next we have a letter from Christine McCarthy um our collections assistant for the town of chadam attached you will find a Paro balance run today for 414 foxille Road they currently have an outstanding balance on their FY 24 real estate tax thank you in advance for your assistance it looks like $1 13,561 47 that's already been paid very good next we have a letter from the Conservation Commission from May 6 2024 they write the commission has issued an order of conditions for the pr replacement as revised on April 3rd 20124 and April 24th 2024 the project as proposed has been uh conditioned to meet the performance standard under the wetlands protection act and the town of chadam wetland bylaw that concludes the correspondence so everybody here on micros on Microsoft teams that wish to speak against or has a question about this app application seeing none questions from the board Jenny I have a question for Cole um Cole when I watched the um conservation hearing you indicated that part of it well I think you were referencing 110 ft not 90 but 50 of it was permanent and 60 was seasonal or maybe I have that but could you address how much of this pier is going to be required to be taken out every year and then can you talk about what that process is where it's stored Char very good question so as designed there's a 50ft permanent portion of the pier uh and that's consistent with what's currently there and then there is a 60 foot portion that is seasonal also consistent with the current conditions the seasonal Pier would um be removed and uh kept Upland I believe it's either going to be in the parking area of the the dwelling or an off off-site storage um um from the removal contractor uh and then installed similar to other peers every every year um in in place of of the existing I mean they they have a template to go off of because there's a permanent Pier so location of the seasonal portions should be rather uh simple the work would be done by barge um and while working with the contractor uh the construction of the pier would probably be um segmented panels supported by uh IND indidual pile bents that would be set into the uh substrate and then the the panels would be laid on and and handrail components attached thank you Steve questions um I guess I have a couple of questions that the the structure that's there looks pretty rough like it was damaged some time ago and hasn't been used in a long time no it has been used really yeah okay I don't know if they used used it last summer but up until last summer it was used every summer cuz it does look like it's it's a need of well and that's why they want to replace it because they uh Mr lroy said hey he's getting older they have grandchildren they want to make sure everything safe so the the the main question I have I guess um is that and I'm glad that you explained the chapter 91 stuff because I was going to ask you about the the licensing for the for the peer and apparently it's it's lapsed and there's some issue about no it hasn't getting it corrected it hasn't lapsed they they shorten the periods within the footprint so it continues as a licensed structure right so I guess my my question is that since the pier is being totally rebuilt and you not it doesn't look like you're going to have a gang way right now or a float why not bring it into into compliance and make it 80 ft long instead of 112 ft long because they need water out the outport end of the pier for boats to come alongside okay okay thank you that's all right Le no questions well um I see that we have input from conservation and the Harbor Master I'm wondering whether there's any input from the shellfish Warden we haven't received Denny all I can say is that the pier has been there since the 1930s so typically shellfish gets involved when we're proposing something new or something that changes I'm sure they receive notice from conservation and probably from zba and they've elected not to reply so we've received no comment from shellfish is that correct uh we did not receive any comment I'm just seeing if we had one for the other meeting we did did not um but it was requested okay thank you Dave Nixon questions yeah Mr Riley um I'm sorry that they're not going to have the ramp on the float and is it a dead issue or is there some appeal process you can go through the uh what we've what we've been in conversation with the Harbor Master is there is a different license that he can issue um that will allow for a ramp and a much smaller float and that's what we anticipate it's going to happen so it's not it's it's a license that has to be renewed annually uh so it's not like a chapter 91 license which is good for many many years so I presume you're going to pursue that yes oh good okay thank you s Sarah has a comment about that more of a question would you need to to come back and modify this special permit to allow for the rampant float since that's included in the overall length section of our zoning bylaw no the my understanding you take it up with the Harbor Master that this is the same uh this this permit would be issued under the harbor Master's ability to issue Moorings well which have to be renewed every year so that's my understanding so the answer is no we would not be coming back I mean for instance go ahead there is an example Mr Ron isn't here but on the property that he has down on uh Minister's Point uh he received a similar license for a ramp and a float from the top of a seaw wall I'm just going to ask the Building Commissioner to clarify his understanding well I thought the ramp length included the uh well the overall peer length included the ramp and the float so I'd have to check into that I don't have an answer for you right now okay um questions who didn't who didn't I ask Mr V and and I have no questions I already went on this side yes so I just want to clarify are you asking for it to be 90 F feet 112 or 110 because I've heard a lot of numbers and like you I am not a numbers person so I know the plan calls for a pier that is a dock that's 110 ft long from the beginning to the end right so that's what we're seeking you are okay so we don't take a long walk off of a short pier or show walk off a long P one or the other but yeah all right Paul move to close the hearing and move into deliberations dve V seconds and votes yes yes yes PA would yes as do I um deliberations um Lee um well I I agree it's a shame that what's happened um but I think you know it's been there forever and um to rebuild it is a wise decision um um because it's a valuable a valuable thing um so I if I were voting today I would I would be in favor of it Steve what about you um the same I mean it's it's unusable the way it is now um and bill has explained why it needs to be the way it's going to be and apparently it was at least that long before so it's replacing something that was there previous so I would probably vote to approve it jeny yeah I agree with my colleagues I think it's extremely valuable uh you can't get another one today um I'm sorry to see the float hope that works out um and uh it's much shorter than it used to be many years ago so um I I would support it DAV yeah I I agree with all previous um and you know I'm hopeful that they are able to find a way to work it out to have work a little better for them uh and because it is um um too bad that the circumstances are such that uh they weren't able to get the whole thing from us but um but I I certainly will support this okay Dave Nixon yes yes okay uh Paul I agree with Mr Riley that uh shellfish would need a in input if this was new here but I guess not on this one so um I'll move to approve the application as sub and I'll just say that I think the questions and the answers were were superb today on this and I appreciate your preparedness thank you and uh okay dve seconds and votes yes yes Jenny yes and Paul Paul votes yes as do I it's unanimous thank you very much thank you all right whenever Sarah is ready we're going to go to 108 Beach Plum Road application number 24- 043 R Paul Diller care of James M Norcross Esquire PO Box 707 chadam Mass 02633 owner of property located at 108 Beach Plum Road also shown on the town of chadam assessor map 4D block 16 Lot 23 the applicant proposes to change alter expand two non-conforming dwellings on a non-conforming lot be the demolition of the existing dwellings and the construction of two new dwellings one of the existing dwellings is non-conforming and it is located within the coastal Conservancy district and the second dwelling is non-conforming and that is located 31 ft from the coastal Conservancy district one of the proposed dwellings will be non-conforming and that it will be located within the coastal Conservancy district and the second dwelling will be non-conforming and that it will be located 34 ft from the coastal Conservancy District where a 50ft setback is required the total existing building coverage is 1,438 ft and the proposed Total Building coverage is 1,750 square ft where 2,850 ft is the maximum allowed the lot is non-conforming and that it contains 0et feet of Frontage where 100 ft is required and contains sufficient buildable Upland for Upland area for one dwelling the lot contains 21,600 ft of buildable Upland area and 9 9 4,000 ft of land area in the R20 zoning District a special permit is required under master under Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw welcome M attorney Norcross thank you uh good afternoon Jamie Norcross representing Paul deweer Paul is here in the audience today in the front with the blue shirt uh also here today is Greg delori who did the building design and David Clark who's been handling the engineering for the project um Paul has owned this property for just over three years now he bought it in April of 2020 it has two dwellings on it uh that date back according to the accessory to 1930 and 1934 if you visited the property I'm sure you discovered two things one it's pretty hard to find without a GPS and number two it's a really unique property um it's tucked in on Taylor's Pond you really wouldn't know it was there unless you go looking for it so it's pretty special in that regard I think it's part of the reason Paul uh ended up buying it when he did the um about a year or so ago Paul looked into uh renovation options because both of the buildings are in um rough shape uh a need of a lot of work um and he would like to create some additional living area they're both pretty small so uh in terms of uh family and friends he would like a little bit more space when he has guests uh initially he looked at renovation and it was determined that wasn't a real feasible option in particular with the structure located closest to Taylor's Pond that you see there that's in the flood plane so any significant um work to that structure would require lifting it up putting on a new foundation and trying to build from there which wasn't a great option in terms of the condition of the home so Paul then pivoted toward um the demo rebuild which is the proposal before you today and um it's a challenging site from a conservation perspective as I'm sure you can see from the um site plan and so in terms of creating additional living area going horizontal isn't a real option um with all the conservation setbacks that you see there with Coastal Banks flood plane and the rest so in working with Greg uh Paul's thought process was to essentially keep the existing footprint as much as he could um and build up to create the additional living area which is on the plans that uh have been presented filed and are being presented today for you in addition uh some of the focus was on creating some expanded Decks that you see to try to take advantage of the views of Taylor's Pond uh with some outdoor living space that U Paul thinks will add a real benefit to the property um despite all the lines and everything on the plan we're really not changing a whole lot uh the footprint overall building footprint Excuse Me overall building coverage is only increasing by a combined 267 square feet uh on the side on the site what you see here it's a small bump out on the uh structure closest to Taylor's Pond and then the um about a 200t increase on the uh on the back structure in terms of footprint the um gross flare gross floor area numbers are increasing not I wouldn't say significantly but they are increasing because we are adding a second level with additional living area um the buildings are higher uh part of that at least for the the structure located closest to um the pond is because we have to pull it up out of the flood plane so it has to be at elevation starting at elevation 13 um but both structures even with that compliance requirement are still well below the 30 foot height limitation so we think it's a um a reasonable uh proposal that he's put forth I think part of what Paul was hoping is he likes the two structures the two smaller structures with a little bit additional living area that's provided by this plan he wasn't looking to demolish both and build one big structure in the middle that's not really what he sees as as really the beauty for this property and how he wants to use it so that's the reason he's keeping the footprints and sort of keeping the design that you see today um going on to the criteria number one adequacy of the site in terms of size uh we believe the size the size is more than adequate for the proposal as I mentioned it's a very small increase in the uh footprint number uh as proposed will be at 8.1% which is about a th000 square feet less than we'd be allowed under the zoning bylaw um the property itself is I should have mentioned this is actually over two acres it's quite large it's not even the whole piece that you see on on David's plan the um the buildable Upland is only 21,600 ft so the 8% is based on the 21006 21,600 F feet if you actually use the 94,000 Ft in terms of the overall size of the lot our building coverage goes all the way down to 1.8% so uh as seen the the the change is really insignificant I would say uh number two compatibility of the size of the proposed structure with neighboring properties if you drove around uh Beach Plum Uncle Dean's area uh you see it was a real mixture of sizes and Styles um while they are slightly expanded I think these structures are still modest in size and the overall G gross floor area the two structures is in line with um neighboring properties I did provide a um gross floor area analysis it's a little bit of a challenge in this case I found because it it's sort of hard to determine what the neighborhood is but taking properties on Beach Plum taking properties on Uncle Dean and also taking properties on Juniper Lane West which is to the left of the property that you see in front of you here um I think even combined our numbers are are directly in the Middle with with neighboring property so I think we're certainly compatible in terms of size extent to proposed increase in non-conforming nature of the structural use again the structures are be becoming slightly larger uh and they're located in the Conservancy District so I suppose there is a slight increase in non-conforming nature but other than that we comply with all dimensional setbacks coverage requirement and height requirement uh suitability of the site including but not limited to impact on neighboring Properties or the natural environment um I'd suggest the site is suitable for the demolition rebuild uh there'll be no negative impact on neighboring Properties or the environment uh caused by the proposal today the Conservation Commission um received this project quite favorably I would say at their meeting um Paul is undertaking um a ton of mitigation work uh in conjunction with this project more than he's required to under the uh conservation regs but I think that's really important to him including uh they're doing a lot of mitigation on the I believe it's the little cranberry bog that you see to the right of the house so they're engaging in some work there so it's going to be a real benefit at the end of the day from a conservation perspective impact of scale sighting and Mass on neighborhood visual character I don't think there'll be any negative impact on neighborhood visual character um while the houses will be higher than what's there now the topography does um dip significantly from the back of the lot to the front of the lot and the front of the lot being Tailor's pond so any properties behind I don't think their views are really impacted by the additional height um as seen from Taylor's Pond I don't think it's going to have a negative impact um I drove around the other side today Taylor Pond Road there's a little um Landing there you can look directly across if Paul's property and from there it's really going to fit right in and when you look across there's much bigger homes that sort of dot that uh pond so I don't think it's going to have any negative impact on the view from the pond um it's a single family dwelling and a residential neighborhood and therefore compatible uh number seven method of sewage disposal source of water and drainage adequate water adequate drainage and is serviced by Title 5 septic system there'll be no negative impact on traffic flow and safety no issues with noise and litter uh property is adequate utilities uh 12 we normally skip but this one is in the flood plane um at least the structure located closest to Taylor's Pond there is a very small lateral expansion of the dwelling um but I'd suggest it's so minor in scale it have no negative impact on the impervious area while there is a deck being added again that's off the ground so that shouldn't have any impact on the impervious area so just to uh conclude I think um it's a great project really I think it's certainly not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and be happy to answer any questions okay is there anybody here or on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application seeing none I will read the correspondence we have a letter from Judith Georgio from May 20th 2024 who's a she's our health agent she reports that she reviewed the plan to demolish the existing dwellings and rebuild the two new dwellings the site plan and Flor plans submitted indicates that there is 21,000 Square ft of Upland at this property the existing dwellings have a two bed have two bedrooms in accordance with the Board of Health nitrogen loading regulation they can add a third bedroom approved by the Board of Health with an IIA septic system then we have a note from the Conservation Commission from May 6 2024 stating that the applicant has submitted a notice of intent It Was Heard by the commission on March 30 13th continued to June 5th 2024 the project will be revised to meet the performance standards under the wetlands protection act then we have a note from Christina Basset the town of chadam historical commission staff leaon on in November of 2023 the board found that 108 Beach Plum Road is not historically significant and did not imposed a demolition delay that concludes the correspondence is there anybody here on Microsoft team that we speak against or has a specific question question absolutely sir if you could just walk up to the mic sure yes same place as the presenter take your time watch your step hi my name is Paul Ryan I'm here with Elaine Ryan the owner of 65 Juniper Lane West it's in a butter on the Upland side of the property um and what we want to know is is the applicant going to do any improvements to the Upland 21,000 square feet okay we'll see if we can have that answered I'm sorry you mind I didn't quite understand question up I any improvements any improvements on the Upland 21,000 Square ft of the property yes do you want to elaborate on that Council a little bit well I mean the part of the the um the Upland areas where we're doing where the houses are located so we're doing work within that area so I think is what I'm answering his question I'm not really sure yeah I mean you're not building any structures there are you on the Upland side what do you refer to as the Upland I guess if you look at the plan that might help me well the up you can only talk at the sir sir excuse me you can only talk when you're at the microphone however there is an an indicator you can use to explain the area in question there yes I guess the Upland is this portion right here that's where this is that correct uh yes that's just going to be the new septic system okay so going to be a new septic system there yep and the height of this particular building is going to be 304 feet or 30 feet uh let me get that exact number for you if give me a second the height of the height of the uh the back structure is going to be uh where is that oh I'm sorry 45.4 feet um as calculated from average grade so that's 45t above grade y so it's the building itself is 27 feet but as you calculate it based on average grade the ridge height is 45.4 it's about 8 feet higher than what's there now okay so because and do you know what the Upland area is as compared to the height of the Upland area as compared to the height you know the different difference between the Upland and the and the existing Ridge height of the building structure now I just want make sure when you say Upland you're talking about the area closest to your property yeah the area in in David you want to address the elevation change in other words this this this property that's right here now has a has a height from I guess the roadway or or or something and then the Upland area another words I'm trying to see what's the difference would be in the Upland area right so let David can answer that Eng I do we know you Dave Clark but if you could just St your name to identify yourself just want you to identify yourself David yeah uh David Clark Clark engineering for the record uh so the the back northwest corner of the property is around elevation 36 um and the proposed Ridge is elevation 45.4 so so it would be 9 ft above the Upland property as it stands now it would be 9 ft above the ground level at the northwest corner did you have a certain concern sir that well a sight view for Taylor's Pond from your house from the ab budding Corner yeah that that that area that Upland area is basically a field now so you have an open access to to see somewhat of Taylor's Pond so it was just a question of the height to see uh if it comes up another it looks like it's going to come up another 9 ft or something above that level and it looks like it's going to come up on the looks like it's going to come up on the uh on on this side another words this this is the Upland area looks like it's going to come up on this side of the Upland in other words the I don't know which direction that is but on the roadway side rather than on the ab budding side do you see um the black lines on that plan right here no no I'm sorry if I could borrow the point there I think this might help so this is the uh footprint of the proposed structure right here that's the existing so it's it's not going any further closer to in that direction it's going higher essentially in the same area where it is now and then they're doing the deck over here which is closer to the the driveway side if it helps at all they could have built a much larger structure they I understand that they were entitled to a thousand more square feet or something like that yeah between the two buildings basically right right right or they could have demolished the two buildings and built one structure that's right you know yeah but we just we were just concerned about the Upland section sure do you have any other questions or does your significant other no I think that's if she does she can walk up and whatever time you need well I think that's it I think she might have a question oh okay this is you think you know someone I'm I'm elain Ryan and uh I'm at 65 junip perine and I'm in that corner the house has been there since the 40s and uh basically I'm concerned about the even the 10 foot um additional height because our view is already ruined on tunip pan by someone else um so I'm a little concerned with see that if you could bring that down who's doing that yeah if you yeah you see the corner there and the properties is that way and it looks over to Juniper Lane that way or to the pond that way so it would be 10 foot above the existing that's what you're saying right right the the um the Height's going up 10 ft yeah and where is the elevation for that the house like what does it look like um you mean the design the design uh it's up here so it's the one on the left and and just so you know ma'am um if you want to see the design it's on the website but you take your time to look at it sure no that's fine yeah yeah so I'm concerned and I'm also here for the neighbor that also AB buts to the property married Parsons so they we're both concerned with our view being obstructed because it's it's been there for a long time so all right all right thank you thank you very much thank you for coming and so this is okay do you want to rebut any of that counil just briefly I think um it is going higher I think Paul's been very cognizant of trying to be reasonable and not overreach with with folks behind as well in terms of impacting views I think it'll be a change I think there still will be a view and there's still some pretty significant corridors on either side of the home so I think there still will be uh views and Vistas to tailor Pond for the properties behind sure okay so um at this point um questions from the board Dave V um so uh well I guess I I'm just trying to clarify in my mind some of this uh 65 Juniper Lane West I can see what that is um I when I was out there I I really kind of looked at neighboring properties and tried to make an assessment of what the impact might be on views and I I didn't find I I thought it was pretty well done based certainly based on on for um 91 Juniper Lane that shouldn't affect that much at all I don't know about 65 I I didn't put that into a question so uh um but I do say I I do want to just clarify so that we're all clear on this part um I I mean I agree that that you know looking at the grading and and the the ridge new Ridge being um about 9 ft above the uh grade up the upper corner of the property but I do want to just in comparison um it um Dave Clark's showing existing Ridge elevation for that Cottage at 31.6 and then the proposed uh Ridge elevation is 45.4 so we're we're really talking about you know almost 14 ft higher than the existing Ridge of the cottage oh okay I might have a number wrong in my uh I do see that on the plan I don't I mean I I I actually don't think it's going to be objectionable but I just want to clarify that for everyone yeah no thank you David okay uh I have no other question I can think of right now thanks questions no thank you no questions J questions well I had that question about the height too so on this cover page that you know the ad page it says the proposed Building height dwelling is 25 ft 3 and 3/4 in but now we're hearing it's 40 um and I thought Dave Clark said it's 9 ft above the grade not 9 ft what would be helpful for me is how much taller is it than the existing house when she's done houses is it 14 feet taller than the existing house or 9 feet taller it's 14 feet taller than the existing house it's 9 feet David was talking about the grade at the back of the property okay and so the house the ridge will be 9 feet taller than the grade at the back left of the property the Northwest so then where are these numbers on the site plan and on the application what is 27t 4 in proposed Building height of the cottage 25t 3 and 3/4 in proposed Building height of the dwelling where where are they factoring into this I'm sorry where are you pulling those numbers from from the site plan and from the um cover page the you know the well I don't prepare the cover page I'm not sure where that okay well they're also on the site plan no I understand the site plan numbers I think Sarah might be able to shed some light so Jenny what you're looking at um there's elevation 45.4 which is the proposed rigid elevation of the yep Cottage that's the one that is measured from average grade which equals 27 feet 4 in of height of the building Theos Cottage 27 ft yes from average grade now now the other dwelling the one that's in the flood zone has to be measured from lowest adjacent grade because that's how dwellings are measured in the flood zone so you take whatever the lowest adjacent grade is add your building height to that and the maximum would be um there the ridge elevation for that is 36.3 right with the lowest adjacent grade of 11 so that equals 25 ft 3 and 3/4 in tall right 25 ft tall is the new building the new dwelling the new one that's closest to the water because there's two dwellings right the dwelling the cottage is the one I'm calling in the back and that's okay but it's 27 ft tall and and 25 ft tall correct 36 and 45t Tall 36 and 45 are elevation numbers yeah I understand that I just wanted to make sure that everyone understood that cuz I don't know if so is that really that it's 9 ft taller than the than the current uh Cottage and dwelling so well it's two different numbers one is nine one is 14 let me just make sure I'm giving it 10 I guess for the main uh the structure closest to Taylor's Pond David roughly 10 ft increase for the structure closest to Taylor Pond and 14t ridge height for the structure behind Okay and then the actual height of the building as Sarah mentioned is 25 and 27 so okay okay thank you one more quick question Jamie on your um gross floor area comparison which very helpful um all of the other properties you've listed in 24 20 19 13 are those also Upland numbers or are they total lot numbers uh those are total lot numbers the assessors does not break it down for us okay that's what I thought and so your number at 94,000 is much larger so visually there's a lot of property it's over two acres visually y I just wanted that's what I assumed because I drove there we drove there and didn't look like all the other properties were that large so I just wanted to confirm that yep thank you that's all I have okay Steve questions well I'm glad to see that you're trying um your best to uh keep the footprint as close as possible as it was I I know it's difficult it's probably I think you explained I would probably be easier to to to to build a new house than it would be to try to raise the the old one I understand that and I appreciate also it kind of looks like from the site plane that you're trying to uh maintain as much as the of the vegetation that's already there as possible at least the major ve vegetation getting rid of some of the overgrown stuff I can understand that um uh in one of these letters here it said um I guess from the um from the uh Conservation Commission that they have a meeting coming up on June 5th for a revised plan what exactly what is what are the revisions that they're looking for uh D you want to sure um so on the cottage that's up the hill we have the uh the little driveway uh turnaround area uh and uh there was a tree that we missed on the site plan that conservation notice and they asked us to redesign that that area to move it away from that tree so we could keep the they could keep the tree that's it that I think that was it okay yeah it was pretty minor okay all right thank you Lee questions um just a quick question uh the cottage up the hill has a garage yes but the the dwelling does not correct okay okay thank you Paul um I guess I have no questions no okay I was just wondering I um Council what street did you go down to be able to see this do you know the name of the street you went down what to see it from the pond yeah oh you go um uh cocko Cove you take a right on Taylor's Pawn Road and then there's a there's a turn off right there a little Landing it looks it looks directly across Off Taylor Pawn Road that's helpful oh thank you okay Paul uh I will move to close the hearing and move into deliberations Dave reach seconds and votes yes yes yes all vote Yes as do I okay deliberations Paul uh well it looks like a a good project to me um it's a uh it's an isolated area uh um I kayak in Taylor's Pond fairly frequently uh you'll see it from there uh but I think it'll be an attractive design to uh to look at and um Taylor's Pond is pretty well uh protected from uh storm surge and uh uh so forth by the marsh that goes out uh from uh Forest Beach so I think it should be uh satisfactory from that location um those would be my THS thoughts Dave Nixon deliberations well it's rare that I go to a property and I say wow I mean it it doesn't happen very often with me but when I walked in there and drove in I said isn't this fantastic and then I looked at what your client plans to do and I said this is really keeping it and modernizing it and good for them so I was very impressed by the property and also what your client's going to do Dave each deliberations yeah I I have to Echo what Dave just said I I um I I really want to compliment um the the design that the choices this is a I wish more projects came to us that that fit as well as this and and looked as good as this they wouldn't need it if that's true and I mean it's it's an it's a you know it's it basically references Beach cottages and things and it's a really nice design and uh and it fits that property and I and and again I I I looked and I I looked at the neighboring houses that I could see and I and I I I felt that well certainly on the on the lower house the main house um the part that they're going to put up a little bit higher is not going to negatively impact anyone's view from from what I could see down there the cottage um being that 14 fet higher than the existing Ridge at 9 ft higher than the the grade up in the corner may have it probably will be able to be seen from number 65 but I don't think that it's going to to um I would I don't think it's going to strongly negatively affect the view I can't say that because I don't live up there um but given that we you know the courts have told us that we are not to take into account individual um Property Owners views uh but neighborhood views and Vistas and that they are below the maximum Ridge height um I I don't feel that we I can I could not find this to be substantially more detrimental for those very reasons uh even though there may be some impact I am hopeful I think these are good-look buildings I don't think it's all said and done that the neighbor is going to be unhappy um and um it meets all of our criteria I will support it Kenny deliberations so I I like it very much too I appreciate that you on the dwelling you have various roof Heights it isn't just a massive structure that's right there on the water I think that was very you showed restraint and I think it's very attractive um talking about the dwelling um and I agree with the comments from my colleagues uh the cottage is taller it's it's bigger but it's very very small right now and um I think it's a beautiful property you've certainly got the large lot you've taken um what it's evident you've taken a lot of care to provide what is the footprints hardly changing at all in the dwelling little bigger on the cottage um but it's very well done proposal I would support it and Steve if you were voting um well I think it's a nice project in that um you know you're you're trying to be um you know within all the sitb backs you you're trying your best to uh to not change the um the environment too much um they're about the same sizes as they were maybe a little taller um but you're not maxing anything out which is um good these days so um I think it's a nice project I would vote to support it and wee I I agree with my colleagues um it's a beautiful spot um I really it's fairly modest and I really like the fact that the owner and the architect kind of are honoring the historic um the way it was um you know with the exception of the second second floor so if I were voting I would support it as well okay and I support it as well and I just want to say that I'm glad that the neighbors came and thank you for the opportunity to hear us of course and I just want to say that a lot of our applications are detrimental to the neighborhood they are but our standard is substantially detrimental um and when and as you can tell we used to we used to having applications that come that want to use every bit and go as tall as they can you've heard probably a lot more than I have about what people are trying to necessar trying to build in chadam and um I I applaud this applicant uh for caring about the environment um and for not trying to overdue so I will vote in favor as well um Paul um yes um I would say welcome uh to chattam to Paul deweer I knew your brother John and Nancy in hopkington um I'll move to approve the application as submitted in terms of conditions I think we should use our standard uh condition with respect to locating uh construction vehicles and so forth on site um and I guess the question would be do we need to restrict uh access to construction and so forth in the summertime what do you think Council uh we discussed that Paul's fine with that um condition he understands the um you know the neighbors are not going to be too happy there's a lot of you know a lot of people around the summertime so it's going to be challenging to get vehicles in and out anyway that time of year so he's happy to with the general restriction or the usual restriction on time okay all right well then on that basis I'll move to approve the application on the condition that all construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neor property with the permission of the property owner between June 30th and Labor Day no exterior construction will be allowed no work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity would be between 8:00 am and 5:00 P PM only Dave V seconds and votes yes I vote yes Jen Jenny votes yes well all votes yes as do I it's unanimous congratulations thank you very much thank you and we're going to take up 55 still waterer Road next 24- 046 when Sarah is ready you application number 24- 046 Kathleen Kilkenny car William FY Esquire peel box 707 chatam Mass 02633 owner of property located at 55 Stillwater Road also shown on the town of chadam assessor map 9j block 34 lot sw13 the applicant proposes to change alter or exp expand a non-conforming dwelling and a non-conforming lot via the construction of an addition the existing dwelling is non-conforming and it is located 23.2 ft from the Westerly a butter where a 25t setback is required the proposed addition will comply with all bulk and dimensional requirements of the bylaw but is considered a substantial alteration and under the second accept Clause of section 6 of Mass General Law chapter 40a such substantial alteration requires the grant of special permit the existing building coverage is 1,214 ft and the proposed building coverage is 1,887 Ft or 2,850 ft is the maximum allowed the law is non-conforming in that it contains 22228 ft or 60,000 ft is required in the r60 zoning District a special permit is required under Mass General law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5D of protective bylaw Mr Riley welcome back thank you very much Madam chair uh Bill Riley on behalf of Kathleen kill Kenny uh unfortunately Kathleen can't be here because she's with her husband having back surgery today and that's part of the the pro the project here is that they're modifying the house so they can age in place the way many of us like to do the build modifications were designed by Karen Kempton who's here today and ask her to come up and wrong one never mind she's here for one of these things today any right so basically what they want to do is uh they're going to put an addition on the right hand side that has a drive under the garage in a family room above and then it'll be uh one story living once you get up there the uh if you've been to the site I was surprised at the topography I'm so used to chat I'm not having being more flat than anything else I was really surprised at the topography and the tree growth so you really can't see it's difficult to see the different houses uh from one another which which uh I thought was kind of surprising so but I think that works uh to the benefit of the applicant here because uh aside from looking directly at the house from the street up the driveway I don't think this addition is visible uh to the neighbors uh in any way again because of topography and the tree growth the U so look at the floor plan basically what they're adding is a is a two-car garage and then a a family room over there and so that once the once the project is complete they're going to have a family room a kitchen and a bedroom all on all on one floor so it be basic uh one floor of living which is uh what their goal is in this instance the the design could you put the colored rendering up again Sarah so as you see from the design it's very much in keeping with the existing structure uh most of the homes in the neighborhood are also very traditional uh as this one is so I think the design is very much in keeping with the neighborhood so I think and I'll just run through the criteria okay adequacy of the size of the site in terms of the proposed use the U coverage is increasing but even the increase coverage is only 88.5% uh where 15% would be allowed so the the uh it's a very modest addition compatibility the size of the proposed structure we we have a third sheet where we've compared um the gross floor areas as as best we can calculate them uh so I think the the uh so we're you know a little bit bigger because of the two-car garage but other than that uh visually uh I think the home is very much compatible in terms of the size of the proposed structure with all the neighboring properties there cases like this where I think the gross floor area uh is really misleading because if you if you drive down the road and you look at this house even this house has proposed you wouldn't think oh this the biggest house in the neighborhood but because of the requirement for showing a gross floor area that number makes it look like it's the largest home in the neighborhood so in any event the um so the extent of proposed increase in nonconforming nature of the structure the uh this is an R40 zone now clearly was an R20 Zone when it was developed uh the um so what we're doing is we're increasing the living area on a non-conforming lot and so that's considered an increase in a non-conforming nature suitability of the site including but not limited to impact on neighboring Properties or on the natural environment including slopes vegetation Wetlands ground water water bodies and storm water runoff as you know from your visit there there are no wetlands in close proximity to the property I suppose theoretically there could be some runoff down the driveway which already exists uh I think the contractor uh will you will take the steps necessary to prevent any excess storm water running off onto the onto the street impact of scale citing a mass on neighborhood visual character including views Vistas and Street Scapes again you know the modest size of the addition and the traditional design uh I think that I think that it constitutes an improvement on this site and certainly uh given its modest size is not substantially more detrimental uh to the neighborhood I think it fits in very nicely okay thank you so much um is there anybody here or on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application if so please make it known seeing none I will read the correspondence Judith Georgio our health agent writes on May 20th 2024 I reviewed the plan to add an attached garage with a bonus family room above to this property the property was approved and SE septic was installed for the existing three-bedroom property the bonus room with a six- foot cased opening into the kitchen area is acceptable and does not add additional flow I have no concerns that concludes the correspondence for that application is there anybody here in Microsoft teams that has a question or wishes to speak against this application seeing none questions from the board Jenny um I agree with you Mr Riley when you were talking about the gross floor area looks like it's not as much as it is and I think that's because there's some wrong numbers on this page but I I don't it's I'm looking at your page and it's way under what it's showing on the um cover page but can you just confirm then that it's not 4,756 square fet of I'm talking about the proposed glow gross floor area which is what you have here to in your packet and you have it at 3,372 which is a lot uh Les I just wanted to reconcile that the uh I have to admit that uh I didn't do the math today okay so Sarah is that is that right do you know uh I believe the existing is 3,000 I'm just looking um typically it is listed on the plan well it's and this is a different plan so I stumbled around with the plan myself um okay you have the existing storage utility room at 814 Square fet the existing garage at 274 Square ft the proposed garage is 593 Square ft if you look at page um page two of the plan set it has existing gross floor area of 29 14.5 and they're doing proposed addition gross floor area 1850 so the 4700 number is correct it's combining the two yes okay um that's that's all I had question Steve um I guess just for the record What Becomes of the existing garage I think it's going to remain available for either boat storage or car storage okay it's not being converted to a room or something no no this is a two-person family I think the real goal is to have one floor living for them okay thank you that's it Lee questions no questions well I have no questions Dave Nixon well Mr Riley as you know whenever I see a bonus room I smell a rat so um if I were your client I would want that to be my master bedroom but that's not how it's laid out well the the U the benefit of that so Davis said you be really close to the kitchen so okay um they should have put they should have put family room and then there wouldn't be any questions but so I I presume You' accept a condition in regards to the bonus room that it not be used as a bedroom of course so well see let me let me make this suggestion it can't be used as an additional better well that yeah you'd have to wipe out one of the others right yeah and that that's that's governed by Board of Health regulations right right but you know things happen so yeah I know I know okay I don't know Paul how we word that but I'll be looking for a little bit of help sir did you wish to uh say something excuse me my Don Po from Eastwood companies I was just going going to say that the intent of the room over the garage is to be kind of a multi-purpose space Kathleen is an attorney in town and she intends and right now she's using one of the first floor bedrooms as an office she's going to be relocating that space into this area also some TV space for the family and then they're going to be moving downstairs to the existing space that she's using as an office as their first floor bedroom that's that's what's going to happen thank you Don okay Dave I have no questions no no questions I don't have any questions either did I miss anybody Paul question I'll I'll uh no I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations um Dave V seconds and votes yes yes okay yes well all vote Yes as do I so deliberations um Dave Nixon well I think we just did and so I would vote in favor of it with the understanding and whatever the condition we come up with about that bonus room okay Dave ni each uh um I think it's a nice project um it meets all of our criteria um I'm not as concerned about the nomenclature of the of the but I'll go along with whatever we decide um anyway um it's I think it's an improvement not substantially more detrimental in the neighborhood I'll support it very good uh Jenny yeah I think it's a it's actually that's why I was questioning the numbers because it sounds so it looked it sounded it looked looked so massive but it isn't um it's a very attractive design even though the garage on again looking at the numbers is over 29 ft it's set down into the grade is very attractive um so I um I would support it Steve I think I feel the same way it doesn't appear to affect the neighbors adversely in in anyway and uh if it's going to make their life a little bit easier like it sounds like um I'd be for and I agree I think it's a nice addition um it will make their life a little easier and uh having another garage is always helpful and Paul yeah clearly it uh fits into the neighborhood and uh um I'm so amazed that uh they could get that boat on the trailer up there to the right hand side way up I mean I can't imagine getting up there but anyhow yeah and and i would support it as well and I think um the issue of that bonus room they already took pains to make a six foot cased opening a lot of times we don't see that and Judith Georgio has to russle with them to do that um but they've already done that here and we can't be peeking in the window to see if they sleep in there so I think uh I'm okay with it as it is I don't know if Jay wants to get arrested at PE Tom I don't think so so why not anyway um so Paul well I'll move to approve the application has submitted I guess the question is conditions in terms of construction what are your thoughts Bill the given the nature of the neighborhood I don't I don't think you need any of the summertime restrictions does anybody know the houses are houses are sufficiently separated you know there's room on the on the property for the construction vehicles and it's a pretty small addition so I just don't see it as a major disruption in the neighborhood what do you think dve I agree I mean there's only few neighbors around and um you know it's a a dead end Road more I I I think be okay with just the timing of construction stuff but not the not prohibiting exterior yeah and that would be acceptable no work before 8 o00 no work after 5 o'clock and no work on weekends that's perfectly acceptable what do you think Dave Nixon that's okay and Jenny I agree Steve and Lee okay all right Paul continue all right um I'll move to approve on the condition that uh all construction activity and vehicles will be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner um between June 30th and Labor Day yes please uh no exterior construction will be allowed no work should be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8:00 a and 5:00 p.m. only um I don't think I see a need for a restriction on the record in terms of sleeping in the bonus room given that that's not allowed as it is but uh I my understanding was we were not going to put the exterior construction prohibition on the summer the summer that was mine as well do the timing but not timing not I thought he said no construction before 8 no construction after five but the construction during the summer is allowed okay well let's let's revise it to that extent then uh yes Y and with that change I'll move to approve it and I will second and vote Yes Dave Nixon you okay with that well I don't have quite the faith some of the others do about what might happen to the bonus room but I vote Yes good and Jenny I vote Yes and Pa all votes yes all right as do I it's unanimous congratulations thank you very much thank you all right let's see what time it is 4:30 all right so we are going to go on to um 53 Marsh View Road When Sarah's ready applic number 24047 avarro James Master bro and Laura Elizabeth Master bro car William Riley Esquire P box 707 chadam Mass 02633 owners of property located at 53 marshview Road also shown on the town of chadam assessor map 8C block 26 lot s38 the applicant proposes to enlarge proposes to change alter or expand a conforming dwelling and a non-conforming lot VI the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a new dwelling the existing dwelling and proposed dwelling will comply with all bulk and dimensional requirements of the bylaw but is considered a substantial alteration and under the second accept Clause of section six of Mass General Law chapter 4A such substantial alteration requires the grant of a special permit the existing building coverage is 955 ft 7.5% and the proposed building coverage is 1,788 Ft 14% where 15% is the maximum allowed the law is non-conforming and that it contains 12,775 ft where 20,000 ft is required in the R20 zoning District a special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw Mr Riley Miss Kempton welcome uh good afternoon Bill Riley on behalf of the Muno uh family um Karen is the architect and I'd like to have her explain uh the design criteria that the family gave her and how she accomplished it thank you uh Karen hempton architect for Jim and Laura Master Bono I think Jim is online here um Sarah if you could pull up the existing plan of the house yep so the existing single story home was built in 1963 and has been a summer cottage for Jim and lure for over 20 years they would now like to make this a year round home uh as they are moving to chattam full-time the existing house is 933 Square ft with no attic space and no basement the bedrooms are quite small so if you can see that it's 22 ft on the left hand side take out two feet for the closet each of those bedrooms is about 10 by 10 pretty small and the master is uh 12 by 10 um there is a so the proposed house uh will have all bedrooms on the second floor to give the first floor open public space there is an increase of 272 Square ft of first floor living but still it's a modest 1272 Square ft on the first floor Sarah first floor plan there you go thank you and um if you look forward the gross floor area then as you can see does increase because they are adding a single car garage and they are adding a full basement uh but we there are no or very few other garages uh in this neighborhood but where they will be here fulltime it was important for them to have a garage Jim and lore also requested to keep the existing septic system which requires a 20 foot setback to the house so we have looked to minimize any extension into the 100ft setback from the top of Coastal Bank uh there is a view on the west side of the house so they wanted to maintain this area as their outdoor living space facing Marsh View Road the house is 14 ft longer if we can pullet the site plan is 14 ft longer than the existing house and that is by the addition of this onecar garage the main portion of the house is 28 ft wide with two doghouse Dormers connected with a recess shed roof so if you bring up the front elevation you can see the main part where the front door is is only 28 ft pretty much the same size as would be a half Cape um the proposed height is 25 ft above top of foundation which is 3' 6 in lower than the allowed uh height um when I did the plans I wrote 25 plus or minus which got translated into 25 fet from top of foundation so it's up to you but if I could ask for four more inches just for construction tolerance but if that's an issue that's fine I I'll work with it 25 um the additional structures to the left and to the right have lower Ridge Heights and have smaller shed Dormers that sit in 2 feet from the ends of the roof line the right side has a 6ft deep covered porch which recesses the wall of the house an additional 7 F feet away from the front corner board so by these additive structures the house is minimized in scale the ridge height will be 8 ft higher than the existing due to the addition of the second floor however the second floor appear appearance is minimized by the design of these Dormers the house will be 39.6 ft back from the front property line where 25 ft is required the house will be cited on the lot similarly to the exist existing house but will not bet we'll have the first floor one foot lower than the existing house the rear of the house is an additional 6 feet 9 in away from the rear setback we are also conforming to the Bucks Creek Road setback uh as the proposed house is um an additional 16 ft away from the 25t road setback although we are closer on the east side the addition of a G by the addition of the garage we see this as the quiet side of the house and all outdoor activity will be taking place on the west side of the house the basement is fully below grade and although it does add to the gross floor area is an important space as the existing house only has crawl space um and we feel it does not add to the visual massing of the house at all as it is all below grade there's no walk out there is no area way proposed uh so that we hope you agree that the traditional Cape with Dormers and added to structures um replacing the existing house in a similar location is not more detrimental to the neighborhood but an attractive addition to the streetcape that's my presentation thank you if you have any questions for Karen we'll get to that okay uh let me run through the criteria and stop me at whatever number you want the adequacy of the size of the site in terms of the size the proposed use uh as Karen indicated uh you know this is this is not a situation where Jim and Laura are trying to maximize uh the lot the proposed coverage is 14% where 15% would be allowed the uh compatibility of the size of the proposed structure with the neighboring properties there's obviously a very significant increase in the gross flow area because the existing house has no attic and no basement and so or a garage either for that matter so we're adding a garage we're adding a basement and I think those numbers uh tend to distort the impact that the property actually has on the neighborhood so we believe that although the gross flow area is significantly larger uh that the uh you know the visual impact of the property as as Karen indicated basically it's 28 by 28 with with two wings of mod size and uh and height so we believe that the uh the proposed structure is compatible uh with the neighborhood the extent of proposed increase in a non-conforming nature uh Jim and Laura have made sure that uh the proposed structure meets all all the current setbacks in the bylaw both sideline setbacks Street setback and rear yard set packs so the near increase in nonconforming nature uh is the increase in living area uh which as you know is constitutes an increase in a non-conforming nature suitability of the site including uh you know but not limited to to impact on neighboring properties natural environment slopes vegetation Wetlands groundwater water bodies and storm water runoff uh the project is a little bit elevated from the street and as you can see on the plan uh the proponent is proposing uh what straw Waddles which are uh like tubular structures of straw that would prevent uh any storm water runoff from carrying siltation or dirt out into the street or on the uh the Wetland which is located across the street and this project uh was taken uh Dave Clark took this project through conservation and and uh we have their approval impact of scale sighting and Mass on neighborhood visual character including views Vistas and Street Scapes so the the uh the properties along uh Marshville Road all tend to look out towards the marsh not surprisingly the property behind this property doesn't look towards the marsh it looks to the West so our building even though we're increasing the height and the size of the building is not having a negative impact on any views that that property has so I think that the when you take into consideration uh the very attractive design that Karen has put together for for Jim and Laura uh I think that in our opinion anyway even though the ridge is going up by 8 feet that this project is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing structure it's a single family house and a single family neighborhood uh you know the using the existing septic system no impact on traffic flowing and safety or noise and litter and utilities and public services are adequate and that'll be our presentation Madam chair thank you so much um is there anybody here are on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application please indicate seeing none I will read the correspondence there are two one is from our health agent Judith Georgio on May 20th 2024 I have reviewed the plan to demolish the existing dwelling and rebuild a new dwelling the planned dwelling will maintain the three-bedroom layout of the existing dwelling and use the same septic system she has no concerns about the project and then we have a note from Rob toz and he lives at 58 marshview road he States on let's see trying to see when this was May 6 2024 I'm a neighbor of Jim and Lauren live directly across the street at 58 marshview road in chadam I was excited to hear about their plans to renovate their existing home and property after what was I am sure an exciting planning process I have reviewed the plans designed by Karen kmom and are pleased with how their new home will fit nicely into the character of the neighborhood Karen has also designed several other properties in our neighborhood over the years and those have been well Reed received as well given the trend of building much larger homes to replace older more traditional Cape style homes it was comforting to see that the plans for Jim and Lara's new home will be tactfully designed with a clear thought towards not overwhelming their property I particularly like the Farmers porch and the traditional Cape style exterior proposed for the project I look forward to enjoying a summer beverage and some lengthy banter with both and Lara at the completion party next summer if you require anything please let me know and he gives his phone number which I will not recite is there anybody here or in Microsoft teams that wishes to speak against or has a question about this application make it known seeing none questions from the board Jenny just one question Karen probably really minor just was curious on the site plan there's like a in the northwest corner there's a there's a black dotted line just on what is that that's showing well the heavy Dash the heavy solid line is the roof the dash line is the wall of the porch oh so that that's a roof overhang okay yes okay thank you Steve questions um I have no questions no Lee no questions well no questions they each I have no questions nion no questions I don't have any questions either uh Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations D each seconds and votes yes yes good job yes yes and yes so uh deliberations uh see Steve yeah sorry um well I think this is a large house for that neighborhood um um most of the houses there are modest ranch style houses and I'm not sure that I would call this house a traditional Cape um I'm not crazy about the columns in the front and I I have a feeling that this house might be setting a precent for that neighborhood and that it's larger twostory building um I guess um you know there's nothing wrong with setting a precedent I guess but I I'm I think this might be um again borderline detrimental to the neighborhood just because of its size and mass compared to the rest of the ones that are there substantially detrimental I don't know about substantially okay but I think it is borderline yep so you'll hear from your other colleagues and see what you think all right Jenny what do you think yeah I think it's a beautiful design but I agree it it's um it you know the building coverage is d Almost doubling the northwest corner you before you were not in conservation at all even though it's just a little bit and I watched the hearing and they were fine with it you know it's you're encroaching now on CCD um I completely appreciate the desire to expand it's a cute house but it's it's small um but 14 feet longer six feet wider the height is great it's lower so I am just trying to visualize it um but I feel like the combination of those things is uh perhaps you know an intensification I'm I'm struggling primarily with criteria two which is the compatibility of the proposed structure in within the neighboring properties I agree with Steve that not to say neighborhoods can't change but the vast majority of the houses in that neighborhood are single story and they're pretty small and and it's a small relatively small lot at under 13,000 so I um am also thinking that it's detrimental to the neighborhood subst M chair yes yes sir most of these homes were built in 1963 6465 and the idea that somehow um they're trapped in the 60s you know this is a I I really think you should reconsider your thought process there but that's you know well thank thank you for that I I agree you shouldn't be doomed to build but the other houses in the neighborhood are very wellmaintained I mean it looks as though they are um comfortable with what they've had there isn't a lot of change yet so I I I did say I was struggling but I just sharing my thoughts all right so Mr Riley if you could just wait till we go through our Del deliberations so I'll give you a chance to uh scold us all individually later um Lee um I agree with my colleagues it's a absolute beautiful design I I really love the house I love how you've decreased the mass in a number of different ways um the one thing that it has going against it however is the Lots elevation it's really sits up there over the ne the neighboring houses around it so I think it's great and I um but I'm still I am struggling with criteria number two as well um so my two cents okay thank you um Dave what do you think um I agree the uh it's a a very nice design nice looking design Karen um I'm I'm not troubled by this one really I I mean this neighborhood I mean I guess I kind of tend to think of the neighborhood as the entire development and um within that development there's been a number of changes to some of these to some of the houses um I mean you could it's actually I think comment at a previous meeting one point about you drive around that neighborhood and literally see the you can read the change in what people expect from homes from the time they were built the original because a number of The Originals still left there up to the latest pimus and savory um um confection on the top of the hill somewhere I mean uh it's it's it's really there's a lot going on there and I think that this house certainly doesn't stretch any further than than what's been previously done in some of the other locations again I I think um it's they're meeting the the criteria of the bylaw with respect to with respect to height respect to setbacks respect to lot coverage all of those things they started out with a 900 squ ft House of one floor um you know that that I so I don't see the go to go from there to the was it 1700 1700 square fet of of footprint it's not a huge stretch and and uh it it reads to me as a as a basic in terms of Cape it's it's like a story and a half Stu the presentation of it is basically a one and a half story type presentation uh and I don't see it as being substantially more detrimental at all I think it's an improvement to the neighborhood uh and um it meets our criteria it I don't think that the increase uh in in size um is is out of really out of scale for the neighborhood and I'll support thank you what do you think Paul well I I agree with Dave V you drive through this neighborhood and I think of the neighborhood as being that whole section from um uh the main Beach Road all the way down to Bucks Creek you will see every kind of house potential that could exist in town uh they're all different kinds uh very different uh designs and I think it's difficult to uh in this case picture exactly where where we're going to be because we're starting with such a small uh piece of property and small house uh but I think the design is uh is excellent and I think that um it will fit into the neighborhood in the sense that like uh the rest of the houses there they're all individual to themselves I don't think there's any one consistent uh style of home uh other than when they first started in the 1960s um so um I don't think that overall I could say it's substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood so I would uh intend to vote uh in favor Dave Nixon deliberations well I do think it's substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and let's just you know there's as we know there's no definition in neighborhood so what neighborhood is for me I walk around and I look at everything I can see or can be seen from all the houses around and every one of them was one story but more than that this house is the highest point you know it that lot really Rises up so when you put camera's design at the top of this this is going to be to me if we look at uh two and five of our criteria this is going to be massive in relation to that neighborhood that I see secondly um I walked around back and I wanted to see how this home would impact bucks Creek and there's a house very close and and from the site plan you see how absolutely close it is to the proposed structure and yes there's a stockade fence there but I could just I could see over it by going up on their little deck out back and I could see their outside living area and I said well with this home being built that would destroy the privacy and that that fence is not going up I mean it's it's up as as far as you're going again so I just I can't see that this is a positive to the ne neighborhood and it is substantially more after metal to the neighborhood when you look at what it's going to be when it's finished it's going to be the big big house on the hill okay so I'm going to go back to Jenny just so we can have a a good head count you you want me to tell you what I think are you or I can go to Jenny you were going to give me an opportunity I was gonna just soon as we're all done own and the owner has the hand raised as well so why don't we go to the owner we're gonna we're going to bend the rules I don't think we have to vote for that do we no so I'm going to go to the owner sure owner yeah hi this is Jim aono um I'm I'm surprised by this comment on you know detrimental to the neighborhood um you know first there are many there's probably well over a dozen or so uh two-story homes in in that neighborhood I'm on Mash Road alone on the road I live on is um is several um and they are of different styles um so um we really tried to do something that our neighbors were fully aware of and and fully wanted in fact I personally wrote letters to each and every utter um many of them contacted me in full support I showed plans to them um the last gentleman just spoke and said that uh he went on our back deck on the existing structure and if that and there's going to be infringement on the um the property view of the people who are next to us the people are next to us right there are fully in support of this project and our patio actually goes off to the side of the house so we don't actually we actually buffer them buffer the noise going into their backyard they were very pleased with that um you heard the letter from our neighbor who's visually most impacted by our project uh he's very supportive of it he went through the details of the plan um there was uh one neighbor who doesn't have an email and I had it write him a letter and I had to go and knock on his door and and we talked about it at length and he was uh and I described the whole project and he was also uh very uh very pleased um by the uh by the design by the uh you know the scope the fact that it it overlays on um you know really the existing footprint so we're not really Chang changing it uh we're actually pulling pulling some the old driveway out of the conservation buffer and the bulk of the new driveway is outside of that so we you know we've we've I think addressed um our neighbors con all our neighbors concerns got a lot of positive uh feedback so I I don't I don't know if this is substantially detrimental in in according to my neighbors um and I made sure that I surveyed them all and got got their feedback um and that's why I think today you don't have anyone on the call speaking negatively because they're very much informed and they're very pleased by what's going on here and I I disagree that this will look like a house on the hill um it's it is going to be a little higher than the existing structure but uh the the grade is going to drop a foot as Karen noted and the um the the neighborhood is very undulating so that just that's just the way it goes so um I I would disagree as the homeowner that this is um a substantial detrimental at all I'm getting the exact opposite from the people who live in that neighborhood that it is not detrimental it'll be a a significant Improvement and they're very excited about the uh the project okay sir just just so you know I think it's great that you worked with your neighbors and I think we all think that's extremely important it would be interesting if they even all came in or if they all wrote letters but I don't think just so you know wouldn't really probably change what the members think because this is the neighbors that are there now are a snapshot in time and real estate is forever in a sense so that's the way we look at that and um that's fair fair enough yeah and also what the opinion of the neighbors isn't one of our criteria it's just often interesting and important to to get input but um we're looking at criteria and I'm going to go ahead and say I think the criteria that I don't see met here are one two and uh especially five the impact of scale sighting and Mass on the neighborhood visual character because I agree that this is a beautiful house and it's going to really stand out but it's also a much bigger footprint the way I look at it on the site plan and it's going to be even if it wasn't up higher it's going to be like this large gorgeous house in a in a neighborhood of small ranches that's the way I see it so I agree with my colleague well some of my colleagues um and so I would not be voting in favor and I can see that that's two but I still want to go to Jenny Fenwick to see what she thinks and then we'll let Mr Riley um opine so um so I mentioned uh my reservations about it and uh that I was thinking it was detrimental wasn't certain substantially more Lee brought up a great point and M Mr Nixon um as well that and I was there and and they reminded me that it is a high point in that neighborhood and I'm I am afraid the size of it it's beautiful Karen you did a nice job um but I think it's going to be looming on that particular spot okay Mr Riley do you want to say anything else yeah I do because I think the uh I think your uh concerns particularly about the height of the property are completely uh incorrect I think that one reason why uh there's nobody here objecting is that those people the people in the neighborhood see this as something that's going to raise the value of all the houses around it that's why they're in favor of it they think it's going to improve the value of their properties and to talk about this lot like it's uh the Iger in Switzerland the well it's four feet higher than the street I mean it's not like it's 10 feet higher it's four feet higher than the street I mean so but well all right so if we cut two feet off the lot is that something that now it's not going to loom over the property I mean really you I mean you really think that four feet is looming and the and the person who sent the letter in favor of it that's the guy whose lot you can look into so I think I I really think you should reconsider your thoughts I understand you know you've all spoken your opinions and well we'll reconsider when we see a new site plan after you continue so um do you wish to get a continuance have a vote or withdraw now we'd request a continuous to the first available meeting Mee uh that would be August 8th all right thank you very much thank you August 8th okay Paul uh I will move to Grant the requested continuance to August 8th 2024 dve V second and votes yes you know if I might comment we hear this a lot what Mr Ry was just talking about about well it's going to increase the values of the homes and all that our criteria is not is this going to raise the value of the homes in the neighborhood is it going to decrease it that's not anything we ever considered it is just not and we shouldn't and we don't so but in terms of what sub we're all done with you what substan detrimental Mr Riley time out uh you vote Yes on the continuance I do all right good Jenny yes PA yes as do I that's unanimous thank you Mr Riley so so there's no further comment I mean I just as the owner well you can talk to your attorney and and all your your staff uh sir but um that would be it for today okay and when s Sarah is ready we're going to go to Kitty's Lane 54 application number 24-48 Todd ble and Anne B car of William filey Esquire peel box 707 chadam Mass 02633 owners of property located at 54 kitties lean also shown on the town of chadam assessors map 3B block 57 lot b75 the applicant seeks to enlarge extender change a conforming dwelling on non-conforming lot be the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a new dwelling the existing dwelling and proposed dwelling will comply with all bul dimensional requirements of the bylaw but is considered a substantial alteration and under the second accept Clause of section six of Mass General Law chapter 4A such substantial alteration requires the grant of special permit the existing building coverage is 842 ft 10.4% and the proposed building coverage is 1,210 Square ft 14.9% where 15% is the maximum allowed the lot is non-conforming and that it contains 8,000 134 Square ft or 20,000 ft is required in the R20 zoning District a special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw Mr Riley welcome back this property's at the bottom of the well can we just vote approval and go home yeah well we we like to we like to follow the rules okay all right so uh if you've been the Kitty's Lane uh that's where an and Todd ble live an is in the back row although an I can tell you there's nothing to be frightened of they don't bite the uh and so they have a very modest home as you can tell uh and they want to be able to use it for year round use uh so that this design uh will enable them to do that um it literally is at the bottom of the neighborhood uh so although the ridge is going to increase by about 8 feet the U you know they're not going to be blocking anybody's views or or have any negative impact on on the neighboring properties in fact uh when you look around the immediate homes immediately across the street as some of us are want to do they're all uh two-story homes that are substantially larger than than uh the BL home the the design is you know traditional want to put the design up Karen elevations yeah so the design is very traditional and the U so I think it fits well into the neighborhood although I have to tell you if you drive down Kitty's lane from forest Beach Road there are a couple of pretty strange looking homes on the right hand side which shows you how tough it is to to uh you know build in that neighborhood because the lots are so small uh most of them are between 8 and 9,000 Square fet so anyway that's the so I think that it's a tribute to the blight that they're able to put a conventional design that that solves their problems uh but doesn't overwhelm other neighborhood in any way U so just run through the criteria here the adequacy of the size of the site in terms of size the proposed use uh the building meets all current setbacks 25 ft from the road at least 15 ft from each sideline uh does not exceed the 15% allowed under our zoning bylaw and the ridge of the house is going to be 2 feet below the maximum Ridge of 28 ft where 30 ft would be allowed compatibility of the proposed structure we have uh done the numbers again and the the uh you know we're still uh you know a small home in a in a neighborhood where we have a lot of different size homes so I think I think you can say that it is very much compatible again the only increase in non-conforming nature is the increase in living area uh we think the site is suitable we don't have to worry about runoff going anywhere else this all going to stay right on this lot the uh impact on scale sighting and Mass on en neighood visual ual character uh most of these properties were developed in the late 40s and and early 50s and so really all the blights are doing is taking a small cottage and and bringing it to the modern day uh without going to excess and using a very traditional design so I believe that structure is not substantially more detrimental uh than the existing structure uh compatibility the use it's a single family home and a single family neighborhood uh you know septic system is going to remain the same impa impact on traffic flow and safety is none uh same thing no change in those in L utilities and public services are adequate so I think that uh you could find that this property is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood thank you oh thank you is there anybody here or on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application if so please indicate nobody is here to speak in favor I will read the correspondence there is only one from Judith Georgio our health agent she writes on May 20th 2024 I reviewed the plan to demolish the existing dwelling and rebuild a new dwelling the planned dwelling will maintain the two-bedroom layout of the existing dwelling and use the septic system I have no concerns about this project anybody here are on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak against or has a question about this application if so please make it known seeing none uh questions from the board Dave I have no questions da Nixon none jny no questions Steve no questions Lee no questions well no questions I don't have any questions either I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations David seconds and votes yes yes yes yes and yes as do I deliberations uh lee okay um well I think this is a great project it meets all the criteria and it's a very good example of a house fitting in nicely to the neighborhood so if I were voting I would vote yes very good Steve I feel the same as Lee I think this is a nice project it it uh resembles a lot of the other houses in the neighborhood and I think it would be beneficial and Jenny I agree with you Mr Riley I think that it was um was a nice proposal and I agree with my colleagues that um appreciate the desire to expand and it's a nice plan to do that and fits in the neighborhood okay Paul I agree with my colleague's comments yeah I wish that this is what had happened in the previous application y so does Mr Riley it would still be on a hill so Dave be yeah I I agree with the previous uh comments from my colleagues except I'm not sure I agree with Mr Riley but other all right what about conditions yeah that's fine okay so ma'am just so you know it's not okay to talk from there but you're welcome to come up to the mic no the the uh because of the tight neighborhood they're willing to accept the usual summer prohibition against construction outside construction I'll I'll move to approve the application as submitted with the condition that all construction activity and vehicles will be contained on site or a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner between June 30th and Labor Day no exterior construction will be allowed no work should be permitted on the weekends and construction activity would be between 800 am and 5:00 P PM only Dave V seconds and votes yes yes jny yes well all votes yes as DOI it's unanimous congratulations thank you very much oh that seems to conclude our CR our agenda for today I will move to adjourn DAV seconds and votes yes Nixon yes J yes Steve yes Lee Yes PA yes as doai okay what time is it 5:14 p.m. all right good night chadam thank you everybody [Music] w [Music]