[music] Hey. Hey. Hey. How do I hide my Welcome to the Town of Chadam's zoning board of appeals meeting. The date is July 23rd, 2026. Uh to begin the meeting, we have a kind
word from the governor of Massachusetts. >> Please note this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly hereafter for scheduled and on demand viewing on any smartphone or tablet device. If anyone else is recording the meeting, including the use of AI note-taking apps, please notify the
chair. Pursuant to Governor Haley's March 28, 2025 signing of chapter 2 of the acts of 2025 extending certain CO 19 measures [clears throat] adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law until June 30th, 2027.
This meeting of the Chattam Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted in person and via remote participation. Every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided for in the order. A reminder that persons who would
like to listen to this meeting while in progress may do so by calling the phone number 508-945-4410 conference ID 33124844 pound sign or join the meeting online via Microsoft Teams through the link in the posted agenda. While this is a live
broadcast and simoc cast on Chattam TV, which is Xfinity channel 1072, despite our best efforts, we may not be able to provide real-time access. We will post a record of this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible. In accordance with town policy, the public
may speak to any issue uh hearing or business item on the agenda during the meeting when you're recognized by the chair. Do you want me to go through these? Okay. All right. I will go through um series of procedural steps that we have as a reminder to everyone of those
steps. Um we will take a roll call of all board members. Ask if any citizens or non-board members participating either in the call via the phone only for their name and the last four digits of their phone number for identification
purposes. Our hearing uh notice is read by um staff Sarah Clark. uh you or your representative presents the appeal or an application. Anyone in favor of the appeal or application may speak up to five minutes. That's the time limit. The
chair may read or summarize all letters received by the board. Anyone against this appeal or application may speak or ask questions. Again, five minute time limit. The applicant may rebut testimony. Board members may direct questions to anyone present. Uh the
board hears further information and then we close the public hearing and deliberate. Uh then the board votes on the appeal or the application. All votes are taken by our roll call. In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the granting of special permits, variances,
and appeals require a supermajority, meaning you need four of the five voting members to approve your application to succeed. Voting today will be Ed Actton, uh Paul Simple, myself,
Steve Dbor, and Lee Hovy. At the end of the meeting, uh at at the end of the meeting, we'll close the meeting ver via ver verbal confirmation and note the time of adjournment. Tongue twist.
>> Thank you. Uh we need a roll call to approve this form of meeting. Uh Ed, >> uh I ed actton approves. >> Paul C simple. I approve this form. David Hnson, I approve. >> Virginia Fenick, I approve.
>> Steven D. Debor, I approve. >> Lee Huby and I approve. Uh to begin with today, uh Sarah lady to my right, the PO for the town, that's a principal permitting officer, is going to bring us up to speed on a
change in the law. This is something the legis Massachusetts great in general court is what their correct name is that's the legislature uh passed and the governor signed and it will affect those who are asking for certain kinds of
special permits Sarah. Um, so effective July 1st, uh, retroactive to July 1st, there were some changes to chapter 4A, the zoning act, um, which staff is still seeking further
clarification from town council on. Um, however, certain types of applications, uh, will not require relief from the board of appeals anymore. One of which happens to be our first hearing today. So, they will be seeking a withdrawal. Um, but stay tuned as we get more
information. So will everybody else. >> And uh, generally speaking, I think Sarah, that if your application complies with today's setbacks and the various zoning issues, but perhaps is on
a non-conforming lot. uh these are some of the things that might be able to do without app buying for a special permit. So with that in mind, uh we start today with 26-057.
>> Application number 26-057. Greg A. Kenny and Lynn L. Kenny, care of Larry Broody, PO Box 92, Haritchport, Mass 02646. owners of property located at 150 Pleasant Street, also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 2B, block
57A, lot B1. The applicant seeks to enlarge, extend, or change a conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the partial demolition and construction of 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 accept clause of section 6 and mass general law chapter 48 requires the grant of a special permit. The existing building coverage is 1,177 ft 7.8% and the proposed building coverage is 1,392
ft 9.2% where 15% is the maximum allowed. The law is non-conforming and it contains 15,76 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. >> Good afternoon. Um I with the new information I >> just ID yourself. Okay. >> Larry Broody. Um >> thank you Larry >> agent for Greg and Lynn Kenny. Um, I'm
going to withdraw the application as we don't need relief anymore. >> Okay, Paul need a motion. >> I'll move to grant the withdrawal without prejudice. >> Uh, Ed uh, seconds and votes yes.
>> Paul votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> Steve votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> That's a unanimous decision, Larry. You won't get another easy one like that again. That was the quickest one yet. [laughter] >> All right.
>> Okay, Sarah, can we go back to 26-055, please? >> Application number 26-055. Christopher and Susan Wilson, care of that Eldridge, 1038 Main Street, Chattam, Mass 02633. Owners of property located at 434 Coal
Cove Road. also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 5B block 15 lot 17. The applicant proposes to install an exterior mechanical system appliance AC condenser 7.8 ft from the northly of butter where a 15t setback is required
and within the coastal conservancy district where a 50ft setback is required. The property contains 4,813 ft of land area in the R20 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 9 and section 8D2B of the
protective bylaw. >> Welcome that. >> Thank you. Good afternoon. For the record, Thad Eldridge, East Southeast. You're [snorts] representing the Wilsons. When they took ownership of the property a couple of years ago, they installed a new septic system that required
variances. They renovated the building, brought a little life back into the 106-y old building. Um, and they installed an HVAC unit without realizing they needed a special permit for where it was going.
I came in afterwards and I ran a survey of the property because the old plan was in as bad of shape as the house was before they renovated it. So, I have identified that the current HVAC unit is 8.2 two feet off the
northern boundary and within the coastal conservancy district and we're requesting a special permit for for the existence of that. To briefly review the criteria, um the site is small, so is the house. We have a 612 ft footprint.
Uh three sides are non-conforming and the other side has the septic system. The HVAC is compatible to others on adjacent properties. Um, it was installed in a location best for the piping and getting underneath
that building. Um, I opened up those doors at one point just to see what was under there. I wasn't about to crawl under there cuz relocating it to the front of the property, the street side. First, it um the recent zoning bylaw change allowing
special permits for the HVAC units. Part of the intent of that was to keep these out of the out of the street view. Um so that is a benefit to the streetscape. The other problem out there is all these a lot of utilities come in there. We
have a gas meter. We have some of the septic components and it's it just gets tight on that side. Uh there's one neighbor who this can impact. They've reached out to that neighbor. Um this proposed HVAC unit is 30 ft from
their lawn. So well over the 15 ft that would be required. The unit installed is a quiet unit. It's also on the north side of the building to keep it out of the full sun and out of the wind. Um it's right next to their outdoor living space. So, if it does
start to make noise, it will impact them far more than it would impact the neighbor. And that would be about it. If there are questions, I'm happy to answer them. >> Thank you. Uh, is there anyone here today or on Microsoft Teams would like to speak in favor of this application?
If so, please indicate now you'd like to join the conversation. Don't see anyone, so I'll read the correspondence. Town of Cadam Conservation Commission on July 21st. Right. The applicant's representative submitted an
administrative review on June 30th. The project was issued an administrative review and was conditioned to meet the performance standards under the wetlands protection act and the town of local wetland bylaw chapter 272.
That is the extent of the correspondence. Is there anyone here today or in Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak either A against this application or B has a question? If so, please indicate you want to join the conversation.
Don't see anybody questions. Lee, >> no questions. >> I have no questions. >> No questions. >> No questions. >> No questions. I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations.
>> Uh Ed seconds and votes yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> Steve votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> Deliberations. Steve. >> Well uh you know it's always nice having a life-size mockup of uh you know what we're what to look at something so we
know exactly what it's going to look like when it's done. So um I have no issues with this. The the rinse station I stick I think sticks out further than this. I have no issues with this. >> [clears throat and cough] >> Jenny >> that I agree with your comments about the location. I think that's um
suitable. I think it's generous and kind that they checked in with the one neighbor that's a buddy and they had no issue with it. But even if they had, it's really the best place for it because of the piping that you mentioned and you are raising it to meet the um conservation or code requirement.
>> Yes, it needs there was a stake out there that has the minimum height that it needs to be elevated to. Just to note, we have um 7.8 proposed. That's just to give that little bit of buffer in case >> things move out a little bit. So, we're
not before you saying, "Well, we asked for 8.2, but we're 8.1." >> Well, I think your criteria makes perfect sense and um I'm supportive. >> Paul, I agree with Jenny and >> agree with my colleagues.
>> I agree as well. And I will say um when we went out for our site visit, the [clears throat] unit was running and you could barely hear it standing right next to it. So I approve this. I would approve this, too. >> I'll move to approve the application as
submitted. >> Edson and votes yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> Steve votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> That's a unanimous decision. >> Thank you much. Not the fastest one today, though. [clears throat] 26-056
please. Sarah >> application number 26-056 David J. Parker Jr. Care of William G. Lichfield Esquire 330 [clears throat] Orleans Road North Chattam Mass 02650 owner of property located at 76 Lenau
Drive. also shown on the town [clears throat] of Chadam's assessor's map 11B block 13 lot 10. The applicant proposes to change alter or expand a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the construction of an addition. The existing [clears throat] dwelling is non-conforming and it is located 2.7 ft
from the road and 19.4 ft from the easterly butter where a 25 ft setback is required. [clears throat] The proposed addition will be non-conforming and that it will be located 3.4 ft from the road where a 40ft setback is required. The existing building coverage is 244 square
ft and the proposed building coverage is 2416 ft or 3,000 ft is the maximum allowed. The law is non-conforming and that it contains 27,926 ft in the R40 Sony district. A special permit is required under Mass General
Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protected bylaw. >> Mr. Lichfield. >> Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Bill Lichfield here on behalf of David Parker who unfortunately could not be here this afternoon. Just as uh
Mr. Eldridge went out of his way in the previous hearing to help Mr. Dbor out in terms of visualization, we thought it would be useful to have you visit a neighborhood which is perhaps not one by which you travel every day. It's a rather isolated
location as you you discovered when you went out there. Uh David has owned this property for the last 20 odd years. Um and is thinking about uh making it, it is his full-time residence, but thinking about making it a little bit more
comfortable for the future. And they'd like to have a larger first floor bedroom, some additional storage. And what is proposed is to add uh on the left hand side or the west side uh an
addition uh which is within the setback of that major thoroughare Lana drive. Uh oddly enough uh David owns Lana Drive. Uh it is it is not a town way. uh it is
a way over which other people have rights, but he actually owns it. Uh he received a deed for it about 15 years ago. That's neither here nor there. As you know from going out there, however, it is a fairly private location. And
while we are uh too close to the street at 2.7 ft uh and the proposed addition will also be too close at 3.4t. the traveled area is significantly further from the house itself and again
it is not a heavily traveled way. So we'll go into the criteria as to adequacy of site including building covered in setbacks. Many of the nearby lots are non-conforming. This house having been built in 1929 and the lot
itself predate the zoning bylaw at 2044 square ft and coverage of 7.3% coverage is well below the maximum. The gross floor area and living area is the lower end of the neighboring uh properties. Notwithstanding lot size and the setback
issue, it's adequate for the residential use and it will remain adequate if you approve the special permit for a modest expansion of the house. Uh coverage remains well below the limit. Uh we will be at 2416 square ft where 3,000 square
ft uh is allowed and the addition is technically not by much but a little bit further away from the road than is the existing uh structure as to compatibility of size. In the third page of the handout uh the neighboring
properties are shown. The living area of this house right now is just only 1300 square ft. If you approve the special perimeters, I hope that you will do. The living area increases to 1,742 square feet, which is still a modest home. Coverage remains well below the
the maximum. It's consistent with the neighborhood. The gross floor area and living area increase, but they're still significantly lower uh than most in the neighborhood and compatible and again in a very private location. As to the extent of increase in nonconformities,
as Sarah read, we have lot size and uh street and sideline nonconformities. There is no increase in nonconformity because again the addition is further from Lenar Drive uh than the existing house. Uh there's no technically no increase in nonconformity and
practically there's no real change either as to environmental issues. There we're there are no wetlands there. or outside a conservation commission's jurisdiction scale citing mass views and vistas. The existing structure uh again was built around 1929. It's a cape which
has been modified many times over the years. Um if you approve the special permit, the sighting will remain unchanged. The scale will be appropriate and certainly far from massive. Using the term streetscape is only arguably applicable here, but it will not be notably affected and there are no views
or vistas involved. As the compatibility of use, it will remain residential. Uh the chair will uh read or he'll pawn off on Miss Fenwick the opportunity to read uh the comment from maybe the last comment from Judy Georgie now that she's
retired. U but she noted that the septic tank had to be moved. that is noted on our site plan as you perhaps saw. We're very much aware of that and it will be be moved. Traffic flow and safety is not a particularly prominent issue in this
neighborhood. So I don't think you have to be concerned about that. So, as you know, the question is whether the proposed addition with a footprint of about 400 square ft, which will allow for an enlarged first floor bedroom, an additional bathroom, and a breakfast area is substantially more detrimental
to the neighborhood than the current non-conforming house or non-conforming lot. The project provides additional small but important to the Parker family space for storage for a washer dryer as well as for a larger but still modest at
206 square ft first floor bedroom without increasing nonconformity and again the petitioner happens to own the road in question. It's a simple and appropriate design uh which will be consistent with
the existing trim details and the like. uh so in light of the criteria and the plans I think you can find particularly in this uh private location pros change is not substantially more detrimental be happy to answer any questions
>> thank you is there anyone here today on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application if so please indicate you'd like to join the conversation don't see anyone I'll read the correspondence
>> [clears throat] >> Maybe this is Julio's last statement. This the lady who just retired who is the health agent for the town. She writes, "On July 13th, the addition is acceptable. However, it appears to encroach on the existing septic system
and a plan to relocate the tanks will be required." Then we have a note. This is from Christina Bariset. She writes [snorts] for the Chattam Historical Commission on
June 18th. The commission found this home to be not historically significant and did not impose a demolition delay. That's the extent of the correspondence. Is there anyone here today or on Microsoft team
that wishes to either A speak against this application or B has a specific question? If so, please indicate if you'd like to join the conversation. Don't see anyone questions from the board. Ed,
>> I have no questions. Paul, >> do we know where the name Leau drive came from? uh two sisters, Catherine and possibly Mary. Yes, it was Mary. Katherine with a C. They own the land uh
on which this property, this house exists. And also, I think they may have owned some of the property that former member of this board, Doug Wells, uh owned. But the LA sisters developed the neighborhood a long time ago, actually
before I was around. Wow. >> Yeah, I know. That uh that's uh that was my only question. Thank you, >> Kenny. >> I have no questions. >> Uh I have no questions. >> No questions.
>> Okay, I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> Ed seconds and votes yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> Steve votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> Okay, deliberations. Paul. >> Well, it seems like a uh a needed
addition and uh certainly one that is not going to be substantially uh detrimental to the neighborhood. So, I think it meets our criteria. Jenny? >> Yeah. As noted in Mr. Lichfield's uh summary here, in light of the criteria
and the plans and our site visit, um I do not see anything that is substantially more detrimental. Steve. >> Well, when I drove out there, I guess I was expecting something much different. Um, and then I realized that um, you know, the setback was to a road or part
of a road that didn't exist. Um, I I don't see any problem with this. I think it's a good idea and uh, I don't think it's going to be detrimental to anything. >> Lee, >> I I agree with my colleagues. >> Ed, as do I. Paul,
>> I guess my question would be what's our plans in terms of construction >> gi given that uh July 23rd is today and the special permit wouldn't be viable until around a month from now, August 23rd. If you impose a Labor Day
restriction, that won't shouldn't be a problem. >> All right. I'll move to approve the application as submitted with the conditions that construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner that between June 30th and Labor Day, no
exterior construction will be allowed. No work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. only. >> Uh Edinson and votes yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> Steve votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> That's a unanimous vote. Thank you, Mr.
Litri. Thank you very much. >> 26-058 please. Sarah application number 26-058 car Carlton Builders LLC care of William F. Fryley, Esquire, PO Box 707 Chadam,
Mass 02633. Owner of property located at 1805 Main Street, also shown in the town of Chadam's assessor's map 7e, block 11, lot 9. [laughter] The applicant seeks to enlarge, extend, or change a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the demolition of
the existing dwelling and the construction of a new dwelling and accessory structure, pool house. The existing dwelling is non-conforming and that it is located 14.2 2 ft from the westerly abut butter where a 15 ft setback is required. The propos the proposed dwelling and accessory
structure 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 six of Mass General law requires the grant of a special permit. The existing building coverage is 1,145 ft 5.8% 8% and the proposed building
coverage is 2754 ft 13.9% where 15% but not more than 2,800 ft is the maximum allowed. The law is non-conforming and that it contains 19,782 ft where 20,000 ft is required in the
R20 zoning district. A special permit is required under master law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5 via the protected bylaw. >> I see Mr. Riley sent the A team today. Good. He's happily on vacation today. So, uh Jamie Norcross representing
Carlton Builders and Jesse Carlton. Um this proposal is to demolish the existing structure and build a new uh four-bedroom dwelling uh and include a pool and a pool house. Uh the lot is just shy of 20,000 square ft. It's
almost 19,800 ft. So that is the uh only non-conformity that uh uh is with regards to the lot itself. Uh the existing house is non-conforming uh with regard to the setback to the west lot line. It slightly encroaches onto that
lot line. Uh if you've seen the properties, I'm sure you have the house and the property is in u quite poor condition. Uh I think it's been um vacant for a number of years. Uh Jesse bought the property this past April and developed the plan that you see today.
Uh with regard to the proposed structures, we're going to meet all dimensional setbacks. Uh we are going to be meet uh the building height requirement as well as the building coverage requirement. Uh the proposed house will be over 70 ft set back from
Route 28. So about 30 feet uh further back than the existing house um which helps to offset um the increase in size as you see on the plans and also allows for the half circle driveway which from having backed out on a route 28 from that property uh this week I can tell
you is a really good idea in terms of uh safety for uh occupants and guests. The design as you seen is quite traditional by Ryder and Will Cox. Um it's of course significantly larger than the existing house which is uh quite small. However, they've incorporated
some nice design features. The gables on both sides as well as the dormers to create the additional living area on the second floor to again help help offset some of the size increase. The pool house will be set uh behind the the proposed house. So that will be will not be visible uh from Route 28 in the
proposed location as you can see on the site plan. going through the criteria. Uh number one, adequacy of the size of the site uh including but not limited to maximum lot building coverage or setbacks. As I just mentioned, uh the structure will meet all dimensional setbacks. We meet the
height requirement and we meet the building coverage requirement of the zoning bylaw. And as I also mentioned, uh the proposed house will be uh just north of 71 ft set back from uh Route 28. compatibility of the size of the
proposed structure with neighboring properties. Um there are a number of larger homes in this area. Um, if you look at the assessor's map that I included as the last page of the handout, um, and I would draw your attention to
if you look at the immediate abuters to the west, it's on they're on Woodpecker Lane, but they actually have a a route Route 28 address 1811 and 1817 uh, Main Street. And those are quite comparable as you see on the um, on the
chart that I provided in terms of size. There are also some um larger homes that are very comparable in terms of size a little bit further west off of Whitley's Way and those are all 20,000 square foot lots which is essentially the size of
our lot 1817 which is again to the west just to the west of our property I think is about 22,000 square ft and so it is similar in terms of house size and lot size to what Mr. Carlton is proposing with this application. Number three, extent of the proposed increase in
non-conforming nature of the structure or use. Uh there is no proposed increase. We are meeting all dimensional requirements of the bylaw. Suitability of the site. Uh I believe the site is suitable for this project. Uh we are not dealing with any conservation jurisdiction issues and the construction
can be completed without any negative impact on the neighboring properties. Impact of scale setting and mass on neighborhood visual characters. Again, it'll be a change and it's a bigger home, but I'd suggest it's not a negative impact on neighborhood visual character. It's a traditional design design, excuse me, utilizing the gables
and dormers to provide the necessary room uh for living area on the second floor. uh the height of the structure. Obviously, we're north of 29 ft, which I know the board often times um tries to avoid, but I' I'd point out that is a result of the gables that you see. And I
think they have uh quite a steep pitch to them. But I think that is really a design element and a feature that is um a positive in this regard for this building that you see here in terms of what Ryder Wilcox has put together for the plans um for the front of the house
in the back. As I mentioned, the pool house which does create some additional uh lot coverage and gross floor area that's located behind the main house and so that will be unseen from Route 28. Uh number six, compatibility of the
proposed use with neighboring uses as a single family residence in a residential neighborhood and therefore is compatible. Uh number seven, methods of sewage disposal source of water and drainage. The property will will need to be connected to town sewer. It is connected to town water and has appropriate drainage and is a rather
flat lot. Impact on traffic flow and safety. there'll be no negative impact. And as I mentioned uh by uh including the half circle driveway, I think it's actually a real improvement on current conditions uh for traffic flow and safety on this site. Uh no issues with noise and litter. Uh and number 10, the
property has all necessary utilities. 11 and 12 are not applicable in this instance. And so to uh conclude briefly, it's obviously a change for the property and it's a bigger house, but it's one that I think the design um is uh a good
design. Uh we meet setbacks and I think it is compatible with neighboring properties and I don't think what um Mr. Carlton is proposing is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, Jamie. Is there anyone here today or on Microsoft Teams or
would wishes to speak in favor of this application? Please indicate you'd like to join the conversation. I'll read the correspondence. George Gorgio writes on July 13th. Properties adjacent to the town of Chattam Sewer and will be required to
connect as part of the application. Existing floor plans are required to determine the number of bedrooms currently at the property. The proposed plan is for a fourbedroom plus the pool house for a total of five. Thank you, Judy.
Then we have a note from Christina Basset writing for the CHC. The CAC found this home to be not historically significant and did not
oppose a demolition delay. She wrote that on June 18th. That's the extent of the correspondence. Is there anyone here today or on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak either against this application or as a specific question? If so, please
indicate you'd like to join the conversation. Don't see anyone. So, we'll go to questions from the board. Jenny um ceiling heights Jamie on the first and
second floor. >> I don't know that number Jenny U and it's not shown on the plans so I don't have an answer for you on the ceiling heights. >> Um >> Jay might have a guess.
>> Jay, do you have an answer for that? >> SJ Briggs, building commissioner. Let me let me work on it. >> Okay. Okay, give me a minute. >> Um Jamie, any um discussion around, you've heard the board talk about seeing a model or some type of image of what's
proposed, which you know, I know can be challenging and maybe not necessary in all cases, but with a brand new development of the site, right, you're redeveloping kind of the whole thing. You're taking tearing it down, you're removing trees, you're I mean, it wasn't
staked. It was very hard to kind of visualize this. I know it's set way far back um but was there any discussion with your client to um generate a model or some type of digital rendering of what you're proposing on the whole site?
>> No, there wasn't any discussion about a rendering. >> Okay. Um that's the only questions I have right now. See >> um because the house is moving so far back
from where the existing house is is do you have any sort of a landscape plan of how that's going to be? >> I haven't seen a landscape plan obviously it's going to require some extensive vegetation because if you go behind the existing house I mean it's all overgrown and there's going to have to be significant changes
>> and the house is moving back so there's going to be a much larger front area there. >> Correct. No, there is no landscape plan for that's been completed as of yet. >> Okay. Um I don't think I have any other questions. Thank >> Lee,
>> any plan or thought regarding um AC condensers, the placement because you're right up against the setbacks on the sides. >> My uh not that I'm aware of. Um it's a
good point regarding the setback. So, I'm assuming any sort of uh well, it'll have air conditioning, but would have to go to the rear of the property. >> Just something to keep >> Yes. Yep. >> in mind. >> Absolutely. We don't want to come back for that. >> Ed,
um, >> you can't go into hiding like that. >> No, no, I dropped a few pieces. um the island between the driveway. Um I guess my question is also regarding the landscaping. I imagine
you know since this is Route 28 that there'll probably be significant screening in that island. I I would imagine and I guess you don't have landscape plan. My question was going to be do how much of this house will you will you even see from Route 28 if it's 70t back and >> in between the distance and I think
you're it's a pretty good assumption they're going to do. When I spoke to uh Mr. Carlson, he did say that we're going to be doing extensive plantings along uh both property lines. He's had conversations with Eric Whitley who lives next door just trying to maintain a buffer on that side as well as the other side. And so I think it's fair to
assume they'd be doing some extensive plantings on the front as well. >> Okay. And I guess this question is for Sarah. with the the new regulations, how does this property fit into that where it's meeting all the setbacks?
>> Um, so I've been advised that uh demolition and reconstruction of dwellings on non-conforming lots does still require the grant of a special permit. >> Okay? >> Because it's not it's not solely an extension or alteration. It's a
reconstruction which is referenced um separately in the zoning act. >> Okay. Thank you, Paul. >> I guess I would echo maybe some of the concerns that Jenny expressed. I'm having a little trouble picturing what
this is going to look like given that what's there now is a disaster. And uh it's very hard to uh to see um how what's given for renderings will
actually fit into the neighborhood. Um so I'm having a little bit of trouble with that. It's you know it's on 28. It's a fairly prominent location. Um and there it certainly gets a lot of traffic. I mean trying to get onto that site just to look at it uh was almost
impossible in the summertime. traffic. Um, >> so I have some concerns that maybe we need to see something better uh in terms of what we can see and we'll see from the road uh some perspective uh drawing
something along those lines. That would be my thought. Yeah, Jamie. Uh when I look at the GFA, that's the gross floor area, it's like four and a half times what
your proposed compared to today. And I think as you know we're getting a lot of push back from the town for allowing McMansions which is a kind of a silly
word but anyway such an increase is a difficult thing to justify because we're not we're not in a situation where the home is being built
for a family or you know whatever. This is a home being built by a developer and so the bigger the better. Let's put everything in the pool almost 30 feet and something like this four and a half
times as large um would make it very difficult for me to feel that it was compatible to the neighborhood. Uh as you know I'm not voting today so you don't have to worry about that but
there could be others that do it. U to me it's too much. It's too much of an ask and um I'll just let it go at that. >> My my only comment on the compar comparing it to what's there now I don't think is probably the best comparison.
I'd almost look at this like a vacant lot given the house is such you're not going to work off the existing house and the house is 1940s. It's quite small and I I think trying to say I understand the neighborhood comparison and that's a valid point but I think saying well it's it's so much bigger than what's there
now when given the condition given the size of what's there it's really does it fit in with the neighborhood not so much that it's x number of square feet bigger than the existing >> I think Jenny had another question >> I did Jamie um so just can you just
repeat or remind what uh the board of health said about like how do you get how are you able to get five bedrooms with 19,000 square ft >> if it's an existing fourbedroom >> it is today >> I believe so and then you are entitled
to the assessor has it listed as three but they have to provide the floor plans for the existing to the health department to demonstrate the four bedrooms then you're allowed to have a fifth uh >> if you upgrade >> if you if you upgrade to sewer and the pool house again it counts towards a
bedroom even though it's doesn't have a bedroom in it, but obviously it could be used for sleeping. So they uh and it meets the definition of a bedroom, but that's how >> for today. Sarah, >> we don't have any existing floor plans of the structure because it was built
before building code existed. Um so we are not able to confirm the number of bedrooms. >> All right. So existing floor plans are required to determine the number of bedrooms. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay, Paul.
Uh, I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> Uh, Ed seconds and votes yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> Steve votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> Okay. At deliberations. Let's start with Lee.
Um well I I I think uh any improvement is welcome uh on this site. Um I think that moving it back a substantial amount is going to help as well. I also want to
say that I know I have I know the designer from Ryder and Wilcox the designer I don't the designer and she does really really nice um designs and buildings. I think it's
traditional. I think um you know with the correct proper landscaping um I think it's okay. I mean I would love to see it a little bit lower. Um but I
think the design is very attractive. Um I also just for some wiggle room maybe not go right to the setbacks because you are right on the setbacks. So, um I think I think it will not be
substantially more detrimental than what is there now and to the neighborhood. Um I I would be inclined to approve this. Um I'll see what my colleagues have to say. >> Steve,
>> well, I think my initial view of this was um that it's a lot of house. Um, it's very large compared to [sighs and gasps] everything that's around it. Um, all the other lots on Main Street.
Um, and even three out of the four on Whitley's Way. Um Um, you're kind of pushing the envelope on the height. I I'm just wondering if something can be done with those to bring that the overall height down a little bit, maybe change the pitch of
the roofs there. Um, but you know, my biggest thing is that I'm I'm not sure that this house is compatible with the surrounding area. I think it's very large. I think for that for that the houses that are immediately adjacent
to it along Main Street. I think I I'd like to see a a second go round with this house. Jenny, >> yeah, I agree with Steve. Um, criteria two, I I think it is um that's where I'm
getting hung up on um compatibility of the size of this proposed structure with the neighboring properties. So, I did um drive from the um Captain Bass House to the M to the West
Cadam Rotary and I I didn't see somehow I must have missed 1817 because you you have it at 54 um you know as as a large house at 54,000 on 22,000. So, it's a little bit of a larger lot. But I didn't see that. I didn't see a single large
home there on that main street. Okay. I didn't go down. A lot of the houses you have here are off of Main Street. Grammyy's Lane, Woodpecker, um, Whitley's. So, I I didn't go down there. And I frankly don't think that that qualifies as sort of the neighborhood,
even though it it is. It's off of the road. Even though people refer to this as 28, it's also called Main Street. And I um I don't believe in coincidences, but just by coincidence, and it truly was a coincidence, I I happened to be hearing a snippet of a Protect Our Past
um interview with the president of Protect Our Past. And now she was talking about 6A, but she was talking about how imagine 6A with, you know, people come to the Cape, not necessarily Chadam, but the Cape um and they want to
see Cape Cods. You hear the name Cape Cod all over America. You know, I'm in I'm in uh you know, West Virginia and it's advertised as a Cape Cod. So, so there's something very distinctive about our architecture in Cape Cod. It was just an interesting interview. And then, you know, this application's coming up
and I thought, you know, Main Street's not 6A, but it's sort of a similar um so I I think the the visual impact of Main Street um is important here. And I I think the fact that your proposed home at 5738
um gross floor area would be the largest on Main Street. I mean, there is one that's close and you have it noted here, but the majority of the ones that you've listed here, in fact, all of them on Main Street are 2,000 um uh gross floor area in comparison.
So, all that to say, adding all that together, not knowing the ceiling heights, not, you know, the question about the fifth bedroom, um I I'm concerned about the size. Um and and and the height, frankly. Um I I think it's I
think Steve said this or Lee, it's really maxing out the um the property on the sides going 155 when you're at 15. The one great thing about it is that it's so it's pushed so far back from the street. I do recognize that and I do like that, but then you're you're within
20 feet of the back. So, it's tight and I think it could be a little a little, you know, a little smaller and fit in better in um on Main Street. >> Paul, well, as I said before, I think uh I have a need to see a better perspective
on what the impact is on the neighborhood. uh perhaps with a drawing, a physical drawing that shows the uh uh the street view with the compatible properties on each side. Um because you are maxing out height. You're maxing out
a number of things in terms of building here. And I I don't want it to be a gigantic house in an area that is not full of those large size houses. uh we're just perpetuating a problem that we don't really need to do. So, um I'm
inclined to be a little hung up on the compatibility of the size of the proposed structure with neighboring properties. We would like to see a better perspective on that and maybe that will then show us whether there's any need to downsize the house completely from what's being proposed
now. And >> um I I I guess on this one I I I agree mainly with my comma colleagues. Um, you are sort of pushing the envelope a little bit on this. You only you only
needed 218 more square feet and you you wouldn't even be here. Um, I I do like the design. I like the flying rigs. I think it has like a historic component to the existing design. Um, it is, you know, 70 ft back from the road, so it's
not going to be like hanging over the road. So, I see a lot of positives to this and and um but perhaps a you know, a rendering would help myself and the other board members. Um
I I I think it's it's close. So, but I think you can see where where things are going. [clears throat] So, >> that would be my comments. >> No, and as I said earlier, Jamie, as far as I'm concerned, uh I just don't think it's compatible. It's just too much. It's just too much.
>> Mhm. >> So, you've heard what everybody says. >> Uh, I would ask if I may for a continuence and we can address some of the design changes, look into that as well as renderings that Paul's mentioned. That would be helpful and get it staked. I apologize it wasn't staked
and it is difficult to you need a machete to get in the backyard as it is. So, it's sort of hard to tell where everything is uh especially without the benefit of staking. So, I don't know if you have sometime in September. >> Um, we have September 17th or let me
just see what other September meeting we have. >> That's a bad day for >> Okay. Um, September 24th. >> Sure, that'd be great. I would u please ask for continuance until September 24th.
I will move to grant the requested continuence to September 24, 2026. Uh Edson and votes yes. >> All votes yes. >> Virginia votes yes. >> You votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> Great. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Was that 9:24?
>> 9:29. >> All right, let's see. Sarah, we're on to 26-059, please. >> Application number 26-059. William William Appleard Family Trust Care of Theodore Styber 15 Lindenry Lane
Chattam Mass 02633 owner of property located at 44 Independence Lane also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 13C block 43 lot DC2 the applicant proposes to change alter or ex expand a non-conforming
dwelling on a non-conforming lot be the construction of an addition and deck the exist existing structure is non-conforming and that is located 35.5 ft from the road where a 40ft setback is required and 17.2 ft from the northerly butter. The proposed addition and deck
will be non-conforming located 10.4 ft from the northerly butter where a 25 ft setback is required. The existing building coverage is 1,477 ft and the proposed building coverage is 1,600 ft where 2,850 ft is the maximum
allowed. The lot contains 20,84 square feet in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protected bylaw. >> Welcome Ted.
>> Good afternoon. Sam Stribert, architect on this uh project. Um, this uh this house is unusual in that it was moved in 19 it was
originally built in 1950 on uh Champlain Road. In 1978, they were lucky to be able to move it to Independence Lane. Um
when we were discussing this project, we came up with several or three or seven or eight project problems, none of which would uh uh bring us to you for a
special permit. Uh the primary some of the primary things that we talked about was the cramped nature and low ceiling in the kitchen.
Uh uh I won't go through all the other problems, but uh just a little more space on the first and second floor um would be an tremendous assistance in
freeing up space to solve all these problems. The primary one that I thought brought about issues of safety had to do with the central stair which was uh
2 foot6 wide with uh uh nine nin risers and 4 in treads. Just was very very difficult to navigate. uh and
I think it was uh grandfathered in the move, but uh certainly adding five feet onto the back of the 5 and 1/2 ft on the back of the
building would allow us to solve that uh that stairway. would allow us to make a little more room in the kitchen and get enough space to make a proper
family bathroom on the second floor and a uh storage area uh in addition to this. So that's pretty much what was the generator on this project. Uh and we
went uh uh we followed through with the design that we went to historic with and you'll hear that they did not find this historic structure. So they didn't impose a demolition delay.
Uh the the matter of uh of uh nonconformities. There are three nonconformities on this property.
One is not affected by any of our construction, which is the 35.5 ft. The front of the of the house is
to the street and that uh that setback uh should be should be 40 ft. But we're not doing any changes to the front of the building. So I don't imagine we need a special permit for anything.
Um this the second one is more uh has to do with the setback in the rear that the additional 5.5 ft
might might cause us does cause. Excuse me. the uh current uh the current stairway and deck in the
back of the house, which is uh is 17.2 feet from the rear lot line. We're going to go we need another eight feet to make a proper deck and a better
stairway. So, we've asked for we're asking for um 20.4 ft. Is that what I No, >> 10.4t. And uh so we're clo closer that much
closer six foot 6'8 closer to the rear lot line. But we've made the deck and the stairway a little simpler and a little lower so as to be
less impactful on what is on the butter. The butter is uh Cedar Street cons conservation area and it was carved out of the inside lots
between Cedar Street and um [clears throat] and Independence Lane. So uh so that that's the setback there. And
then the third non uh conformity has to do with the lot size which is 20 feet 48. Uh, and this is
this is whether whether we've our 5.5 ft that we're adding onto the back is making the the lot size too small for the house. And I submit
that the house looks wellsighted. Uh there's plenty of room on either side. Uh it's it's a little close in the front and a little close in the back,
but the two sides give an ariness. And also I would submit that others on in this area, especially the ones that were carved out to make uh Independence Lane,
uh are in the 20,000 square foot area. A lot of the lots of the same size, 20 20,000 different different versions. um so that I don't think uh it's imp
impactful on their neighborhood because of the presence of similarly sized lots. So I think that's it. I can read the 12 requirements
just generally a repeat. Although the total size of the lot is 20,84 square ft roughly half the required R40 zoning size of 40,000 square ft. It was conforming at the time of the
subdivision to to the smaller 20,000 square feet required at that time. The house has a footprint of 14 point 14 1400 149 square feet
and the proposed plan is a modest extension is modest extension of a portion of the rear of the house at 5.5 ft for an increase of 143 square feet. size increase amounts to a
mere 8/10 increase percent in coverage increase in coverage of the lot. Very difficult to see this increase from some point on the lot for a while approaching the front door.
the the the house retains its comfortable position on the lot due to a ve very wide sideyards. Compatibility of the size with the neighboring properties. The Appleard
Martin property is 20,084 feet square feet with the house moved to moved on Independence Lane in 1978 from Champlain Road. Other properties on
Independence Lane subdivision are in the 20 20,000 square feet range or larger. The h the house in the neighborhood has a very simple design and are fully compatible with their weathered cedar
shingles and painted siding and white board trim. All these properties are close to being in town and uh they're very well l landscape and varied in streetscape.
extent of the proposed increase in nonconforming nature. The existing property has two three uh nonconformities. The lot size of 20 20,048 square feet is less than the required
R40 40,000 square ft. The third front yard 35.5 uh uh feet is nonconforming but will not be changed during
construction. And and this existing stair and deck are 17.2 square 17.2 feet from the northwest lot line where 25 ft is required.
getting the small lot size is is the Independence Lane neighborhood has lots in the range of 20,000 square feet and the f further encroachment of the deck and chair into the rear setback
area has a reduced impact due to the lowest the lowest height of the deck in general and to the new stair platform. A lot of budding to the rear is a uh o
Cedar Street conservation area property and do not expect the low forms of the stair and deck to impact additionally on the public's uses appreciating natural open space
suitability of the site including impact on neighborhood properties. Appleard property is very much like the neighbors with uses appropriate to small residences on landscape properties. The modest size of
the house provides additional and varied streetscape to the neighborhood. Impact on the visual character and views and vistas. Apple Yard's roof line is not changing from its conforming height of 22 feet.1
22.1 ft above the average grade plane which is 7.9 ft below the zoning maximum of 30 ft. The addition is designed to fit in with the historic main building
with a matching roof and eaves and rake details. Proposed deck and stair are purely residential in nature. >> Sam, I think that's probably enough. >> Okay. >> Yep. [clears throat]
>> So, would that be your presentation? >> Yes, I'm finished. >> Okay. Uh, is there anyone here today on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application? If so, please indicate you'd like to join the conversation. I'll read the correspondence.
Christina Basset writing for the Chattam Historical Commission. On July 23rd, CAC found the home not historically significant and therefore did not impose a demo delay.
Judith Giorgio wrote on July 13th, "No concern on this request. Is there anyone here today or in Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak either A against this application or B has a question? If so, please indicate
you'd like to join the conversation. Don't see anyone. Uh, questions from the board. >> Steve, >> I have no questions. Jenny, >> I have no questions. >> Paul, no questions. Ed,
>> I'm good. >> Lee, >> no questions. >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> Ed seconds and votes yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. You vote yes. >> I vote yes. >> Okay. Deliberations, Ed. Um, well, it
looks like to me it's your then the the increase in the non nonconformity and the the width of the house. Um, you know, typically we don't like to see an increase in the nonconformity, but in this instance, I
feel you're you're making some safety improvements. basically you're bringing up the stairs to code. You're increasing the run. So that necessitates, you know, to have a some more area and and the fact that it's conservation land behind
the property really doesn't affect anyone. Um sort of in my opinion negates, you know, where I typically would have a problem with you increasing a non-conformity. I think it certainly makes sense and um I
would support the project and certainly not substantially detrimental to the neighborhood. >> Paul, >> yes, I agree with Ed. I think it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. It's it's a uh it's a safety improvement certainly with those stairs and uh you look at this property
in the house and you would never think that this is a small lot. Uh I mean there's plenty of room on each side of the house. Uh, and the to the extent there's going to be a change, it's going to be to the rear and it's not really going to be visible at all. So, I I think it clearly meets our criteria,
>> Jenny. So, first I want to say thank you for saving the 1950s home. Um, it is greater than 75 years old here in Chattam and that's historic. So, you know, you're working with it. Um, Sam, it's kind of a specialty of yours, I think, too,
working with historic homes. So, um I agree with my colleagues um Ed and Paul that um as you noted the wide sideyard Sam do help offset the ask of the seven feet on the northerly side. Um and your
a butter is conservation which is which is even better. Um so I I think I applaud the um thoughtful renovations safety is a is and underscore the importance of the safety. I think these are necessary improvements. what you're
proposing and and it requires that little extra space which is often the case with historic homes and I'm happy to give that grace. I don't think that it's um substantially more detrimental and I'm very supportive of it. >> Steve
u well I agree with the comments of all the my colleagues who have already spoken. I think this is a good project. It's in the in the interest of safety for this the stairs going upstairs. I think that's a primary factor behind all of this. The fact that there's
conservation land behind you is very unlikely to be developed. So I don't think you're disturbing anyone back there. I think it's a great project. >> Lee, >> uh I agree with my colleagues. I it meets our criteria. Um it's a it's a
small addition, but it it makes a big impact um both in the interior space and the outside space. the reconfiguring of the deck is much much better than it is today. So, um I I like this project a
lot, >> Paul. Uh okay, I'll move to approve the application as submitted. Um there's plenty of room on the site to contain construction activity and vehicles. Do you uh do you see any problem with our
standard conditions? Uh Sam, >> no. >> Okay. Um, I'll move to approve the application as submitted with the conditions that all construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or to neighboring property with the permission of the property owner
between June 30th and Labor Day. No exterior construction shall be allowed. No work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8 a.m. and 5:00 pm only. >> Uh, Eds and votes yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> Uh, Jenny votes yes. >> Steve votes yes.
>> Lee votes yes. Sam, that's a unanimous decision. Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. >> 26-06, please. >> Application number 26-060. Kawi Family Trust LLC care of Stonefield
Engineering and Design 2011 Washington Street, Sweet 2011 Salem, Mass [clears throat] 01970. Owner of property located at 655 Main Street, also shown in the town of Chadam's assessor's map 14E, Block 2, lot 43. The applicant seek an appeals
permit under section 225-19 of the Cadam sign bylaw to allow for the placement of a 7.9 in x 41 in 2.2 2 ft wall sign not facing a street frontage and a.3 in by 50.25 in 1.2 ft clearance
sign. The lot contains 17,585 square ft in the GB1 zoning district. The proposed sign requires an appeals permit under section 225-19 of the Cadam sign bylaw. >> Back again. >> Welcome. [laughter] >> This is the last time, right?
>> Hopefully. Hopefully. It's up to you. I think >> No. Okay. We'll make it that way. Okay, >> perfect. Um, good afternoon board. My name is Giovanni Caesar with Stonefield Engineering and we're here behalf on JP Morgan Chase Bank. As Sarah mentioned earlier, we're here tonight to seek approval for two uh signs not facing
public rights of way. One being the ATM surround located opposite the retaining wall with the metal railing on the side uh with the other being a headache bar um as you approach the drive-through ATM entrance. So, just as a quick bit of uh
update, since the last time we've been here, um we've been able to secure uh all our approvals from planning, zoning, and historic for the building and sites alterations. So, this is really the last domino. Um in terms of where Chase is with the the rest of the construction process, we were able to secure the
building permit last week. Thank you, building department. Um and this is really again kind of that uh final piece of the puzzle that we need. um they're kind of ironing out the final details with um the contractor side of things and looking to to start construction in
short order. So um really the only applicable uh criteria for approval here uh in our opinion would be kind of uh cohesion with neighborhood character. It's, you know, going to be um in line with the materials used for the building. Um again a bank-to-bank
conversion um looking to preserve um a lot of the elements of the previous Rockland Trust that were there um as well as traffic circulation. Again uh the headache bar primarily acting as a form of um uh protection against the MAE canopy uh by the ATM that uh small
overhang um attached to the building. So um not much more to it really. Um happy to answer any questions and uh provide any feedback. So, your best guess, uh, it'll be completed and opened in how many months?
>> It's tough. It's tough to answer, uh, considering the winner we had, but, I believe they would love to bring this one into Q1 of next year. That's [snorts] uh, don't hold me to that, but that's that's the latest and greatest that I've heard. >> Okay. And tell me, did you make up the
name Headache Bar when I saw that? I've never [laughter] seen it, and I said, I love it. Anyway, no, don't answer the question. Okay. All right. So, um that's your presentation. Fine. Uh I don't think there's anybody left anywhere that would like to speak in favor of it. So,
I wouldn't even ask. I will read the correspondence. This is [clears throat] from the HBDC. It's a certificate of appropriateness. They on May 20th voted three in favor, zero against, zero abstaining to approve
the I guess the signs. Yeah. Wall. Oh, the wall sign. The one the wall sign, right? Okay. All right. And you know, it's the usual business. Any changes, you got to get back to them and all that. So, okay. All right. And I don't think there's anybody here to um speak
against it or has a question. So, we'll go right to questions from the board. Anybody have a question? Oh, Steve does. Um, this might be a typo, but in the
application, the clearance sign is.3 in by 50 in. That's a very small font. >> It is a typo. Is >> that that wide? >> A third of an inch and then you got to put lettering on it. >> Well, remember it's supposed to hit you
in the head. So, you don't want a big fat bar, Steve. >> Right. >> Structure in total is 10 uh 10 in 10 ft 4 in high. The clearance part of the sign is uh 4T 2 and a/4 in across.
>> But how tall is it? This is saying it's.3 in tall. Um, I believe it is three inches tall. >> Three inches. >> Correct. Yeah. >> Okay. >> That's a little bigger.
>> You're going to be sorry if you hit it. >> All right. I just wanted to correct that. So, it was No, I appreciate >> I'll command it. That's all. Thank you. >> Appreciate it. >> Uh, see, and I believe the 0.3 in. >> Anyway, any anybody else with a question? No. Okay. Paul, >> I'll move to close the hearing and move
into deliberations. >> Ed seconds and votes yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> D votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> Okay, Dave. >> Um I don't I don't see anything wrong with this. Um
>> I I you know perfectly uh legitimate request. Good luck. >> Thank you, >> Lee. >> I agree. Everything looks uh um looks good to me. >> Ed, >> I think Mr. Diamond did a good job.
>> Well, I agree. I hadn't heard of a headache bar before either, but it's a great great term. [laughter] I think certainly consistent with our uh specifications for the sign appeals. >> Jenny, >> I agree with my colleagues.
>> Okay. >> I'll move to approve the application as submitted. I don't think we see a need for conditions on this. >> I agree. >> So, I'll move to approve it as submitted. >> Uh, it seconds and votes yes. >> Well, let me let me put it this way. I move to approve it with the 3-in
provision. Right. Submitted was submitted as.3, but it means 3 in. So, I'll move it on that basis. >> Uh, Jenny approves. >> Paul's vote yes. >> Steve votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> That's a unanimous vote. Thank you, sir.
Thank you very much. And anything else up your sleeve, Sarah? >> No, >> not today. Okay. >> All right. >> She has no sleeve. >> I'll move to ajourn.
>> Ed seconds and votes yes. >> All votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> He votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> And I vote yes. That's it. And good night, Chadam. >> 4:22 p.m.