Jesus Christ. [Music] [Music] oil. Heat.
[Music] Yeah.
[Music] Good afternoon everyone. This is August
14th, 2025 and and we are at the Town of Cadam Zoning Board of Appeals meeting pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28th, 2025 signing of the acts of 2025 extending certain COVID measures adopted during the state of emergency until June
30th, 2027. This meeting of the Cadam Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted both in person and via remote participation. Every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided far in the order. A reminder, persons who
would like to listen to this meeting in progress, please call 1508-945 4410 conference ID 659-950784 pound or join the meeting through the available link on the uh town's website.
While this is a live broadcast and simoc cast of the of Chat on Chattam TV, despite our best effort, we may not be able to provide real time access. We will post a recording 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. like to just take this time to remind everybody to shut off all gadgets that make any noise whatsoever. And
please don't speak unless and until you're recognized by the chair and then you're standing at the mic. The way we um conduct the proceedings are as follows. We have a roll call of all board members. We ask that anybody
participating online actually by phone just please make it uh make yourself known however you can do that. Hearing notice is read by staff Sarah Clark on my right and then um you are your representative will present the appeal
or application. Anyone in favor will have up to five minutes to speak. The chair I will read all letters received by the board. After that, anybody who has a question or has a problem with the application, wants to speak against it,
that would be the time to do that. Up to five minutes as well, and then the applicant will have an opportunity to rebut any testimony. Members will have questions. We'll hear further information, close the public hearing,
and deliberate. At that point, deliberations are closed to the public unless somebody on the board wants to um ask you a question. Um and then we will wave the rules. Um we will then deliberate and vote on the appeal or
application. All votes are taken by roll call and at the end of the meeting we will close via a verbal confirmation and note the time of adjournment. In the town in not the town in the state of Massachusetts you need four out of five
votes in order to prevail. Voting today will be David Vch, David Nixon, myself, Randy Potach, um Virginia Fenwick, and Paul Simple for the very beginning. And then next in line,
because Paul is going to have to depart, Ed Actton will be then voting. Okay, at this point, um roll call vote of all board members and we'll start with David Vch. Uh David H. and I approve this format.
Ed Actton, I approve. David S. Henson, I approve. Lee Hvey, I approve. Steven D. Debor, I approve. Virginia Fenwick, I approve. Paul C. Simple, I approve. And Randy Podach, I also approve of this form of meeting. And next we have uh
Paul, I think we have one set of minutes from July 10th, 2025. I believe we do. So, I'll move to approve the amendments for July 10, 2025 as published. Uh, David seconds and votes yes. Yes.
Yeah. Oh, yes, please. Miss Fenwick. I have Yep. July 10th. I don't see that Lee Hy is listed here on the list of roll call, but she was attending that meeting. Okay. Lee should be added. And then also I
believe that the approval of the minutes right below that um it lists Steve Dbor as approving those minutes. It should be ed. Okay. So it should be ed act and approving. Not no not Steve it should be ed. Yeah it should be ed approving and okay
for June 5th. Well so with that can we now get a roll call vote? Thank you. Um, Madame Clerk, I will uh um second and vote yes. Uh, Ed votes yes.
Yeah. Um, Lee Lee votes yes. Paul votes yes. Genie votes yes. Okay, that would be that. Next, the first application we have is simply going to be um opening a hearing and continuing it. and we'll
we'll talk more about that in a moment, but I'm going to let um Sarah read the advertisement. Application number 25-077, Penrose LLC, 15 Milk Street, 16th floor, Boston Mass, 02109. The property is owned by the Town of
Cadam located at Zero Meeting House Road, also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map, 4E, block 11A, lot AB. The applicants are requesting the grant of a comprehensive permit under Mass General Law Chapter 40B sections 20 through 23 and 760 CMR56 for the
construction of 42 dwelling units in eight structures. The applicants are requested a grant of various waiverss from regulations promulgated by the Chattam zoning bylaw, the Chattam Water and Sewer Department and other local regulations. The property contains 3.57
acres in the R60 zoning district. Please note that this hearing will will be opened without testimony presented and continued. Oh, thank you. So, um before we continue this, I'm going to ask council a question um for the benefit of the
public. Um welcome, Attorney Talaman. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Thank you for coming. Um so, can you for the benefit of the public, can you tell us what safe harbor means? And then part two, does the qu
town qualify for any protection under safe safe harbor? Okay, so safe harbor under 40b is could be a number of things. The statute um provides a few safe harbors and then the
regulations provide a few additional safe harbors. A safe harbor, the primary safe harbor that we hear of or let me back up a little bit. The safe harbor is a means by which the town can be relieved of the normal obligations under
40b which are generally more differential to a developer and where a town if a town has a safe harbor they can condition or deny a project with impunity. The primary safe harbor that
we know of through the statute is um reaching 10% affordable housing. So, if your town has 10% affordable housing, you don't have to entertain an approval. If you don't want to, you can. It's permissive, but you don't have to of a
40B project. There are a few others in the statute for safe harbor. Those include uh an area um if your town already has affordable housing comprising a certain amount of acreage
in your town then that is a safe harbor as well. The regulations provide a number of other safe harbors and those include whether or not um uh a project
uh under 40B is um less than a year following a project that was not under 40B on the same site. Um there are other safe harbors relating to progress towards affordable housing.
how much progress you make. If you have a housing production plan and you get 0.5% increase in your affordable housing, then you have a safe harbor. If you don't have a housing production plan, you have to make much more progress than
that. And then there's a few others, large projects. Um a town, a smaller town doesn't have to um entertain projects that are excessive in size. So there's a few others. The process for safe harbor is that if someone presents
a safe harbor or if the town feels it has a safe harbor under the current regulations and there's a proposed change to these regulations, but under the current regulations, you would have to within 15 days of opening the hearing determine that you have a safe harbor.
You don't have to then make a decision on the project, but you have to declare that you have that safe harbor and that sits in the background while you consider the project. As to Cadam itself, I am not aware of any safe harbor that the town has particularly
with respect to reaching either progress or the actual 10% of affordable housing. nor am I aware of any other circumstance involving any of the projects currently before the Cadam Zoning Board of Appeals
that would give rights under the large project or the related project um safe harbor um uh regulations. Okay. Well, thank you. So, just to be clear for the public, it's great that we have another application underway, but
it's not enough to provide any safe harbor. So we are still squarely within the rules of 40B. Right. And I I should I should add Randy that if in fact the the the the first project that we
have before us resulted in a safe harbor through progress towards one of our required minimums, we could use that. But if someone applies for a 40B before that decision is done, then we can't use
it. So you can't use it retroactively. So there are two projects now in the queue. So that that kind of safe harbor based on the first project wouldn't be available to the town. Okay. Well, thank you very much. And
with that, can I get a motion uh Paul to continue um this till September 4th? I'll move to uh continue this matter to September 4, 2025. Thank you. Dave seconds and votes yes.
Nixon, I vote yes. Jenny Jenny votes yes. All votes yes. As do I. Thank you very much and thank you councel. And so anyone interested in this particular project, we'll see you on September 4th. All right. Next, we're
now we're back to our regularly scheduled meeting 25-055. Sarah, application number 25-055. Karen Loser Co, care of William G. Lichfield,
Esquire, 330 Orleans Road, North Chattam, Mass 02650. owner of property located at 20 L Street, also shown on the Town of Chadam's assessor's map 10F block 15, lot R9. The applicant seeks to construct an elevated stairway under
section 4 A3A of the protective bylaw. The lot contains 28,100 square ft in the R20 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law, chapter 4A, section 9, and section 8D2B of the protective bylaw. Attorney Lichfield, welcome.
Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chairman. Pardon me, members of the board. Excuse me. Bill Lichfield on behalf of the applicant. Uh there will be some minor changes to these plans, changing the height of the risers that
will uh accordingly cause the stairs to be longer than shown on the original plan. That's going to be reviewed by conservation in addition. So, we would ask the board's indulgence in allowing this matter to be continued to October 9, a date suggested by Sarah.
Okay. Um, any discussion? No. So, um, Jenny, can I have a motion to continue um 25-055 until October 9th? Yes. I move to approve the request for continuence to October 9th, 2025.
David seconds and vote yes. I agree. Um, Jenny, I approve. Oh, I'm sorry. Um, Ed, we need you to uh chime in. I approve. Okay. And Jenny, I approve. As do I. That's unanimous. Thank you.
All right. Next, we have 25-056. Sarah, application number 25-056, Mark D. Pearlman Revocable Trust, Care of William G. Lichfield, Esquire, 330 Orleans Road, North Chattam, Mass 02650.
Owner of property located at 42 Bay View Street. Also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 10D, block 72, lot D45. The applicant seeks to enlarge, extend, or change a conforming dwelling in a non-conforming lot via the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a new dwelling. The
proposed dwelling will comply with all bunk dimensional requ requ requirements of the bylaw but is considered a substantial alteration and under the second accept clause of section 6 of mass general law chapter 48 such substantial alteration requires the grant of a special permit. The existing
building coverage is 1,160 ft 6.5% and the proposed building coverage is 2,292 ft 12.9% where 15% is the maximum allowed. The lot is non-conforming and that it contains 17,821
square feet where 20,000 square feet is required in the R20 zoning district. A special permit is required under master law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protected bylaw. Welcome back, Attorney Lichfield. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Bill Lichfield. Uh we would respectfully ask
the board allow this matter to be continued until November 6, a date suggested by Sarah. The applicant has determined in talking with his neighbors that some plans uh some changes to the plans would be in order. So, we will be uh meeting actually tomorrow with our
design team and uh hope to present you with plans which we think will be better received. So, we'd ask the matter be continued to November 6. All right. Thank you. Um Jenny, can we have a motion to continue to November 6th? You can say so moved.
So moved. Dave seconds and vote yes. I vote yes. Oh, sorry. Ed, that's okay. Yeah, Ed votes yes. I vote yes. And Jenny, as do I. Thank you. Unanimous. Okay. Next, we actually have a hearing on
25-052. Application number 25-052. Hogan Family Trust. Michael J. Hogan and Joanne Hogan trustees care of William G. Lichfield Esquire, 330 Orleans Road, North Chadam, Mass 02650. Owners of property located at 64 Bucks
Creek Road also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 8C block 38 lot S103. The applicant proposes to change, alter, or expand a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the construction of additions. The existing dwelling is non-conforming and it is
located 11.8 ft from the Westerly of Butter where a 15t setback is required. The proposed additions will comply with all bulk dimensional requirements of the bylaw, but is considered a a substantial alteration and under the second accept clause of section 6 of Mass General Law
Chapter 48, such substantial alteration requires the grant of a special permit. The existing building coverage is 1,180 ft, 9.98% and the proposed building coverage is 1,769 square feet, 14.86%
or 15% is the maximum allowed. the law is non-conforming and that it contains 11,93 square feet where 20,000 square feet is is required in the R20 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass Turner Law Chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protected Bible.
Attorney Lichfield. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Bill Litchfield here on behalf of Mike and Joanne Hogan uh who are here in regard to 64 Bucks Creek down in Harding Beach Hills. Uh the Hogans have owned this
property for 25 years. Uh and they are thinking about making more of a uh more yearround uh or retirement use of it to allow them to entertain a growing family in the next generation and so forth and
to host holiday gatherings. And they'd like to make some internal reconfiguration uh of the house. and also, as you know from having been out there, now has a onecar garage under. They would like to have a twocar garage. And in working
with their design team, uh maybe Sarah could put up the plans. Working with their design team, they have designed something that meets all of the requirements of the bylaw. uh as shown there on the left at the top the existing house in the current garage.
You as you know from having from your site visits you go in and under. We're proposing to relocate the driveway as shown there on the top right. We're proposing to relocate the driveway. It'll still be a garage under and there will be uh internal reconfiguration of
the floor plan so that we're not adding any additional bedrooms. So that is what is proposed. What you will see in one sense is the uh top view, but given the vegetation particularly along the right hand side uh that very very tall row of
trees, you're not going to see much at all. Moreover, we are set far back from the street. Uh the current zoning bylaw requires 25 ft and we're 31 plus the additional uh unpaved area uh which is
part of the town layout. who were far back from the street. So given that you have a lengthy agenda, I'll go into the criteria as shown there in the site plan. Our sole nonconformity other than lot size and that's found throughout Harding's Beach Hills is that the deck
on the uh northwest side is too close under current zoning to the uh to the lot line. What is proposed, however, will will comply with all requirements of the bylaw. It is what is as you know called the Bjorkland hearing. So as to
adequacy of sight as I said is true of almost all of the lots in Harding Beach Hills. The lot is non-conforming. Coverage at present is lower than that of many houses and the sole dimensional nonconformity is that deck. We conform to the current street site back setback
and I think you can find the site at present to be completely adequate for residential use and it will remain adequate based upon your approval of the special permit for construction of a more functional twocar garage with living space above which again meets all
height uh setback and coverage requirements of the bylaw that is it complies completely with current zoning as the compatibility of size on the third page I have the comparables. We have at present a typical pre-zoning lot
with a relatively small footprint. It's in the mid-range gross floor area and living area for those houses not built on slabs. It has lot considerably more gross floor area because it has a full basement unlike some houses in the neighborhood. Obviously coverage
increases if you approve the special permit as I trust that you will but it is below the maximum and it remains consistent with the neighborhood. The gross flow area and the living area increase but still lower than some for instance the house directly across the street and it will remain compatible
even without using those further along in Bucks Creek Road which are as you know much much larger. I know this is the neighborhood which engendered discussion of what constitutes a neighborhood but I only use the very close via butters. However, there are uh much larger houses elsewhere in this
neighborhood. As to the extent of in increase in nonconformity, again the sole nonconformity aside from lot size is the westerly sideline for the deck and there is no increase in nonconformity. Uh rather this is totally conforming. The addition is 18 ft from
the sideline where 15 ft is required and approximately 32 feet from the street and actually further from the pavement uh where only 25 ft is required as the suitability of the site. The site has been suitable for the existing house since it was built. There are no
wetlands or environmental issues and I think the site is suitable for the garage at on the lower side of the lot. It's without impact the natural environment and again as you know from having gone out there is very significant vegetative screening along the side property line as to scale
citing mass views and vistas. The existing structure is a simple full cape with a partial doghouse dormer set far from the road with a garage under given the location and the vegetation. It has a very limited at present impact of neighborhood views and visttors and I
think that will continue. There will be a minimal change to the facade by putting the small uh small covered entryway on the front of the house, but there's certainly no substantial detriment from that or from the garage with an appropriate design which mirrors
that of the existing house. Plainly, the house is larger. L3 wouldn't be here, but it's set back from the road and in keeping with surrounding properties. There are no views or vistas involved. As the compatibility of use, it will remain a residential use and adequacy of
uh water and sewer. We have town water and a title five for three bedrooms. The health agent has reviewed the plans has determined that the reconfiguration of the plans of the house the floor plans is sufficient and there is no additional
bedroom being added won't have any impact on traffic flow and safety. Although I suppose relocating the driveway a little bit to the further up the hill may help a little bit. Um there's no noise and litter and all utilities are there. So, as you know,
the question for you to decide is whether the proposed construction of the small entryway on the front and the garage with living space above with a significantly greater utility for the Hogan family while meeting all current zoning requirements is substantially
more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current structure on a non-conforming lot. In providing for a functional uh garage, twocar garage is shown there. The proposal meets all zoning requirements and the topography of the lot uh lends itself to this
location and to the design uh which again is set far from the street and behind the vegetative screen to the right hand side or downhill. No additional bedrooms are being created. The applicants of course understand and anticipate the standard conditions would be imposed such as a limit on seasonal
construction. They hope to in answer to a question you haven't yet asked, they hope to start this fall uh and be done by the spring. Uh so in light of the criteria and the plans in this location, I think that you can find the proposed changes are not substantially more
detrimental. We'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. Is there anybody here in the audience that would like to speak in favor of this application? Yes, sir. Please go ahead up to the microphone.
Hi, I'm Richard Pluffner. Uh we live at 52 Bucks Creek Road and we fully support uh this endeavor. Is that your phone going off? No. Good. Okay, keep going. That's it. Oh, okay. We're just in support of it and we are the abutters. Thank you very much.
Sure. Is there anybody else here or are on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor of this particular application? No. No. And that's that. Okay. So, I will read the correspondences. There are two. First one's from our health agent
uh received on August 12th, 2025. And as stated before, she has no concerns about the addition. And this will remain a three-bedroom dwelling and not encroach on the septic system. That's from Judith Giorgio. Then we have a note from Donna
and Robert Sheay of 92 Pine Ridge Road. They also are writing in favor of this application. They are pleased um that the addition is planned and the size and scope of the project and their opinion is in keeping with other properties and will be an asset to the neighborhood and
they ask that we approve it. Is there anybody here or online that wishes to speak against this application or has a specific question? Yes, sir. You know the drill. And I see the phone in your hand. So,
Brian Phillips, 374 Leans Road. Uh, is the new building going to be in the violating the setback the 11 feet to the to the butter. I believe everything is uh within is the new the new buildings going.
Yeah. Yeah. That was stated um earlier and also the everything is online. Just so you know because I know you enjoy coming to our meetings and is because I have nothing better to do. Um is he the abuter that's next to who who is he? Sorry, Mr.
Is Mr. Plefner the uh the abutter neck that's the within the 11 foot. Yes, I'm the one. Okay. You know, Mr. Plefner, we'd love to hear from you, but if you want to speak, you'd have to come to the mic. Um, but we'll just uh we'll let Mr. Lichfield answer that.
If I could, Mr. Plener is downhill. He's at number 52. We are 64. He's behind the green vegetation. We are not 11 ft as shown there. We are 18 ft where 15t is required. Uh the only nonconformity is
on the opposite side of the house where the pre-existing non-conforming deck is 11.8 ft from the house. This project complies with all requirements of the zoning bylaw. Thank you. Any other questions? That was my question. Thanks. All right. Yes. Thank you for coming.
Anybody else have a question or wishes to speak against? Feel free. No. No one online either. Very good. Um questions from the board. David Beach. I have no questions. Ed, no questions. Mr. Nixon,
no questions. And no, no questions. Steve, Steve has no questions. Jenny, one very small reconciliation question. Um, on the the ad that goes into the paper, it said that the existing rose
floor area was 2,638. On your very helpful sheet that you show, you show 3683. Is it just because the foundation is included in your number and it's done in the I I took the GFA application from
numbers in the application from the plans that were submitted by the designer. When I looked at it, you know how strongly I feel about the illusory nature of the gross floor area, but I corrected it in the chart to
reflect the fact that there is a basement. Okay. Thank you. And um I really like those um those pines. Could do you happen to know the name of those? Uh they may be junipers. Um I don't think they're p arborvite. Okay. Oh, very good. Very good.
They're they're senior variety. Arborvite. They must take a while to get that large. All right. Very good. So um Jenny, can we close the public hearing and move into deliberations? Yes. Um, I uh move to um close the public hearing.
Public hearing and move to deliberations. David seconds and votes in favor. Ed. Ed votes yes. Yes. Jenny. Jenny votes yes. Yeah. We have all these four votes coming from this end. So, it's a little confusing. So, yes. Now, we've done that. So, now we'll go into
deliberations. Um, as discussed, Lee, deliberate. I will deliberate. Um, well, I think this is a good project. It meets our criteria. Um, and it's a very good plan for getting a primary bedroom on the first floor. Steve, meets our criteria. It's not at all
detrimental to the neighbors. And Jenny, I agree with my colleagues. I think it's a great project and it's not substantially more detrimental. And Mr. V. As do I. Ed, I certainly agree with my colleagues. Mr. Nixon, I agree.
You agree too. As do I. Um, so I guess we need the usual um terms and conditions and uh you want would you like to read those uh Jenny? Yes. So um would you be okay with those the normal conditions? They would be fine, Miss Simple.
So um so you move you move to approve based on the following conditions. Yes. I move to approve this application uh number 250052 uh on the following conditions that all construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neighboring
property with the permission of the property owner and between June 30th and Labor Day. No exterior construction will be allowed. No work permitted on weekends and construction activity between 8 a.m. and 5:00 pm only. Okay,
Dave seconds and votes yes. Ed votes yes. Nixon. Yes. Jenny, yes. As do I. It's unanimous. Thank you very much. Congratulations. Usually Paul Simple does the motion, so that's why we're we're making it through
quite nicely today. All right. Next, I think we're going to um 25-058 Pine Drive. Application number 25-058. Deborah McDonald and Kimberly Bolas Care of James M. Norcross, Esquire, PO box
707 Chattam, Mass 02633. Owners of property located at 18 Pine Drive, also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 6C, block 51, lot J11. The applicant seeks to modify special permit number 23-122
granted on January 25th, 2024, which allowed for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a new dwelling. The applicant now seeks to modify this special permit to allow for an increase in building coverage. The approved building coverage was 1,12 square feet, 14.2% and the
constructed building coverage was 1,031 square feet, 14.5% where 15% is the maximum allowed. Also proposed is the relocation of the existing shed and exterior mechanical system appliances. The existing shed is non-conforming and that it is located 16 ft from the
Coastal Conservancy District. the relocated shed will be non-conforming and that it will be located 25 ft from the coastal conservancy district where a 50- foot setback is required. The approved exterior mechanical system appliances were non-conforming located 36 ft from the coastal conservancy
district. The relocated exterior mechanical system appliances will be non-conforming located 36 feet from the coastal conservancy district where a 50oot setback is required. The lot is non-conforming and it contains 7,125 square feet where 20,000 square feet is
required in the R20 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 4A section 6 and 14 and sections 5B and 8D2B of the protected bylaw. Welcome attorney Norcross. Nice to see you. Thank you. Good afternoon. Jamie Norcross representing uh Kimberly
Ballis. Uh as Sarah stated, this is an application to modify a special permit that was issued by this board back in January of 2024. And so the main part of the application is with regard to the building coverage. Uh the approved building coverage was 1,2 ft. The actual
building coverage as built if you've been out to the site, which I'm sure you are, excuse me, sir you have, is 131 ft. So an increase of 19 square ft. Um still below the 15% maximum allowed, but more than what was approved on the uh special permit that was granted back in January
of 2024. So I guess the natural question is what caused the addition? So, this was a modular home and the manufacturer constructed it, as it's been explained to me, using rigid foam insulation, which is very um energy efficient, but also adds a couple inches to the
exterior of the building. And so, the manufacturer when they provided the building plans that were given to my clients that were then given to David Clark, did not show that additional couple inches along the exterior. So, if you take those two inches and you wrap it around the entire envelope of the building, you come up with the
additional 19 square feet. So, unfortunately, David did not have that information in order to provide an accurate site plan that would have shown the actual square footage of the structure that was built. Um, the other two items proposed by the application
today is the relocation of the shed that you see on the east side of the property on the plan in front of you is to move that to the west side. It will comply with um the butter setbacks. Um because of the new bylaw amendment that was
adopted by town uh meeting 2025, we are now non-conforming relative to the conservancy district. So that's the reason why that requires the special permit whereas before you could just locate in that spot by right. Um, and the reason for that change, um, when my
clients met with the company for the shed, um, where it's shown on the, it's not obviously there now if you go out to the property, but where it's shown on the plan as existing is near where the patio is, and given the proximity, the contractor, um, the shed company felt
that locating on the other side was the, uh, best place for it on the property. Um, with respect to the mechanicals, uh, essentially they're flip-flopping them with with the, um, the rent station. So, the rent station was going to be in the middle of the home, and then the
mechanicals, as you see in the darker color, are going to be on the right hand side. Uh, the proposed mechanicals would be uh, in green, so on the lefth hand side. And the rent station would then go behind that little corner of the building uh, further to the east. And again, that was essentially a field change. It's not constructed yet, but
something that seemed to make the most sense for them in terms of privacy and use of the uh rent station going forward. Um, so obviously, especially with respect to the building coverage difference, nobody likes to see that. It's um a challenge for everyone, but in terms of I don't think it's visible to
the eye, and I certainly don't think it's substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. I did want to touch on briefly. I know there's a couple letters from neighbors and it certainly has not been a smooth construction process as I'm sure you've gathered from those letters and my clients don't disagree with that. Um, for what it's worth, it's
been pretty difficult for them as well. Uh, the project started with a modular home which in theory should be quicker. It started in September. They were told to be done by April. Um, here we are in August and obviously it's still not done. Um, if there is good news, it's the remaining work is interior to the
home and then the landscaping. So the heavy machinery and the larger truck should not be needed on site anymore. It should be strong smaller vehicles. And I think there is a light at the end of the tunnel that the project will be done soon, which is what my clients want to just get it done as quickly as possible. Um they do feel badly for the disruption
it's caused to the neighborhood. Their families own this property for many years and they certainly don't want to create headaches for their neighbors. Um and they want to try to wrap this up as quickly as possible. So that would be our presentation and happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wishes to
speak in favor of this application? If so, please raise your hand. Seeing none, I will read the correspondences. There are three. First, we have our health agents note from August 12, 2025. Judith Giorgio tells us
she has no concerns about the modification to the special permit for this application. Then we have a note from Brett and Patty Zetcher and they say that they will be attending the meeting on A12 2025. Um maybe they meant
today. Uh today is not A12. No. Um we wanted to list our concerns in writing after review a review of application 25-058 at the community development department. Um, we have the following concerns and
questions regarding 18 Pine Drive. This is by no means saying that we are against any of the improvements that have been done. We are trying to be good neighbors and respect the opportunity to improve their property and the neighborhood. It's just that we have
ongoing concerns over the course of this construction. We have not complained about multiple concerns, i.e. blocking of the road with workers, deliveries. in parenthesis. Our daughter's family needed to park at the beach parking lot several times during this construction.
Close parenthesis. Trash on their site and blowing over to our lot. Parking in several residents driveways and working and workers being there at odd hours. One, moving existing shed, which is not
there, from the right hand side as noted um on both approved building and landscape mitigation plans to within 5'6 in from our line on the left hand side, possibly impeding our current view of
the marsh water Bucks Creek. Two, also note on the landscape mitigation plan approved that three to six foot eastern red cedars will grow one foot a year, as high as to mature, 40 to 50 feet on or
nearby our boundary line, which again would have a negative impact on our view of Bucks Creek. Is there going to be an outside shower if one one is not indicated on the new revised plan and where will that be? Also, AC generator
units have been moved on the revised plan with a designated alve near existing patio to near bulkhead again impeding our sight line to Bucks Creek. Lastly, the placement of the porter party which is located on the corner of
their property. very close to our driveway is within direct view from inside our home and our deck. It has also become a rest stop of sorts to the various renters farther down on Pine Drive along with delivery drivers.
Again, please note that we have no problem with the construction at all, but are concerned with the statements that attorney Norcross made in the initial application. Quote, "Attorney Norcross conduct concluded that there will be no negative
impact on natural environment, resident use, views of vistas, including the streetscape, noise, litter, sewage, traffic flow, and safety or utilities." Sincerely, Brett and Patty Zetcher, 28 Pine Drive, Chattam. Next, we have a
note from an Anthony and Kathleen Gazola, and that was received on August 6, 2025. After careful review of application 25-058,
our experience during the construction, um, we have following concerns. Entire height of the landscaping and the potential for flooding easterly and downward towards Ridgeville Road. Possible ramifications. One, causing
water and flood damage to abuing neighbors on Pine and Stoton drives. Two, further damage and denudement of Pine Drive, which has suffered extensively due to the entire construction project. Questions on whom
is responsible for the road repair. In addition of the retaining wall featured on the landscape and mitigation plan on the final um asbuilt site plan, please note we have no problem with the request
as presented uh during the appeal 25-058. Our concern is the impact on the construction process on our property damage has occurred and what we may face. Thank you for your consideration
on this matter. Again, that's Anthony and Kathleen Gazola, Sixpine Drive. Okay. Is there anybody here or on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak against this application or has a question? Yes, sir. Please go to the
mic. Brian Phillips. Um, what's the difference between a coastal conservancy district and a flood zone? You're gonna have to go to an encyclopedia for that. Um but All right. All right. Um I guess I Okay. Can I wait to do the speaking against it
then? You can do that now. All right. Well, I think it's a bad idea to put mechanicals, you know, too close uh in the to the coastal conservy district. Thanks. Thank you. Rebuttal. Unless there's anybody else. I'm sorry. Yes, sir. Please.
Did I already read your letter by any chance? Yes. So, can you tell us something different? Um, I guess probably not. It was Brett Brett and Patty's. We were just kind of referring to why they were moving it close to our right next to our property line.
You have to the microphone. I'm sorry. Um yeah, we were just concerned as why they were moving it from where existing it where it was and it's not there now, you know, to 5t from our property line, which is within like 15 20 feet from our
deck, you know. So, and then also our view to Bucks Creek is behind their house. I know it goes across their property, but we were just concerned why everything was being moved all the way over to our side when they didn't want to look at it from their patio type thing. So, you know, I mean,
okay. And we're going to allow council to answer your question and rebut anything that's been in the letters. Do you have anything else? Because it's okay if you do. No, that's it. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, councel. Thank you, uh, Madam Chair. I guess just going to try to separate. So, a little
bit terms of the construction issues. Again, u acknowledging there has been some issues. Um there there been difficult um problems that they've had with their contractor, but again they're trying to get this done as quickly as possible to finish. Um in terms of
actually address the Gazola's letter first, I think any sort of wash out that may have taken place under the it's still active construction site. It's all dirt and sand. I think once the landscaping's done, um that should take care of any sort of wash out that may have taken place. And again, they understand that all water has to uh stay
on their property once it's complete. Um, the retaining wall. I I spoke with Dave Clark this morning and this is not the final asbuilt plan because the property isn't completed yet. So on the final plan, it will show the retaining wall. It's just when he went out the beginning of May to do this initial
plan, the retaining wall wasn't done yet. So the final plan will show the retaining wall. It has to meet the three-foot limitation as part of your requirement for that. Um, driving out a couple times this week, I didn't notice any specific damage to um the road. I mean, it's very it's a dirt road. at
Sandy. I didn't see anything specific reference in terms of what happened. It seemed pretty consistent all the way down. Again, my clients are happy to work with these folks if there's something specific they want them to try to take care of and again try to be good neighbors moving forward. Um, so on the
shed, I I appreciate their concerns. I guess I my rebuttal to that is we we are meeting the setback. It is a smaller shed. It's 8 by8. Uh, you do often see a larger shed, 12 by 12 by eight, I guess, 96 square feet. is a little bit smaller. Um, from being back there today, I still
think there is a corridor that you can see across. Again, the views and vistas relate, as you know, to the neighborhood in general, not to a specific view. Um, and again, they just thought based on their conversation with the company for the shed that that was the best place for it. Um, the landscape plan, again,
as my client said, they'd be happy to plant less trees, but this is what is required by the conservation commission as mitigation. So, they don't really have any say in that. That was the planting plan that was approved back in 2023 by conservation. So, they're going to act in accordance with that plan. I'm sure they'd be happy to to I can talk to
them about moving the porter potty. Obviously, that's kind of disruptive for everybody. So, if that's an issue, again, we can work with them moving forward. And my clients did ask me to to uh um reiterate that I can certainly provide their contact information um to you folks, phone number, email, reach
out to them directly with these concerns of the construction process as opposed to the people on site and then they can work with you. So, okay. Thank you very much. Um, all right. So, questions from the board. Lee, you know, I I think I'm okay. I think no
questions. Steve, um, I have a couple questions. The shed, if if it were to be moved um to where it's proposed, how is that going to be supported? Is it going to be on some sort of peer um structure on the on the rear of it
because it it's the ground slopes off very drastically there where the where it's being proposed? I don't know the answer to that. I would assume so, but I don't know the specifics on the Okay. And I'm and um I don't see anything on the plan, but I
I'm assuming there's going to be some off off streetet parking. Where is that proposed for? Do you know? Is it If you look at patio, I'm sorry. If you look at uh it's not on the asbuilt. I don't know if we included the the prior site plan. I can certainly pass it out to you. Uh I don't know if
Sarah has that. And there is a little uh driveway proposed near the retaining wall in the front right of the structure that you'll see. So sort of in front of where the patio has been built. Exactly. Right. Yep. And then do you know what that material
is going to be? Is that going to be uh uh it's going to be It calls out for stone on the plan. Okay. You can see it there, Steve, next to the Okay. Okay. So, really the only, you know, the the um the air conditioner and the
generator are being basically moved slid over. So, then I think they're a few feet closer to the uh the coastal bank, but not dramatically. So, I'm just wondering if maybe that shed could be moved maybe closer to the house or on the side of the house or something just
so uh to appease some of the neighbors might be helpful. Thank you. Yep. Um David Nixon, do you have any questions? I have no questions. Thank you. Okay. Ed, do you have questions? Uh no questions. And Mr. V?
Yeah. I just want to um so since the construction has gone over into the time period, we're now under the restrictions that um conditions that we put on on exterior. So, um, this is the the the house is
basically they're doing interior work at this point, correct? Yeah. There's stone on site which they're waiting for um the landscaping is going to get once they want the interior work to be complete, then they're going to do the I don't know why it's delivered already, but that hasn't happened yet.
Okay. Um yeah, just um think thinking about our conditions and and the difference between sometime types of interior work and the extensive landscaping and hardscaping that's going to take place is something we might want
to think about as we go forward with these kinds of things given the problems they've already had with neighbors. Um and then uh I don't think and so and so the the um
I correct me you in terms of the impetus to move the shed. It was to get it further away from the resource area. Was that what uh No, it was really No, it was the the patio proximity is what they were proximity to the patio. It is actually a little further away from the resource area just because of
the way the line juts out in that direction. So it was well I I mean I would just given given the concerns of the neighbors and I mean they have the right to put it back there in that corner but I I would ask them to consider um putting it back where it was
you know so thanks I don't have no other question. Okay J questions. So Jamie um why does the shed need to be in front of us? It does meet the setbacks as you're required and it's less than 100 square feet uh because of the conservancy district
bylaw amendments. Okay. And it the new location proposed location is an improvement to the conservation to the proximity of the conservancy district. Yes, it is. Okay. Why was it removed?
I don't know the answer to that other than they uh didn't understand. You're supposed to leave it there until you get Okay. Okay. The new one in place because if if it's not approved then it has to be built somewhere else. Okay. Correct. Y um and and then one last question about the mechanicals. So the narrative says
that um we approved the mechanical. I don't have the prior site plan either, but that we approved those mechanicals last time, right? They were shown on the site plan. Okay, that's what I was going to ask you. Sometimes they're not pointed out because they're right. So they like they also similar to
the shed didn't the conservancy district setback did not apply back when this application was heard back in January 2024 and they met and still meet the setback to the law line was the consideration. So they weren't really part of the special permit approval but they were shown on the plan.
So they were shown on the plan they weren't really discussed. They're um still look like they're about the same distance from the house. They're just shifted over. Yes. Yep. to the left. Um, okay. Thank you.
So, so, um, Jamie, why I, you probably said it and I apologize. Why do you need to relocate the exterior man mechanical system? They're flip-flopping it with the, uh, outdoor shower, but why do you need to do it? I guess you don't need to. It It would
be It would be a want. There's no requirement to do it. It's a preference. Okay. And then, um, what was the other thing? Uh, okay. That that'll be it for me. Uh, Jenny, would you like to close the public hearing and move to
deliberations? I move to close the hearing and move to deliberations. If each second votes yes. Ed votes yes. David Nixon. Yes. Uh, Jenny. Yes. As do I. Okay. Deliberations. Um, Ed.
Um, I guess my thoughts on this is, um, we approved sort of the shed in a in a location that's shown on this plan. Uh, I think the sheds being moved because,
uh, it would be less of a distraction to the the current homeowner, but more of a distraction to the abuter. Um the AC and generators uh uh the placement where they are now I I
think is fine. I don't I don't I guess I it goes to there's needs and wants and um I think uh what we approve should stand and if you wanted my vote on this uh the shed and the AC generators would have to
stay where they originally planned. But just to clarify, you're okay with the 19 square foot? I I am, but and I would only vote yes for the in totality. Okay. If the shed and the AC and generators stay where they were originally planned.
Understood. Um Mr. Beach. Um well, I I'm the 19 square feet um doesn't um doesn't really bother me. Um I think I I'm a little surprised that that
didn't also affect um some of the uh setbacks and things, but I guess they I think it's it's just very good all things considered that they allowed made allowances so that this overage did not take them into uh further needing all
they needed was an adjustment to special permit. So that's good. uh and um certainly it um just another wrinkle between manufactured housing and and um you know on-site work and etc. So another place for communication to go
wrong. Uh so I don't have a problem with that. The other things I I don't really I again as I said I would this is my vote would be to to grant the relief that they're asking for here. Uh but as
I suggested earlier, uh I would suggest um keeping the shed where it was originally located. Um and and I don't with respect to the mechanicals, I I don't think it it seems to me that making a swap like that with the
rentstation/outdoor shower um is a legitimate request and I don't think that the neighbors I don't think they would be negatively affected by that. So I could support it as been asked for. Thanks.
Okay, Mr. Nixon, deliberations. I believe Mr. Actton spoke for me, too, because I agree that as far as the house goes, usually 19 square feet extra is a problem to me, but not in this case. I think you explained that very well.
Understand that. But the other two issues, no, they should stay where they are. Okay, Lee. Oh, did you already did I already call you? No. Okay. Um, well, I I probably would have
approved this initially um had it come before us. Um, you know, I I don't have any problem with the extra 19 square feet at all. Um, and I don't really have any problem with the location, the change of the location of the shed andor the
appliances. Um, I'm not voting today, so um, I'll let my colleagues do that. Steve. Um, well, I Okay, so I guess we have the there's sort of three top topics of discussion is the 19 square feet, which
I don't have any issue with. It's still it's still compliant and it's understandable. Um, the relocation of the of the um generator and AC unit, I don't see as a big issue. I think it's I don't see that as an issue. is
probably more convenient for the uh for the homeowner. Um I have an issue with the shed. Where it's going to go, I don't think was a good choice. Um it's very drastic. Uh the land slopes off very drastically there. And I think there's going to be some peer structure, something that's going to have to hold
up the rear of that. And its original location was approved originally. Um um and you know, they could put some trees along the back of their patio or something to block the shed. So, um I think I approved two out of three, but I think I have an issue with the shed
location. Jenny, so I'm okay with the 19 square feet as well. Um I, you know, I was thinking what Lee was saying, would I have approved this before? And I use that consistently with other hearings. Would
I have approved it before? Because we do get these frequently, these um these changes. Um, and I I would have I mean the the AC and the generator are just shifting over. Um, so I I I would have approved it if it
had been presented previously. Um, I think the fact that the shed it's an the new location is an improvement to CCD. So in in in one respect that that's actually better. The only reason it has to come before us is
because of CCD and it's meeting the setbacks. So, I I thought I think there's some irony in there. Um, you know, I I I side with the property owner in this case. I think that um views and vistas. I want to go to the
comment that the that the um that someone wrote in about the neighbor wrote in about the board found the site to be suitable with no impact on neighboring properties and you had mentioned views and vistas and that was at the previous hearing. Um, but the
property owner is saying that they have a view and vista of the shed from their patio and they don't want that. And so I I feel as though we we always listen to what the abutters say and we take it into consideration but you know
we don't we don't always accommodate what they want in in lie of what the um property owner wants if it's reasonable and I think it is. So you can count and so I could tell you what I think but I don't really need to. So
well I'm wondering if may I ask this one question of sure of Ed and David. If we put the shed back where it is but move the mechanicals would that be something you'd be willing to consider because I feel like that the shed's obviously a drastic change but the mechanicals is a pretty minor adjustment. and and the the
outdoor shower, ironically, might be more disruptive for the neighbors in terms of their view than the mechanicals because it's going to be taller and block more of that area than the mechanicals at their height. But remember, there's no such thing as an outdoor shower and a rent station, excuse me. Yes.
So, they don't have a right to that, so to speak. No, I understand. Yep. Y Okay. So, gentlemen, okay, you have to turn your mic on just so uh I would be fine with that. and Mr. Nixon. That would be all right with me.
Okay. All right. So, let's gonna go with Sarah for a moment. So, Mr. Norcross uh would need to withdraw the request to relocate the shed. Okay. And then the board would vote on the other two aspects of the application.
I uh will withdraw the request to relocate the shed. Okay. So, there's Jenny. Can we have a motion to grant the withdrawal of the shed a request? Um, yes. So, I move to um I make a motion to withdraw the
location of the shed to approve the Yes. And Dave seconds and votes yes. Ed votes yes. I vote yes. Okay. As do I. Okay. So, we got that done. Next. Now, we need a motion to approve the application specifically.
Let's go with Sarah for a moment. So application uh to approve the increase in building coverage and new location of the exterior mechanicals. The only question is would the board like to reinccorporate the standard
conditions that were imposed at the first application and underline them this time? Yes, I would everybody. Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. So Jenny. Okay. So, I move to approve um application 2558
um with the modification that uh we approve the increase in building coverage and we approve the new location of the mechanicals AC and generator and we reinstate all the conditions and with the we reinstate all the
previous conditions. Yep. Very good. Dave seconds and votes yes. Ed votes yes. Yes. Jenny votes yes as do I. That's unanimous. Thank you very much. Good collaboration. Okay. Next, we have 57 Captain Richard's
Way. Unless I'm wrong. We do, right? Yeah. And that's uh 25-053. We're back to attorney William Lichfield for Pete Patano and Lorraine Foley Patano. When Sarah's ready, no rush.
Application number 25-053. Peter Patano and Lorine Foley Patano care of William G. Lichfield, Esquire, 330 Orleans Road, North Chatam, Mass 02650. Owners of property located at 57 Cap Captain Richard's Way, also shown on the
town of Chad Cadam's assessor's map 10D, block 94, lot R5. The applicant proposes to change proposes to change, alter, or expand a conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the construction of an addition. The proposed addition will comply with
all bulk and dimensional requirements of the bylaw, but is considered a substantial alteration, and under the second except clause of section 6 of chapter 48, such substantial alteration requires the grant of a special permit. The existing building coverage is 1,715 square ft, 10.7% and the proposed
building coverage is 2,196 ft 13.7% where 15% is the maximum allowed. The law is non-conforming and that it contains 15,986 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 protected bylaw. Welcome back, Attorney Litfield. tell us about the garage, I believe. Thank you very much. And the garage is essentially the issue. Those of you who have been on the board for a length of
time will perhaps recall that back in the co era, uh, the Pantanos came to you, uh, to expand what had been a summer cottage and to build what is there now. uh had they uh realized the
need for storage and for a car and what winters are like because they live here around they probably would have asked for a garage then uh had they thought of that or had they had guidance from Mr. Nixon but they did not at the time. Uh so they are back to you today and I
should introduce uh Dan Speakman and Peter Pantano uh both of whom Dan is our engineer, builder, designer, surveyor. He wears a few hats uh who did the plans for the house which you see
now and also for the garage. As was indicated in the hearing notice, it is a straightforward or Bransford petition. The proposal meets all requirements as shown on the site plan there. We are uh 15 feet from
the norly lot line in excess of 15 feet and we're set back about 45 ft from the street. Uh so I'll go into the criteria. The site is adequate for the cottage built before zoning and expanded in 2021 but still of a fairly modest scale.
Living area of 1,800 square feet and a footprint of only 1,700 square feet. I think you can find the site to be adequate for the addition of a garage which meets setback and coverage requirements and a resulting footprint of less than 2200 square feet which even
with the garage is still a modest home. As to compatibility of size of the neighborhood, we have one of the larger lots in a former cottage colony. Uh but we're relatively low as to coverage at 10% 10.7% and living area of 18,800
square ft. Uh, if you approve the special perimeters, I hope you will do, it will remain compatible and fit with neighboring properties, almost all of which, except for the cottage colony, the old cottages going in on the left, uh, almost all of which have garages,
the gross floor area and the living area will remain consistent and it will remain a reasonable and compatible home. As to the extent of increase in nonconformity, that's easy. There is none. Our sole nonconformity
is lotsiz. The proposal meets every bulk and dimensional requirement of the bylaw. So there's no increase in nonconformity is the suitability of sight and impact the natural environment. The site is and will remain suitable for residential use as it has been the 70 years or so since the house
was built. The original house uh there are no environmental issues involved as to scale citing mass fuse and vistas. What is there now is a Greek revival with a porch gable end to the street of appropriate design. It's without impact on views and vistas and adding a garage
which will match the architectural style and details of the existing house will which will remain reasonable as the scale and mass and be appropriate for the site. It's consistent with the surroundings and has no impact on neighborhood views and vistas.
Compatibility of use. Having a garage is obviously a residential use, so no issues there. We have town water and our on town sewer. The chair will read a letter from the health agent who has reviewed of the matter and the room over the garage does not meet the definition
of and will not be used as a garage as a bedroom rather because it's open to below. The other criteria are not at issue. So the question, as you know, is whether construction of a garage with living space above completely conforming
as to the bylaw is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. The house will remain compatible with the neighborhood. On the third page of the handout, uh you can see that we have gross floor area and living area on a relatively large lot that are in keeping
and will remain in keeping with those of abuing properties. still a fairly modest home in comparison or absolute terms. Bjorkland said that it was designed or the basis of the decision was to prevent McMansions. What is proposed today which
is a 480 ft addition for a garage is certainly far from that. Coverage remains below what is allowed and again we're 45 ft back from the street or only 25 ft is required. So, I think that in light of the plans and the criteria under our bylaw, you can find that the
proposed addition of a garage is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Thank you. Is there anybody here are online that wishes to speak in favor of this application? Seeing none, I will read the one
correspondence that we received from the health agent. Judith Giorgio tells us on E12 2025 that she reviewed the plan to add a studio/g to the property. Since the studio space opens directly into the garage, it is not considered a bedroom.
This space will not be allowed to be used as a bedroom. A site plan showing the septic system in relation to the addition is needed for our review. Um, next we ask if there's anybody with
a question or wishes to speak against the application. Are there any? No. Okay. Would you like to speak to the health agents um report? Well, it it it is not going to be a
garage if or a bedroom rather. She if if the health agent thinks there should be a covenant, we can execute one, but that hasn't been requested. Yeah. Okay. Very good. again if I could. It does not meet the definition under the board of health bedroom definitions and you'll get her the um
are we are on town Dan or Peter if I may madam chairman did we have we yet connected to town sewer they could just shake their head because no one can talk from have we yet connected to town sewer we have connected to town sewer so the se as I thought was the case so the septic
system is sort of a nullity she probably didn't realize that understood yeah she get not allowed to talk from the audience. Sir, Mr. Speakman, our engineer will deal appropriately with the health department. Very nice. Okay. So, now are there any questions from the board? Uh, Jenny.
Uh, question. Mr. Lichfield. Um, no plumbing in this new area. This loft area. No plumbing in the loft area. Correct. No plumbing in the loft area. Okay. Thank you, Mr. V. Questions. No. No questions. Dave, no questions. Uh, Lee,
no questions. And Steve, I didn't see any uh property line markers and it was kind of difficult to tell exactly where 15 ft from the garage was going to be. I I apologize for that. I went out there
and frankly I saw the the mark where the garage and I didn't look for the property line. I apologize. So because there's a fence there, a stockade fence. I guess that's the neighbor's fence because it seems to be more than 15 feet away. it. Yeah, it it probably is on the inside marking the boundary of the old cottage colony.
That's and just perceived boundary. Just got to be careful because you're within about an inch of the setback. So, we already had one or two uh applications today that dealt with uh going over I I will, if I take 10 seconds, uh
remind the applicant and and his construction folks that uh because we are so close and because measurements are to the corner board, might be good to plan on building at 15.5 or 15.6 six
feet from the lot line even if you lose a couple of inches because these are charming people but we don't want to see them again. No. And we don't want to see you again either. Understood. Okay. If there's no other questions, we're going to ask yet was there.
No. Um Jenny to close the public hearing and move to deliberations. I move to close the hearing and uh move to deliberations. Uh Dave seconds and votes yes. Ed. Ed votes yes. Dave yes. Jenny votes yes. As do I. Okay. deliberations. Mr. Mr.
Nixon, anything? This seems like a fine application to me. I don't see that in any way, shape, or form. It's more detrimental to the neighborhood. Yeah. Very good. And Ed, anything further? No, I agree as well. Mr. Beach, so do I.
Lee, I agree as well. I only um would have loved to have seen a picture of the whole structure, not just the addition, not just the existing, but together. Okay, Steve.
Um I think it's a good project. Garage space is always good. And Jenny, I was going to say garage space is good here in Massachusetts. Chadam, um I think it's a great project and um I it's not substantially more detrimental. I would approve. Yep. And thank you. Um, so we I also
want to point out that the applicant has given us written findings that we have now uh adopted. Um, so if we seem to rush through this, it's just because we already have it all down. And um, let's Okay, I move to approve the application uh, number 2553
as submitted. Do we need conditions? Do we need conditions, Mr. Litzfield? Uh, we would accept them if if you could nod. Do we intend to start on this early in the fall? We do intend to start on them early in the fall. And can it be
completed in less than nine months? It it likely can be. Uh if you don't feel the need to impose the condition, that will be fine in case it takes until July 1. Uh but the intent is to get it done promptly.
Does anyone feel strongly that we need conditions on this one or that we should? The only again as far as the timing, the only thing is when is when we um call out uh the construction hours and no weekends. I think that's still important
rather that because then that sets a framework that somebody's not going to be working till 7 or 8:00 at night. So that part I think we can go ahead you know. So and actually if you have I'll read I'll read what parts we want if
you'd like. Go ahead and then you can and then Jenny will second it this time. Let me find it. You kind of just said it, but that's okay. Yeah, but that's, you know, can't trust what I say. That's too much. So, um I would move that um we approve
um application number the application 25 25-053 uh with the following conditions. um all construction activity in vehicles should be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of property
owner and that um between June 30th and Labor Day, no uh work per shall be permitted on the weekends, construction activity between 8 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. only. Okay. And Jenny, would you second that, please? Yes, I second that.
And how do you vote? I vote yes. How do you vote, Mr. Ve? Miss Vich and Mr. Aton. Edville. Yes. Mr. Nixon. Yes. As why it's unanimous. Congratulations. Okay. Before we travel down to Little Beach, we are going to take a 5 to 10
minute break and we'll see you on the other side of that. I don't know. Not that I can't We are on the air. Okay. Going to be a moment though. Those of you at home, just little housekeeping
here. Everybody has to get in place. I just noticed that we're on the air and uh we are now going to travel to 47 Little Beach and Sarah's going to read that application. Application number 25-062,
Monoy Rips LLC, care of William F. Riley, Esquire, PO Box 707, Chattam, Mass 02633. Owner of property located at 47 Little Beach Road. Also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 16A block 25 lot H50. The applicant seeks to enlarge,
extend, or change a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot be the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a new dwelling. The existing dwelling is non-conforming and that is located 30.4t from Little Beach Road, 13t from an unnamed way, 2.2 feet
over the Southerntherly Butters property line, and entirely within the coastal conservancy district. flood plane elevation 13. The proposed dwelling will be non-conforming and that it will be located 19 ft from Little Beach Road, 12.7 ft from an unnamed way where a 40ft
setback is required.1 ft from the southerntherly leutter where a 25- ft setback is required and entirely within the coastal conservancy district where a 50-ft setback is required. The existing building coverage is 659 square f feet and the proposed
building coverage is 730 ft where 2,800 ft is the maximum allowed. The law is non-conforming and that it contains zero square ft of buildable upland where 20,000 ft is required and contains 4,972 ft of land area where 40,000 square feet
is required in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law Chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw. Welcome gentlemen. Just state your names if you would. Uh good afternoon madam chair. William Riley on behalf of Monamoy Rips
and Jim Cappuccino with Hutkar Architects. Okay, welcome. Like I said, we also have Erin Leven who's online, one of the architects with Hutker as well. And Dave Clark is here, our engineer, in case you have questions
regarding grading or any of the elevations we have on our plans. Okay. Well, welcome everyone and tell us what you want to do at 47 Little Beach. Okay. Well, so this is the third time uh that these properties have been here. Uh
I don't know how many of you were here for all three. Dave and Dave I think were. In any event, uh the previous two times the owner had designs that appeared much more massive
uh because of the design. Not the buildings really weren't that massive, but they use Gamrell roofs and showed a lot of what I would call ostentatious verticality. uh sort of epitomized by
uh 46 Little Beach Road, the little house that everybody loves to hate. Well, I guess somebody said they're getting used to it now. In any event, so the current design, as you can see, uh brings a traditional Cape Cod cottage
look uh to these properties and I think constitutes a, you know, a real improvement uh in the neighborhood as well. The uh and I would like to as as we start remember remind you that the height of
the house is really driven by the building code requirement that the first floor uh be 2 feet above uh the flood plane which is 13 ft in this uh elevation. So the structures themselves
uh from the first floor to the ridge or from the foundation to the ridge uh is 21 ft. So not a massive building. So what I'd like to do introduce Jim Capuccino of course who's from Huter Architects and have him go through how
these designs meet the family needs uh why they designed the way they designed them and how they fit in the neighborhood. Jim, are we gonna do one at a time if we could since we've only read one one at a time? Yeah, we're just doing 47,
right? Thank you. Yep. Okay, just 47. Yeah. Um, but to give some context, um, Roden Kerry Henles have spent uh, decades in Chadam and renting this very property for the last 15, 20 years. So when the um opportunity
arose to purchase it, they saw it as a chance to deepen their ties to the community and create a lasting legacy for their family. Regarding um the design, um the vision was to design a home that respects the character of the neighborhood and supports the growing
family needs. Um architecturally, our response was simple, quiet, familiar. As Bill said, we've chosen gable forms that reflect the modest um vernacular of Cape Cod. Uh and we believe these fit contextually beautifully into the fabric
of of um the neighborhood. And to ground the homes in the site, um we've proposed natural materials, Alaskan yellow cedar shingles for both sidewalls and roofs, which over time will patine to a beautiful natural um soft silvery tone.
the base of the house. We're proposing board form concrete. Um so when poured, um they will take on the imprint of the of the boards that they're cast against. Um again, they'll be silver in color as well. And the trim and window casings
will also be in earthtone colors with proportions and detailing that reference the nearby homes, um helping the construction feel that it's that it's always belonged. All right. Thank you. I gave away all my uh bylaw analysis, so I have to borrow
one back. Remember to count next time. So uh to run through the criteria for you. So adequacy of the size of the site in terms of the proposed use
uh lot 47 uh contains 4,972 square ft. So it's very small. Uh the existing house actually sits across the property line encroaching on 53 Little Beach. The applicant proposes
to relocate the building so it's entirely within the limits of the lot and the building coverage is only increasing by 71 square feet. Uh so although as Sarah read we don't meet u all the setbacks
the building um at least is located entirely on its own lot. Uh the proposed building coverage is 730 square feet, but the actual living space on the first floor is only 688 square
feet and the second floor is uh 537 square ft. So we think that the site's adequate uh although it's a small lot, it's adequate for this building. the compatibility of the site, the size of the proposed structure with neighboring properties.
As those of you who've been here long enough know that the Horn Cottages area, uh, and Steve has an ad for the original JB Horn Cottages, uh, were just a series of cottages that were built by the Horn family,
uh, all modest, all small. Uh, not that you would know by driving down there today. uh most of them have been elevated to meet the uh 13 foot flood plane.
Uh so the structures are all significantly larger than they started out. Uh so I think that you know 47 clearly fits in the fabric of the neighborhood down
there in terms of size. extent of the proposed increase in the non-conforming nature. We are reducing one non-conformity by moving the structure into its own lot. But the increase in the living area uh constitutes an intensification
of the non-conforming nature. So that is an increase in nonconformity. suitability of the site including but not limited to impact on neighboring properties on the natural environment including slopes vegetation wetlands groundwater water bodies and storm water
runoff. So I always uh I believe that that question is is the site suitable for the proposed construction and we believe that it is uh because uh there'd be no negative impact on the neighboring properties
uh or on the natural environment. There's no steep slopes going to wetlands or water bodies. The uh uh you know, in fact, because the building's being elevated above the flood plane, uh they're actually
reducing the risk of damage to the structure in a major storm event such as a hurricane, which could damage other structures. So, we believe the site is suitable for this construction. So impact of scale sighting and mass on neighborhood visual character including
views and vistas. Uh the applicants aware of the concerns previously expressed by neighbors and some board members regarding the design of 46 little beach gambrell roof and ostentatious verticality. Accordingly, they have created a classic
Cape Cod cottage look, including the use of dormers to reduce the height of the structure to the minimum amount uh necessary. The height of the structure from the top of foundation is a little less than 21 feet and the first floor is mandated by
the building code to be two feet above the flood plane. So, they have to start they have to start at 15 feet and they have to end at 30. So uh the building can only be 20 ft tall. Uh so we believe that this design in particular uh is not
substantially more detrimental uh to the neighborhood than the existing structure and compatibility of proposed use with neighboring uses such a single family residence in a single family neighborhood. Uh property served by public water. The sewage disposal will
be using a new septic system with a nitrogen reducing capacity which will which constitutes a significant improvement. Uh no impact on traffic flow and safety, no impact on noise and litter. Utilities
are accurate, adequate. Uh item 12. We do have some lateral expansion here 71 square feet. uh and the uh I've never thought that this particular
uh criteria had much made much sense because as for its impact on the imperous part of the of the lot. Well, this is impervious. So, but it's a very small increase. Uh and so we believe that
we meet that criteria whatever it is. So, that would be our presentation. Thank you very much. Oh, thank you. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor of 47 Little Beach?
Seeing none, I will read the five correspondences that we received. Um Judith Giorgio, our health agent, tells us on Apr 2025 that she reviewed the plans to demo and rebuild the dwelling at this property. She she actually
plural um wrote it in plural. The plan proposes a shared septic system for the dwellings. This requires approval by the board of health and state department of environmental protection. Share systems require a commonant covenant documents
and financial asurances that the systems will be maintained by the owner. The board of health has not seen the proposed septic plans. Floor plans for existing dwellings are needed as well as on-site testing to confirm groundwater
elevations. This is a flood zone and the system will be required to meet the department of um environmental protection and local regulations for construction in a flood zone. Next, we have a note from the uh conservation
commission from July 17, 2025. They heard the project on um July 9th, and they anticipate um being able to condition it with the performance standards uh on probably at their next
meeting on September 10th. Right. Next, we have a note from Maggie and Nick Chus, and they tell us on August 12th, 2025 that they own 16 Little Beach and are in total support of the above caption applications and
overall project and that would be um the one at issue. Now, we have reviewed the application project and feel that the Henkles proposed plans will be an absolute positive for the Little Beach neighborhood. Thank you for your careful
consideration of this project. And okay, and then last, we have a note from Joanne and Dan Lan, 30 Little Beach Road. They tell us on August 12th, 2025, that they're writing to submit their support for the above applications. So,
this is for both. We own 30 Little Beach Road and have been here for over 25 years. Have reviewed the proposed plans for both projects and feel strongly that the Hankle's proposed plans will be a positive change to our neighborhood. Thank you for your careful
consideration. Anything else? CHC. Did I miss one? Oh, okay. CHC, the um Cadam Historical uh Commission, they did not find the building to be historically significant
and thus did not impose a demolition delay and that came to us on July 16th, 2025. Anybody here on Microsoft Teams wishes to speak against this application
or have a or has a specific question? Sir, you know what to do. Uh Brian Phillips. I mean, to me it's a little historical because these houses were there before all these rules uh flood plane, you know, rules were in. Um you couldn't build these houses now. Uh
I think increasing lot coverage in a flood uh zone sets a very dangerous precedent. Uh because and I would argue that it actually does have a detrimental effect on the neighbors because the flood zones are there for a reason. when it floods, there needs to be that area there to mitigate the flood so the water
can absorb into the ground. Um so I just think, you know, um increasing the lock coverage is uh not a good thing. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to let um Mr. Riley, attorney Riley respond to that in a moment. Just want to make sure. Is there anybody else here are on Microsoft
Teams that either has a question or wishes to speak against? No. Mr. Riley, please enlighten us. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, with all due respect to Mr. Phillips, the the flood plane requirements uh aren't there so that the
ground can absorb the flood waters. Uh, we live in a shorefront community where the flooding is tidal or storm created. So, the water comes in and the water goes out. the uh we do have a wetland
adjacent to our property that does absorb some of the flood waters and they stay there because it's a low spot but basically uh increasing our lot coverage by 71 square feet is not going to have any impact whatsoever. In fact, when you
think about it, a storm surge is something that's created fire at sea, wind strength, distance, the atmospheric pressure. There's nothing that we could do in Chadam that's going to affect the height of a storm surge. So, we just
don't think it's the savory part of the process here. And um I just also um would ask you to opine on the issue of historicess. I'm sorry. What the issue of whether it's historic or
can you let the public know why that definition uh is not applicable here? Well, the um this was the third time we went to the historic commission as well. And each
time that we've been there, uh after careful and thoughtful consideration, uh the historic commission found that while the buildings qualified under our bylaw, 75 years old, u they were not
historically significant. And so for for that commission that determination really terminates their authority to deal with them. So that's why they did not impose a demolition delay and and the issue of significance is not
just something that people just think of off the cuff that it has a meaning and a definition. Correct. Yeah. Although candidly, I'm not all that certain that it really matters that much, but they the phrases they use in the bylaw have to do with people who
live there. You know, was the structure important in events of the town, right? And so they decided no. They decided no. Okay. Very good. Very good. Um Okay. So now we have uh questions from the board. I think
we have questions and concerns from the board. Well, we're going to find that out. Well, but just we're we're right now we're focused only on the smaller ask 47 Little Beach Road. Uh David Beach questions. I don't have questions at this point.
Something might come up, but not with respect to this one. Okay. Ed, any questions? Uh yeah. Uh first floor ceiling height, beg you pardon. Uh uh for um if could we get Erin? Yeah. First
floor ceiling height, Mr. Mr. Riley, is what was asked. Yeah. 9 ft. 9 ft. 9 ft. And the second floor, I assume perhaps cathedral. Yes. Thank you.
Thank you. There's a little voice from afar. Okay. Any other questions from from Ed? No. Uh, no other questions. Okay. Mr. Nixon, questions? No. but uh register a a concern. Sarah,
could you put out the rendering of the two homes uh in question for us again? Thank you. This says it all to me. Uh I'd be standing in Little Beach Road or perhaps I'd be in homes behind there and
I'm looking up at 37 feet. That's what it is from the roadway to the ridge. Uh my view I don't care where you are is destroyed and I won't say anymore. That's my
concern. Okay. Very good. Lee questions and you can do concerns too. Um I have a question. Is there any way we can find out what the height of 46 Little Beach Road is? Yes, there is a way.
All right. Well, and I I have this and while we're doing that, I mean, it it's really just out of curiosity, if I could say, it can't exceed 30 ft from the lowest adjacent grade. True. Okay. So, it's basically the same height,
but you know, we think it's the design that makes 46 unattractive and this design makes this attractive. Uh, I could I could just address Mr. Nixon's concern about the height. Sure. So
if you go up, you know, Lobster Lane or Scolop Terrace or any of those others, the height of the structures, you know, when we say 37 feet, it's 37 feet above the flood.
You know, it's but the building itself is only 20t high. And you know, the foundation doesn't count because there's nothing in there. were required to have the foundation that height. And so the question is, is a 20
foot high building unreasonable? And I think that it's easy for me to say anyway that a building that's only 20 feet high from the first floor to the ridge uh is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood when you
consider that virtually every other house that's been modified there is the same height and has a ridge that's at the same elevation. But it's not it's not in the same exact spot. I just have to say that. And I'm going to go to our building commissioner. I just wanted to point out
the height of this particular proposed structure is 30 feet because in the flood plane we measure building height from lowest adjacent grade which is called out at uh 7.4t elevation and the ridge elevation is listed at 37.4 ft. So
it's exactly 30 feet. Right? So in other So in other words, the number you're using is height above sea level, 37 feet above sea level, but it's only 30 feet tall from the lowest adjacent grade, which is what our bylaw demands. And
it's actually one foot shorter than that if you look at the plans closely. So, I think that uh there there isn't much more you could do to reduce the height of the building and it has nothing to do with the fact it's on an elevated
landform because it's driven by the flood plane, not the location of the building. Okay, now we're going to go back to Sarah to answer Lee's question. Okay, so 46 Little Beach is a little bit different because they have their septic
system. So they were allowed to raise the grade due to the septic system being there. That's why there's the large retaining wall. So the top of theirs is at elevation 10 or 11 top foundation and um they're about 23 and 1/2 ft above
that. So their elevation is probably 34 and a half 35. Okay. Lee, any other questions? Thank you. Um, no, but I I will voice a concern. Um, regarding the height as well. Um, I I actually think the design is is
fantastic. I really love it. I think um it's going to fit in very nicely and I think the use of the traditional unstained shingles is totally key. Um, but I think anything that can be done to reduce the height a little bit would be
helpful. And Steve Um, yeah, I like the design, too. I just have a couple of questions. I guess the deck um seems the stairs seem to empty out onto the adjacent property or right
at the property line. Um, which I'm sorry, which on 47 the the stairs for the the the rear deck seem to empty out onto the adjacent property. They're they come out right at the property line.
Yeah. Well, they they happily Uh is that the rear deck or both of them actually? Yeah. So happily both properties are owned by Monoy Rips LLC. If if the town staff uh wants there to
be some sort of granted permission to allow them to remain there, uh we can take care of that if that's something the town staff would recommend. Yeah. No, I understand because maybe both properties are owned by the same person now, but that doesn't necessarily go in perpetuity,
right? No, no, I understand. And that's why I say if if uh if requested, we'll create a document to make sure that the the right continues after separation. And then if we could go back to the picture where it showed both houses side by side.
Um there's a a wall there um by the parking area between the two houses. Is the ground behind that wall um level with the foundation? Is that basically a retaining wall or a
Let me get Dave Clark up here to answer that question. So the wall the front of the building. So is it the the ground that's behind that wall on the opposite side that we can see is that level with the
foundations of the houses? It's it's close to it. Um Right. So, it's not at the level of where the parking area is. It's it's much higher than that as you go up the stairs. Yeah. Um, yes. That that wall, the top of that
wall is about at the elevation of the top of foundation because we need that fill on the other side for the septic components, the tanks and the pump chambers and the treatment unit. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Any other questions, Steve? Okay. Do you have any
questions? Um, Mr. Riley, you called it an elevated land form, but this existing buildup of sand is what is contributing to this whole height issue visav the other
properties in Little Beach. I don't I don't I don't think that's accurate. Well, as Mr. Nixon said, if you're standing there in that driveway, you're already, you know, I mean, that that's sort of um that driveway represents the
plane more or less of the other properties behind it there, maybe even lower. It slopes down. So, this land this this um buildup of sand, this mounding of sand that has been there is contributing to the height concern.
Do you don't agree with that? Oh, no. I agree with it, but I thought I thought you were implying that it was put there by nature. No, no, it it's filter, right? It and it has the barrier in the back and all. Yeah. This this whole this whole
neighborhood. Steve has a picture Yeah. of the property. It's really was created by uh material taken out of Stage Harbor, right? when they closed off the natural entrance to Stage Harbor and created the entrance we have today,
all that dredge material, he also dredged Johnson's Creek and Stage Harbor Moring Basin and all that material went on this property, right? And before that, it was a marsh. So, yeah, but yeah, they're right about
that. that the sand got dumped there and so so it's it's it's beneficial in the sense that it's elevated but that's also what's contributing to some of the concerns with height because you have to start there as your grade and go up. I I mean I get that but it's tall. I I have
concerns about height. I understand but the the uh if you see here's the thing that's frustrating about Mr. Nixon's concerned because he's had the same concern every time the properties come back. And if the
landform wasn't there, the building would be the same height because the first floor has to be at elevation 15. Do you understand? So in other words, take away all the sand that's there.
The building has to be the same height because the first floor is at elevation 15 and you add 20 feet 20 foot structure above that and that's the building you have there. So the landform has nothing to do with
the height of the building. Everything is driven by the flood plane. And we've talked about this before. I could never convince Dave that it was driven by the flood plane. That's the fact. The first floor has to be where it is here. And if
there was no sand there, it's just like over on Scallop Terrace. Scolop Terrace, excuse me. All those buildings are the same height because the first floor has to be at elevation 15. So this building is no taller than the
buildings over on Scolop Terrace. It's just because there's land around it. Somehow it seems taller, but it really isn't. The building isn't taller, but it is on an elevated land mass, which is what you call it. And so it is
taller. It is. It is not taller. Okay. Um because it's 30 the building is 30 feet from the lowest adjacent grade, which is elevation 4.7 or
6 7.4 here. 7.4, four, which is, you know, the same elevation as over on Scolop Terrace and Clamshell Lane and Lobster Lane. All those buildings that you've all approved, they're all the same height as these buildings,
you know, generally they're narrow because they started from a narrower base, but they're all the same height because the first floor has to be at elevation 15. Has nothing to do with the fact There's there's land around it is higher
than the rest of the land in this neighborhood. Okay. Um is the deck keeping the same footprint, Mr. Um um well the deck on the on 47 53 has
been decreased. Well, we're talking 47 right now. Is that the same footprint as the um I don't they I know they decreased the one on 53 they a little larger. Um I don't think so. That's a concern.
We'll be happy to address it. Um, also the um does this current the current cottage have an upstairs today or is it attic space? What's the up what's the second is there a second floor today to the current Oh, there are it's just you know it's like an attic but they do use it for
sleeping accommodations. Um and then my last question. So, so this is clearly this is two lots. Yes. 53 47 and then at one point it was three. So Steve's comment about that's
what it is today. Um there were three lots. One was built built changed these remained and then they were sold. So So there's the possibility that 47 could be separated at some point and sold off and you're left with 53 as its own. Right. That's correct.
That's not the plan today, but that that's a possibility. That's a possibility. That's correct. All right. Thank you. Um anybody else have any questions? Yes, please. I I think um the way I look at it or the way I you can understand it
is all of these houses in the neighborhood basically have the same foundation height. They're just in different locations and the first floors are pretty much all the same and that that's just a requirement. And then how
far you go from there. Um, I agree most of them are probably in the 20 feet, but if you were only to do a single story, it might be a little bit less, but the two feet, but they all have to meet that minimum height because of the flood plane of that first floor. And Dave
Clark may can ex expand on that, but that's the way I look at regardless of the topography around it, they're all have to have that same first floor height because of the flood plane rules. It's the way I look at it. So, I did I I thought of a question that
I just want to follow up on um Ed's question. So, uh asking the architect um the uh ceiling height first floor was 9 ft and um Ed made some question about um cathedral and so what what's the ceiling
height in the second floor and it if it's a cathedral what's the ceiling height to the uh to the plates? Uh, excuse me, Erin Leven, please. Yeah, I want to make a correction. This I want to make a correction. The ceiling
height on the first floor is 8 foot 2 in and the ceiling height on the second floor without the cathedral is 8 feet. 8 feet 8t to the plates. Yes. Okay. Well, I mean to the plate of the dormer.
To the plate of That's those are That's the plate that I was talking about. Sure. Okay. Yep. Yep. Yep. That's all I had. Randy, thank. Okay. Anybody else have a question? If I could if I could comment briefly. So, one impact that this design has is
currently uh there's a retaining wall between the house on 47 uh and Little Beach Road. And that if you look on the site plan, that retaining wall is being removed.
And so again, one of the one of the things that was so objectional about 46 was the retaining walls all around it. And so we're removing the retaining wall on the little beach roadside of 47.
Okay. So um my my uh comment concern or question is that given that there's a 7.4 feet requirement for buildings right for height ceiling height um there is there a universe where you'd come down
from 8 feet or 8.2 an amount just to try to get the building a little bit lower? I'd have to consult with my client which I'm happy to do if you want to take a break. Um you know I just wanted to throw that out there for now. Let's just see if that matters once we deliberate. Okay.
Okay. You can keep that in the back of your mind. Okay. So, let's close the public hearing and move to deliberations. If I didn't miss anybody on questions, you want to say so moved, Jill. Jenny. So moved. Dave V seconds and votes yes.
Ed Actton votes yes. Yes. Yes. And I vote yes as well. Okay. Now, we're going to deliberate. So, we're going to try to give an idea of how we would vote as we deliberate. And uh we'll start with Ed. Um sure.
I mean, you know, one way you you could get the height down of this building would be a onestory building, but there's a number of two-story buildings in that area already. And um
you know, the genie's out of the bottle sort of I guess in that in that area. Um, my feeling is 8.2 isn't exorbitant. When I first heard nine feet, I was like, "Oh, you know, there's room to come down." But 82 feet 8.2 feet really
isn't isn't that high. Um, uh, I I like the change to the style. Um, I think the the cape will certainly look uh, you know, more natural in that area. And I believe um
you know it's a it's a modest footprint change. So I I I guess what I'm saying is I could support the support the project. Okay. And uh Steve, if you were voting Well, I very much appreciate the design. I think it's a much better fit than some
of the other houses that have been built in that area. I I like that Cape Cod design that you've incorporated. Um, it seems to me that that part of that 15 feet that you need to start off at has been sort of built in or or cut into the
the u the surrounding land. So, it kind of loses some of that that initial 15t and makes the house look more like it's it's at ground level. So, um, you know, kind of like what they had said, uh, there's a, you know, a dozen
or more houses down there that that have already been raised and in similar situations, so I don't think I would have a problem with this. And Lee, would you um, it's pretty close to the existing structure. Um
uh and and once I learned that the ceiling heights were eight feet two inches and 8 feet on the top, I mean yes, I could support it. I could support it. I was uh and once again love the design. Judy, well I have concerns about the height,
too. Um 82 is better, but um yeah, I I mean it's it's getting a full proper upstairs and it's, you know, it's in an elevated area. Um but I do also love the design. Um
only voting on this one. I I like this one, but this one is attached kind of. No, it's not. No, no, separate and distinct. Okay. All right. Um yeah, I could support this one. Okay. and David Nixon, could you?
Absolutely not. Look, you know, we can talk about the other houses and how many this and how many thats, but the fact is if you're standing on Little Beach Road or you're one of those other homes and the picture has disappeared, but you are
looking up at 37 feet and stop. 30 feet. Okay, we've closed the public hearing. I've got the floor, Mr. Rowdy. Yes. And and plus we close closed the public hearing anyway. So
So that's what you are looking at if you're standing in Little B Beach or if you're any of those other houses where this looms in front of you. This is unfortunately in the absolute wrong place you could have asked it to
be as far as the number of homes and the views that it it affects. 37 feet is not acceptable. It just is not. And I'm going to have to agree with Mr.
Nixon that it would have to come down in height in order for me to support it. Um, not that I think 8.2 is exorbitant. I don't, but I still think you could make the height come down. Well, the question for the chair then is if if we brought the height down to
what's the minimum I height. Yeah, I'm not going to be able to answer it in a vacuum like that. And I pardon I can't just answer that in like that. What you know, if you did this, what would I I don't know,
Randy. I haven't weighed in yet. Please. So, um, just I I think that Well, I was glad to hear it wasn't a nine foot ceiling on the first floor. Um
there is some room, you know, a few inches here or six. They could they could meet the codes and things and and still have a a reasonable ceiling height on the on the on the first floor, especially in this size building. You know, the height of the ceiling is
relative to the floor area. And so they could, you know, bring it down maybe 8 in something like that from where it is. uh with I think without I think significantly impacting the the um interior spaces or the feel of them or
anything like that. I'm not sure whether that 8 in is appearancewise going to be significantly different than what they've proposed. I I I'm I'm I am
with Ed. I think in the way Ed described this and seeing it as Mr. Riley has has presented the way that he's presented it that the many of these if you turn around if you stand on Little Beach Road
there if you turn around and you look at all of these buildings that that we've approved the elevation of and many of them I I don't remember how close they are to that 30 feet but they're fairly close.
So the proposal here is um se it's about 7 ft higher than the existing ridge but as I I would agree that it's being driven largely by the um
the the requirements for the of the flood plane by having to elevate the first floor to elevation 15 feet and so that this building in the proposal is
for it to basically sit the very same in the very same plane as the buildings behind on on the roads off of Little Beach Road that we've already approved. And this building is
certainly no larger than any of those. So I see this and and as everyone else has commented, this design is is far superior to anything we've seen before and certainly far superior to what took place at 46.
So all of that sort of I I could support it as it's been presented. If it came down a little bit and it would make other folks happy enough, I then I would certainly go along with that. But I think that what they're seeking here is not I don't share Dave's concerns in
that same regard because it's not 37 feet. It's you know you're st if you're standing at elevation seven and then it's so it is that the this the height is 30 feet from the lowest adjacent grade just as the buildings
behind. So in in my feeling with the way that we've done these other things, uh it it certainly may stand out more prominently because it's not surround it's you know it's not in a a village like some of those other
streets but it's putting it in the same place as the many buildings we've already approved and I I feel that it would not be sign substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. I I I the way I look at it, I I don't think it needs to be two stories, even though
others have been approved for two stories around there. I don't think this particular spot needs to necessarily be two stories, and it, you know, it's going to cause, you know, quite a a bad view essentially
in the area. The ridge is only going up four feet from where you are now. You're going up four feet. The ridge is only going up four feet from where it is now. That's not what the site plan says, Bill. No, that's You're looking at 57 53.
No, I'm looking at 47, Bill. I'm sorry, but let me Let's just clarify. The existing existing two-bedroom dwelling ridge elevation 30.1. Okay. Proposed ridge elevation 37.4.
7 feet. 7.3 feet. That's so that's the standard we use in comparison to what's there. But again, compared to the other buildings that all all of whom all of which we have approved and some of them I will grant
you I'm sorry I they got by me but I don't think that this one qualifies in that same way. Okay. What would you like to do, Mr. Riley? I'd like to ask for a continue so we can consider redesign.
Okay. Uh let's figure out what date that would go to. Um how long will you need to modify plans? Month. Month. One moment. to talk to them.
Just give him a long far away. No, no. So, we can just leave it at that. Can we close it? No, September 25th is fine. Thank you very much. Okay. Okay. I move to approve the
request for continuence to September 29th. 25th 25. 25th. 25th to 2025. Uh David seconds and votes yes. Uh Ed votes yes. Yes. Yes. And yes. Okay, now we're going to move along to your
other application. 25-063 Monoy Rips LLC care of William F. Riley 53 Little Beach Road sir application number 25-063
Monoy Rips LLC care of William Fry Esquire PO Box 707 Chattam Mass 02633 owner of property located at 53 Little Beach Road also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 16A block 26 lot H52
the applicant seeks to enlarge extend or change a non-conforming dwelling at a non-conforming ing lot be the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a new dwelling. The existing dwelling is non-conforming and that it is located 32.1 ft from Little Beach Road and entirely within the coastal conservancy district feet from
Little Beach Road where a 40ft setback is required and entirely within the coastal conservancy district where a 50-ft setback is required. Also proposed is the installation of two new driveways. The existing building coverage is 1,419 square feet and the proposed building
coverage is 2,77 2773 ft where 2,800 ft is the maximum allowed. The law is non-conforming and that it contains zero square ft of buildable upland where 20,000 ft is required and contains 32,600
ft of land area where 40,000 ft is required. in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48, section 6 and 9 in sections 5B and 8D2B of the protective bylaw. Okay, Mr. Riley, um I want to let u Mr.
Nixon make a statement about the um feasibility of going through this this hearing. Um Mr. Nixon. Uh if you think in any way, shape, or form there would be a different outcome discussing number 53,
uh I I don't know what that would be. If you don't feel that there would be a different outcome, I think you should ask for a continuence. Well, I discussed that with the angles who are here
and this is a different design and they'd like to hear comments uh from the members of the board. They don't expect you know the people who flunked remedial math to change but that would be you from past
yeah applications Mr. Okay. So go right ahead with your with your your presentation. Sir, just a minute. Um, go ahead. Come up. You This is This the owner? Yes. Is Rod Hankle. So just to the
comments for 53 because I agree. No, we're not. This isn't a time for that. No, no, no, no. Um was curious as to comments that would be different than the height issues that we should consider. We don't know because we we can't we can't do it like that. I'm sorry. That does not compute.
Yep. I No, I agree. Yep. Go ahead, Jim. All right. So, regarding 53, um, it has the same and similar elements as we discussed on 47 simple gable forms. We
were working to fit within the fabric of the neighborhood. We were looking to use materials that were natural, natural, would weather natural wood patina natural. So, this house also has Alaskan yellow cedar sidewalls, Alaskan yellow cedar roof shingles, and an earthtone
pallet to the windows and trim. Um, one thing I didn't point out on 47 is that the window language here is um of a scale and proportion to neighboring homes. It's they're two over one double hungs, the language in in this house. Um
the distinct difference is being a larger home than 47 that we've separated these two volumes um which is hard to see in this photo but there is a space between the left volume and the right volume um to give them more of that
cottage feel. Um the base of this house is also suggested to be board form concrete which would be silver in color. Um yeah that's what I would add to this. Yeah.
Okay. Thank you madam chair. So the uh my opening comments would be that one thing I think uh the board members have
to keep in mind is that the uh you know when property owners uh are required to comply with the FEMA requirements you can't just you know elevate a building then you have to bring it into
compliance. with FEMA, with building codes, you know, it's a very expensive deal. So people say, "Well, if we're going to spend that kind of money, I want a new home." So that's why we are where we are here. That's why every single place that's been approved down here has has
gone that way. So the the u so the criteria adequacy of the size of the site in terms of the size of the proposed use uh this is a significant increase in building coverage uh from
1379 square ft to 2773. Uh but we can say that the lot on which 53 sits has an area of over 30,000 square feet. Uh
and the proposed building will meet all setbacks with the exception of the street setback. Uh and the street of course if you've been there it ends at this house. So that the uh we don't think that the proximity of the house that a road uh
would have a negative impact on any neighbor. Compatibility of the size of the proposed structure with neighboring properties. We have a we passed out a sheet that shows all the homes in the neighborhood and at 4,000 square feet gross floor
area. Uh this is one of the larger homes. Uh there a couple this size and then this one is 5,000 square feet. Um and all the larger homes have obviously been approved by this board
uh recently in the last 10 years or so. uh exe you know the proposed proposed increase in non-conforming nature in addition to the decrease in the street setback there's a significant increase in living area which constitutes an intensification of
non-conforming use suitability of site including but not limited to impact on neighboring properties on the natural environment including slopes vegetation wetlands groundwater water bodies and storm water runoff so again we've been
to the conservation commission. Uh they've essentially approved the project with the uh defenses for the wetland which we've shown on the plans that were submitted there. And so we believe that the protection provided by conservation commission approvals and the building
contractor will protect the wetland that's across the street. impact of scale sighting and mass on the on the neighborhood visual character including views, vistas and streetscapes. So now one of the things about this
property is that the next property south is a a motel with it's condominium now with two buildings. Each of the buildings is taller than this building will be and each one's over 100 feet in
length. So, we think that uh you know, considering it's all part of the same neighborhood, we're a little bigger than most of the single family homes, but we think we fit in the fabric of the neighborhood.
The U again, as I pointed out on the previous hearing, uh the building from first floor to ridge is 21 feet high. The uh
and the architect use of traditional design ensures that the impact on the neighborhood visual character will be a positive one and is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing use. The compatibility is a single family
use and single family neighborhood. Uh it's going to have a new title five system with nitro nitrogen reducing component that has to be approved by the board of health as as Judy had noted in her report. No impact on traffic flow and safety, no impact on noise and
litter adequacy of utilities are fine. Uh and then with regard to expansion, the extent of lateral expansion proposed and the extent to which lateral expansion impacts the impervious area on the site.
Uh well it increases it but you know one of the things about uh increasing the size of the roof is that you know the the they control the storm water runoff so it gets recharged into the ground because they have drains
that go to dry wells. So we don't think that there's a significant uh difference if if the concern relates to storm water. again to remind you that you know this is an area that would get
flooded in a storm surge uh like a hurricane or nor easter in the winter time and the the uh and so comes in with the tide and goes out with the tide. So the size of the house really doesn't have any effect on the flood water or
the height of the flood water. So that would be our presentation. Thank you very much. Is there anybody here or Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor? In favor only? No. I will read the correspondences. I
think I already read them all, but um they're the same that was that I've read for 47. Um are you comfortable, Mr. Riley, with me just stating that I already read them for 47? any I will just I will reiterate that they
were two in favor from the Chiguses and the Lonigans and they they have little beach uh road addresses I believe if I remember right and um also we have a note from the conservation commission
saying that they will um ultimately um condition this and the health department um you know has given her uh statements and that's all fixable, doable, right? And then the um the historic has uh said
that they aren't going to delay it. So there's that. Now, is there anybody here or Microsoft Teams that wish to speak against or has a question? And we have somebody coming to the microphone now. Just state your name and address.
Ryan Phillips, 374 Road. I think we just did this. Um, so to me, you know, uh, this is historic. It was put in before all these laws were allowed and now it's in a flood zone. You can't build in a flood zone. Um, I'm really concerned again with the precedent of increasing
lot coverage um, in a flood zone because it when it does flood, it um, it makes it so it can't the land can't mitigate the floods as well. And if it's it's a slippery slope, 50 feet here and it's doubling the lot coverage. 14 feet here. And if everyone
does it, you know, it then becomes a problem. I guess 50 feet here, you know, not a big deal, but when everyone does it, it does become a problem and we need to take that in consideration. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else have a question or um wishes to speak against
either on teams or here? I don't see any. Mr. Mr. Riley, would you like to um Well, let's restate what I mentioned before. The uh a lot of the language relating to
flooding and the size of buildings really relates to riverine flooding because you know rivers streams they have a a force and a direction here. This is in this an a zone. So it's it's
called the still water flood zone. So no big waves, no strong currents. The water comes in with a storm surge and leaves when the tide goes out. So, uh, the size of this house has no impact whatsoever on the height of the storm
surge. So, thank you. Okay. Thank you for that. And, uh, questions from the board. Mr. V, any questions? Not at this time. No. Ed, questions? No questions. Mr. Nixon, questions?
No. And Lee, no questions. Steve, I was going to ask a question the last time and I forgot, but um I don't see any mechanicals called out here. Generator, air conditioning. Where is that going to be hung off the side of the building somehow or where is that
going to be? The uh I'm not aware if they're not on there. I mean, that's just that's the plan we submitted. Okay. One moment. Sarah's investigating. Uh there is a mechanical room labeled on
the basement plan, but I didn't see any exterior units shown on the site plan. Yeah. None. Okay. Okay. Anything else, Steve? No, that's it. Thank you. Any questions? No questions. No questions. Uh okay. Um let's close
the hearing and move to deliberations then. Jenny. So moved. Mr. V. Second. Sorry. Second. Anna, vote yes. Uh, Ed votes yes. Yes, Jenny. Yes, as do I. Okay, now we're going to do deliberations and we're going to start
with um Dave V. Um well um once again this I think this design uh is vastly superior to some of what we've
seen uh and um even a few that that got by us. Um and um this one actually is um in rel relative to the existing uh is only about 4 and a
half ft higher than the existing ridge. Um so I think visually uh in that regard um it's a little closer to what's already there. I'm not sure. I mean the we're close to
doubling the footprint. Um and that's um it's as as but the numbers at least were presented in the ad. It's an a354 square foot increase in footprint over an existing 1419 square feet.
So that's fairly significant. Um that said, um I'm not sure if in with respect to this site, it's it it's really would really stand out. Um you know, as Mr.
Riley pointed out, when look down to the south and see the old motel or barracks building or whatever it was, is significantly larger. there really isn't anything else around it other than um 47.
And so it might be that visually it's not going to be a shock. Um I'm I'm really kind of I'm not sure how I feel about that, but I do feel that at least I don't share the same visual concerns that Dave has
expressed. Um, and I know these that some of these were were expressed with some of the previous proposals which were not as well designed as this. Um, but I think that it it there are times and settings where
having the like these these two houses where they are and how they're located to have this be 4 feet higher to the ridge. um when it's all said and done and and and larger when it's all said
and done, I'm not sure it's not going to blend in. So, I'm I'm that's my take on it. Jenny deliberations. Um well, in addition to height, which I didn't actually love on the last one,
but I got okay with it because I think of the scale of that. Um this one is too much mass. the scale is um is much larger and I'm not comfortable with it. I think it is an intensification of
the non-conformity in the flood plane. I mean Dave said it it's it's 1354 square feet increase. It's 95% increase from what's there today. That is um almost the doubling. And so to I think the homeowner's questions about summarizing
it would be for me height, mass, and building coverage in a flood plane would be my concerns. Okay, Steve. Uh well, again, I like the design of these of this house u the same as I did
um for the previous one. Um it is quite a bit larger, but this seems like it's this is going to be the main house and and compound of the two houses. Um you know, we talk about massing, but there's nothing to the east or south
north of this I guess. So that it's not really um I think detrimental to any neighbors. um you know and it is sort of built into a dune and if you know years ago if we didn't have all the flood regulations
and we built the house on top of the dune it would be about the same height as what's being proposed here. So I I don't think I have an issue with this. Okay, Mr. Nixon, tell us about your issue. Well, this is a a triple whammy for me.
Not only the height, but also the massing. As Miss Fenwick just said, it's doubling in size and there's nothing else. And Ed, um I have to agree. I have a little a
little bit of an issue with the massing as well. Um but the fact that the two properties are owned by the same same you it's the same owner and the architecture is going to be similar I
think would allow me to give a little bit of leeway you know on the massing but I think a a reduction in the massing may help um the height uh I as in the other project I I'm okay with height
and Lee Um well I I agree with my colleagues u regarding the massing. I think what helps 47 is the fact that it's a very small house and that I think that would be visually um much uh more acceptable.
Um the 53 is um once again really nice design but um it's just it's it's I think too big too big um and not not heightwise but too big massing wise. Mr. Riley, what do you think?
I'm waiting to hear from you, Madam Chair. Well, yeah. So, the living space is doubled. The the um the coverage is essentially doubled. Um and so I doubled down on my opinion of it compared to the other one. I I just think it's too much
mass as well. Too much for that spot. Um I wish they were both essentially like 47. That would be it would be kind of nice. I would ask to continue to the same date as the previous meeting. We would not be able to do that. Um
maybe you should we could reconsider and take them both to a different day further down the line. That's maybe a possibility. Uh so right now I'm just going to let you know, Mr. Riley with yours that one
two three seven uh 47 Little Beach is the seventh application on September 25th. Otherwise, I'm scheduling for October 23rd or November 6th.
That's the earliest that you can be placed on an agenda. Take the October date, please. October 23rd. Okay. October 23rd. Do you want them both on that day or? Yes, please. Yeah. So, we'll go back and we'll fix
the other one in a moment. Let's just do this one and then we'll Okay. So, I move to approve the request for continuance for application 2563 uh to October 23rd, 2025. Very good. Dave seconds and votes yes.
Uh Ed votes yes. I vote yes. Jenny votes yes. As do I. Okay. So, now we're going to go back. So, reopening application 25-062 Monoy Rips LLC for 47 Little Beach Road.
Um, to allow for the continuence rather than being on September 25th, uh, Attorney Riley would like them both on the same agenda. So, that would be to October 23rd, 2025. Jenny. So moved. So moved.
David seconds and votes yes. Ed votes yes. Yes. And yes. Okay. We'll see you then. Thank you. Thank you. That appears to conclude our meeting for today. And uh how about a motion to
adjurnn? I move to close the hearing. Just to adjurnn. Oh to adjourn. Dave seconds and votes yes. Ed votes yes. What did everyone vote on the continuence to October 23rd for 47 Little Beach? Because you need to do so. Each individual roll call vote.
Oh, we didn't do that. I'm sorry. Okay. So, let's go back and do that. So, all right. So, I move to request for continuence of application 2562 to October 23rd, 2025. Dave seconds and votes yes. Ed votes yes.
Yes. Yes. And yes. Okay. That's officially done. Now we can move to adjourn. I move to adjourn the the meeting. Dave V seconds and votes yes everybody. Yes. Yes. Yes.
Yes. Lee. Yes. Yes. And as do I. And what time is it? 4:41 p.m. Very good. All right. Good night, Chadam. Good. [Music] [Music]