Yep. [Music] [Music]
[Music] We are on. Welcome everyone. This is the zoning board of appeals in Chattam, Massachusetts. It's October 23rd, 2025.
Pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28th, 2025 signing of chapter 2 of the act of 2025, extending certain COVID measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law until June 30, 2027. This meeting of the Cadam Zoning
and 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 provided for in the order. A reminder, persons who'd like to listen to the meeting while in progress may do so by calling
1508 945 4410 conference ID 261 841 288 pound or join the meeting via the
online uh link for Microsoft Teams in the posted agenda. This is a live broadcast and simoccast on Chattam TV, but despite our best efforts, we may not be able to provide real time access. We'll post a meeting of this, I mean a record of this meeting on the town's
website as soon as possible in accordance with town policy. The public can speak to any issue or item on the business uh agenda during the meeting when recognized by the chair. Please shut off all cell phones or any gadgets
whatsoever that vibrate or make any noise at all. And if you have a hat on, please take it off. That's our policy. Don't see anybody uh with the hat on, but just in case. Roll call of of all board members is the first thing we do. Then we ask if anyone is on on the
telephone that would like to speak, just make it make your identification known in whatever fashion possible. The hearing notice will re be read by staff. 0:00 on my right and you or your representative will present your appeal or application. Anyone in favor of the
appeal or application may speak for up to five minutes when recognized by the chair and you will have up to five minutes and there will be a clock um in plain view. Then I will read or summarize all the letters that we
received. Then anyone against the appeal application may um ask a question or speak again for up to five minutes. The applicant can rebut whatever they had just previously heard. We'll ask questions. The board will ask questions
to anyone present. Then we have further information, close the public hearing, deliberate and vote. All votes are taken by roll call and at the end of the meeting we will close via verbal confirmation and note the time of adjournment. So what we do is we start
with a roll call vote of all board members authorizing this form of meeting starting with David V. >> Yes. Uh David H. Vich and um I approve of this meeting format. >> Uh Ed Actton I approve. >> David S. Nixon I approve. >> Paul C. Simple I approve.
>> Lee Hubby I approve. >> Steven D. Deborne I approve. Virginia Fenwick, I approve. >> And Randy Podash, I approve as well. We have minutes. Paul, >> I will move to uh approve the minutes of uh September 18, 2025 as published.
>> I have a couple of minor corrections to offer. >> You want to just second it and then >> and I will second and then offer. Uh on page one um now near the bottom of the page the listing of the um representatives from Penrose and and um
um Joe Henderson is listed twice. So, uh, if we just take off the Joe Henderson engineer at the end of the, uh, first bullet point down there. And then on page six, um, near the end here,
um, uh, the statement here says, "Attorney Singer requested to continue, and we want to, um, um, say attorney Rose in place of attorney Singer made that." Thank you. >> Anybody else have any questions? Oh,
anybody else have any corrections? >> No. Seeing none. So, >> I will vote to uh approve >> with the >> Yeah, with those amendments. >> Amendments. Yes. Mr. Nixon, >> I vote yes. >> All vote yes. >> Judy, >> I wasn't here for that hearing, so I
don't um do you know, Sarah, who voted that meeting? Let's just give you a moment to find that out. Does anybody remember off the top of their heads if they voted at that meeting? Um, it was September 18th, right? >> It says Steve Dbor here and and Lee and
Lee Huby. So, u >> Oh, wow. >> Uh, Lee voted for Jenny. Sorry. >> Okay. Very. >> Lee was the voting member for Virginia Fenwick. >> So, Lee, are you comfortable with the minutes? >> Yes, I am. >> All right. And as am I. So, those are approved. >> And then secondly, we have the draft
minutes of September 25, 2025. I'll move to approve those. Uh, >> David seconds and votes yes. Yes. All votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes >> as do I. And uh that should do it. Okay.
So first application 55 Wavelin Dav application number 25-073 Peter and Sonia Finny care of William G. Lichfield Esquire 330 Orleans Road North Chattam Mass 02650. Owners of property located at 55 Wavelin
Avenue. Also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 10D block 64 lot D53. 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. The existing dwelling is non-conforming and
that it is located 18.3 ft from Wavelin Avenue where a 25 ft setback is required and 12.7 ft from the norly butter where a 15t setback is required. The proposed dwelling 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 Mass General Law, chapter 48, such substantial alteration requires the grant of a special permit. The existing building coverage is 1,747 square ft, 13.5% and the proposed building coverage is 1,922
ft, 14.9% where 15% is the maximum allowed. the law is non-conforming and that it contains 12,923 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 protective bylaw. >> Welcome. Please identify yourselves. >> Thank you very much, Madam Chair, members of the board. Bill Lichfield here on behalf of Peter and Sonia Finny who were seated to your left and with me today is Allison Allesie of A3
Architects. Uh, as Sarah read in the hearing notice, we are here for uh, change to a nonconforming house and a non-conforming lot. Uh, any those of you who may have known them will might recall that this house was the Meyer
family house for about 40 years. And after Mr. and Mrs. Meyer both died, the house was sold to the Finnies who have a long history of visiting the area. They live up in Hingham, but when they're fortunate enough to be in Chadam, they would like to have a house with a little
bit more room. Uh, this is for eventual retirement, and for the time being, they have four children in their 20s, between the ages of 20 and 28 with the distinct possibility of grandchildren. So, they would like a little bit more room uh to
accommodate the family. Uh the neighborhood, as you know, is an older one developed in the 1920s, and the house itself, which was built around 1960, is not in the best shape. And as Allison will explain, they considered
several possibilities for additions and renovations, but ultimately it just didn't work out. So Allison designed something uh which I think is appropriate for the neighborhood. And if I could, Madam Chair, I'll ask Allison to speak briefly to the plans that she has developed. >> Sure. Welcome. Thank you.
>> Hi, Allison Allesie with A3 Architects. Um, as Bill did mention, we worked on several iterations of more of what I would call an addition and expansion to the existing house. It wouldn't have eliminated the zoning nonconformities. And then we discovered that the existing
foundation would would not support um adding a second floor. And so we went in a new direction, which we're here today with. We're proposing a new house. I think the existing house is around 7750 square feet. We're proposing a larger house. It's 2634
square feet. Um it's two stories, but it's on a smaller footprint or a similar footprint. Um and and as Bill said, I think the height is conforming, the the setbacks are conforming, and um I do think it fits in the scale and character of the houses in the neighborhood.
>> Thank you, Allison. So given you have a rather lengthy agenda, I'll go straight into the criteria if that would be appropriate. >> That would be great. The relevant criteria would be even better. >> Yeah. >> As to adequacy of site, including building coverage and setbacks. The neighborhood was developed in the 1920s.
Most of the houses were built uh in the 40s and 50s. So almost all the lots are non-conforming or are in fact double lots. This structure, as we've indicated, is non-conforming as to both street setback and sideline setbacks. If you approve the special permit, you can
do so based on a finding that the uh site is adequate for the replacement dwelling which will be again compliant as to street and sideline setbacks, height and coverage. As to compatibility of size, we on the third page of the handout, you will note that we have a
midsize lot with a mid-range footprint, but we are the smallest as to either gross floor area or rather both of gross floor area and living area. If you approve the special permit, the proposed height and coverage remain below the maximum. While the size increases, the
gross floor area and living area are lower than some of the other houses in the neighborhood, and the house will certainly remain compatible with the neighborhood. As to the extent of increase in nonconformity, we have those mentioned by Sarah in the hearing notice. There is none. Moreover, all the
existing nonconformities except for lot size are being eliminated. We're getting rid of the street and sideline setbacks. So this is what we call a Bjorkland hearing. Pardon me. Is the suitability of sight. Pardon me. There are no no
environmental issues. Is the scale citing mass fuse vista streetscape. The existing structure at Cape or Cape Ranch built around 1960 has no particular architectural charm or special features. But what Allison has designed is cited
to meet all current requirements. It's essentially an expanded cape with shed dormers. Uh and it's in a neighborhood without any real unified style. But I think it's appropriate. The chair will read later uh support from the two closest to Butters. And in fact, because
of the topography of the lot, this house was designed in consultation with a neighbor down below at 64 Vineyard Avenue. There are no views or visttors involved as to compatibility of use. It had been year round residential use and
someday uh when the Finnies are able to live here year round it will be but in the interim they hope to come down not just in the summer but for weekends they live in Hangingham. So it makes it quite convenient that regard as to adequacy of water and sewer. We have town water
currently at title five for three bedrooms. We are connecting to the town sewer uh which will allow for a fourth bedroom. And I handed out to you uh a new sheet showing that the home office on the first floor will have a 6- foot
wide casement opening. There will be no doors installed and the health agent who had originally raised an issue in that regard has indicated that that is acceptable. The other criteria are not at issue. So I won't go into them. But the question as you know is whether the
proposed house which is completely compliant as to street and sideline setbacks as to coverage and to height and thereby eliminating both of the existing dimensional non nonconformities will be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. I think that you
can find that it is not. The petitioners worked long and hard with Allison to design a home that met their needs but remained in keeping with the scale of the neighborhood. Again, they worked with their neighbors to develop plans which were acceptable. And I think they've done a good job in that regard
with Allison's help. So, in light of the criteria and the plans in this location with this proposal, I think that you can find that the Finn's proposed new home, which meets all current requirements of the bylaw, is not substantially more detrimental. either of us or both of us
would be happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you very much. Is there anybody here or online that wishes to speak in favor of this application? Please raise your hand. >> Seeing none, I will read the correspondences. First, we have the
first note from um Judith Giorgio, a health agent on 1021 2025. I have reviewed the property the the pl I have reviewed the plan to demolish and rebuild the property. The property was ordered to connect to the sewer February
2023. Sewer connection should be a condition of approval. The plan indicates the existing septic system will be abandoned. The proposed dwelling includes four bedrooms and an office study which qualifies as a bedroom. The existing dwelling has three bedrooms. A
fourbedroom dwelling is permitted with sewer connection according to border health and water and sewer regulations. And then she tells us uh also the office cannot have any doors otherwise it's fine.
Okay. Then the neighbor um from let's see 35 Waveland uh offers support their neighbors and they support the project and there Christian and John Wnney from
50 35 and then Mary Sweeney and Michael Sweeney from 44 Waveland also write in support and they have seen the plans and they are directly across the street and they think it'll be a very positive of upgrade to what now exists. Is there
anybody? What else? >> There should be one more. >> Oh, okay. >> One more. Oh, all right. This one's kind of faded out. October 11th, we re received a note from Barbara Schmidt.
She owns the property on 84 Vineyard and they're willing to support the off the uh application for more living space. We have seen their plans. We're nearby a butters. Um, and they have they don't see any negative consequences there
either. All right, that concludes the correspondences. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams wish to speak against this application or has a question? No questions from the board. Lee, >> no questions. Steve,
>> uh, just one simple one. Is there any external mechanicals, air conditioners, generators, anything like that proposed? >> Yeah, there would be external generators. We didn't show those on the site plan, but they would all be conforming. >> Okay. Okay. Because they they have >> We appreciate the the reminder, Mr.
Dbor. We like you, but we don't want to see you again. So, >> that's that's Lee's job anyway. >> All right. Thank you, >> Jenny. Um, you mentioned that the it'll be four bedrooms when the sewer gets there, correct? Is that when is that scheduled?
>> Uh there is actually uh imminently as part of the reconstruction the the sewer line has been run down there. There's a pumping station a little bit to the east and we will be connecting >> because you're proposing four bedrooms. Okay. Four bedrooms. And then um the the
grow you're probably aware of the fact the gross floor area on the the ad or the application was was wrong. It was >> incorrect. Yeah. The gross floor area that was actually the coverage. I didn't do the application, but the gross floor area is as indicated on the sheet at the end of the handout.
>> And that doesn't create any problems because that's, you know, advertised. That's what was advertised. >> No, the uh that number was not included in the uh legal ad. Sarah is typically and inevitably efficient. >> Okay. And then um maybe Allison, this is
a question for you. Um the height is only a few inches from the maximum. Is there what what are the ceiling heights of the first and second floor? I mean, was there I I just I take a second glance at almost the maximum height, especially in an older neighborhood.
Now, I know the house right across the street right across from this applicant is quite tall, but most of the other homes in the neighborhood, and Mr. Lichfield, your chart kind of supports that are are a little smaller. So, I just wanted to ask about the height. >> Yeah, it is a little bit of a sloped
lot, so we had to take that into account. there there is this tiny portion on one side where we're working with the grade to create a walk out. So that is one thing we have to be a little creative with with the height. Um the ceiling heights on the first floor I believe are 9 ft and they are 8 feet on
the second floor then sloping up on those dormers. Um >> but I you know I'm confident we can meet the exact height requirements. >> Okay. >> Yeah. As the board knows, because of the way Chadam's bylaw calculates height,
when you have a sloping lot, it can appear worse than it actually will be. >> Yeah. Yeah, I did I did notice that in the back. Um, okay. Thank you. That's all I have. Questions. Mr. V? >> I have no questions. >> Mr. Actton, questions? >> Uh, no questions. >> Mr. Nixon,
>> no questions. >> And Paul, >> no questions. >> And nor do I. So, Paul, >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> Dave seconds and votes yes. Yes. All votes. Yes. >> Tiny votes. Yes. >> As do I. Okay. Deliberations. Mr. Nixon.
>> I have no reason to uh believe this would be detrimental to the neighborhood in any way, shape, or form. So, I would support it. >> Okay. Mr. V. >> Yeah, it's a nice design. Fits the neighborhood just fine. I I think it's a um and it eliminates a couple of um um
non-conformities. So, I think it's great. Yeah. >> Ed. Yeah, I agree. Nice full dormer cape. I think it'll fit in fit in well with the neighborhood. >> And Lee, >> I agree. I think it meets our criteria and um we'll be very nice in the neighborhood.
>> And Steve, >> I agree with all the previous >> Judy. >> Yeah, I agree with my colleagues. As I mentioned, I had a little second glance at the height, but um but I think it's fine. >> And Paul, >> and I also agree with my colleagues. >> As do I. So
>> conditions >> I'll move to uh approve the application as submitted. I would think given the neighborhood and so forth, we should use our standard conditions. So I would add as conditions that all 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 p.m. only. Uh, and I'm just I just want a question.
Did was there something that from the health department? >> I was just asking that too. >> Condition that we would like to attach to that they >> they hook up to the sewer. >> See what Sarah says about that. >> Yeah. About the doors. >> So the the health agents concerns as
stated in her letter um was that they house be hooked up ordered to be connected to town sewer. So that would be a condition that she would like to see. Um, in addition that the first floor office uh have a six-foot cased opening with no doors installed,
>> right? And we see from the plan they they addressed that part, but it seemed to me she was suggesting that we put a condition on that tie into the sewer. >> I will add we would have no objection to a requirement of sewer connection. I suspect Mr. Briggs isn't going to
approve a building permit until we're in the process of connecting anyway. So it would just be belt and suspenders basically. >> I will add that we'll add that condition to the uh Sure. >> list of conditions then. >> Uh so David um seconds and votes yes. >> I vote yes.
>> I'll vote yes. >> Jenny >> Jenny votes yes >> as do I. It's unanimous. >> Very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you very much. >> And whenever Sar is ready, we're going to go. Looks like we're going to uh
Eastwood Hoe. >> Yeah. >> Application number 25-087 Eastwood Hoe Country Club. Care of Benjamin E. Zender, Esquire, 62 Route 6A, SweetB, Orleans, Mass 02653. Owner of property located at 325 Foxhill
Road. Also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 10M, block 2, lot one. The applicant proposes to change, alter, or expand a non-conforming structure retaining wall on a conforming lot via the expansion of the wall. The existing rate retaining wall is non-conforming
and that it is located 21.2 ft from the coastal conservancy district. The proposed wall will be non-conforming and that it will be located 29.3 ft from the coastal conservancy district where a 50oot setback is required. The lot contains 129 1.5 acres in the R40 zoning
district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law, chapter 4A, section six, and section 5B of the protective bylaw. >> Welcome. >> Uh, good afternoon. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, board members. My name is Ben Zender, and I'm here on behalf of Eastward Hoe. Um, this is a little bit of an unusual application. Um, I'm
hoping all of you have been out to see the site, but Eastwood Hoe has on the uh on the Pleasant Bay side of the main uh clubhouse structure a retaining wall and a retained area with a lawn area that sits between the uh between the club and the and the retaining wall. Um, as
you're probably aware, um, you recently amended your your zoning bylaw to plug essentially a loophole in your coastal conservancy setback requirements, which made it clear that structures, um, were included in those setback requirements. And and this retaining wall constitutes
a structure that's within um, the required setback distance from the conservicing district, which here I believe is the top of the coastal bank. So the existing retaining wall is um, is 21.2 2 ft from that from that conservancy district. What the club is
proposing to do is to extend that retaining wall on the east side um approximately 15 ft. And what that will allow them to do is to um install a handicap ramp that can bring um patrons of the club up from the driveway that runs along the east side up to that
retaining wall area. Um they're going to um replace the grass with a excuse me for one second, I'm sorry. Um they're going to replace the grass area with a pvious paver um to allow better use of the area and that will also allow them to put a second handicapped access ramp
on the west side of um of the the room that extends out towards that retaining wall. So it allows people to come up get up to the retained area and then get up into the clubhouse um from that area. Uh the because the retaining wall is presently a pre-existing non-conforming
structure. this this endeavor requires a permit from you under section 5B of your of your bylaw and with your permission I'm happy to just roll right into the criteria if you want to hear that I'm sure okay thank you >> the applicable applicable criteria >> yeah I'm not sure what you consider
applicable because I'm not in front of you all the time so I'll just sail through them um so adequacy of the site um as you may see from the applications 129 acres um so we certainly believe the site itself is adequate for the use um the comp capity compatibility of the
site for the proposed structure with the neighboring properties. Well, there really aren't any neighboring properties within uh you know any reasonable or even significant distance from this from this area, but the existing retaining wall allows for the use of the club property at the top of the coastal bank and and for all of the club activities
which exist on that side of the of the clubhouse. So, um we believe that the structure is compatible and the extension of the structure is compatible as well. Um the extended proposed increase in the non-conforming nature of the structure. It's approximately 15 foot extension uh about 3,260 ft all
told. So it's we considered to be a relatively small extension of the of the retaining wall as a whole. Um suitability of the site including neighboring properties, natural environment, etc. Um, as the board may know, the conservation commission's already approved an order of conditions um for this activity which which um
indicates that the the use and the structure and the construction of the structure itself are compatible with the environmental um uh concerns and and the interest to be protected under both the wellness protection act and also the local bylaw. Um the impact of the scale sighting and mass and neighborhood visual character
including views and vistas. Um the nature of the retaining wall is it doesn't really constitute any type of an impact on a view or vista to the extent that the entire um northerly aspect of this property at the retaining wall is screened by the structure itself. Um the um the neighborhood doesn't really have
a view of this structure. If you're looking from Pleasant Bay up, you're going to be looking at the woods and the trees. Uh feel free to move me along, Madam Chair. >> I think that's that looks good to me. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Um >> no no noise and litter. >> No noise and litter. no visual impact and to to um with a little help from my
brother Mr. Lichfield, I now know that I should ask you represent to you that this doesn't pose a substantially more detrimental impact on the neighborhood and the interest to be protected in the existing structure. >> Um and so I'm hopeful with those statements um I can answer any questions. I forgot to uh tell you that
Sean Riley from Taibond is on the screen. He can answer any detailed questions about either the structure or or the land form for the board. And thank you. >> Thank you. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams who wish to speak in favor of this application? If so, raise your hand.
No. I will now read the correspondences. There are two. Uh Conservation Commission tells us on September 30th, 2025 that as to 325 Foxhell Road in Chadam, the applicant submitted notice of intent, the project was heard and it
will be conditioned to meet all applicable laws. As to the next correspondence from Judith Giorgio, she has no concerns about the retaining while and she is our health agent and she submitted this on uh October 21, 2025. That concludes the
correspondences. Is there anybody here that has a question or would like to speak against? Are anybody online same? No. All right. Questions from the board? Mr. Nixon? >> I have none. >> Does anybody
Okay. Yep. Sorry. >> I'll move to I'll move to >> Le have one. Go ahead. >> I I just uh quick question regarding the um patio that's going to be extended. Is that going to be at the same level as the existing? I >> I believe it is. And I'll let Mr. Riley answer the question. He's nodding his
head. Yes, it will be at the same level. >> Yes, it will be. >> And so, how high does that make that retaining wall on that end? >> So, that retaining wall is between 5 to 8 feet tall. >> Okay. >> On that end. >> Thank you. Jenny, did you have a
question? >> Well, I for context, what's the height of the current wall? It's five feet, right? >> The the existing wall is around seven feet tall. Six to seven feet tall. >> Yep. >> Thank you. That's all I had. >> Okay, Paul. >> All right. I'll move to close the
hearing and move into deliberations. >> Steve V seconds and votes yes. >> Yes. >> All votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> As do I. Okay. Deliberations. Uh let's start with Mr. Nixon again. Well, Mr. Xander, usually you come to us
with complicated uh issues. This is uh >> Yeah, usually I plan for four or five hearings when I come before. >> That's right. And we did. We did. Now, Mr. Zender's very good at variances for those who don't know. At any rate, uh I
can see no reason not to accept this and vote yes. This is just something the club feels they wish to do and they should be allowed to do it. >> Thank you, Mr. N. >> Yeah. And Mr. Mr. beach. >> I concur with Mr. Nixon, surprisingly. Thank you, sir.
>> Uh, I have no issues. I I presume there'll be some type of uh railing or something to prevent people from >> Yeah, the building code requires and structural over Mr. Briggs didn't tell you exactly, but over a certain number of inches requires a railing and there is a railing presently on the on the existing retaining wall. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Yeah. And uh Lee, >> um I I agree with my colleagues. I I think it's going to be a nice addition. and Steve. >> Yeah, I agree. Especially if it's going to make it more ADA compliant. I think that's very important issue. >> Y >> and Jenny,
>> I agree with my colleagues and what Steve in particular just said about the um the nature of the improvement, but the club has a history of making improvements over the years for the members and um this and they do a terrific job. So, I I have uh no concerns about this.
>> Thank you. and Paul >> clearly not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Uh nobody will even see it. Uh and it clearly increases accessibility which is great >> and I have nothing to add. So Paul, >> I'm going to move to approve the application as submitted. I think given
the location uh and the nature of the work that uh we just leave it up to them to take care of it. >> Yeah, I don't think we need any any conditions. >> No need for additional conditions. So I'll move to approve the application as submitted. And David seconds and votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> All votes yes.
>> Jenny votes yes. >> As do I. It's unanimous. >> Thank you. >> Congratulations. >> Nice to see you all again. >> See you next time. Nice to see you. And we're going to move along to our third I think application. Application number 25-085.
Greg and Susan Shorton care of James M. Norcross Esquire. PO Box 707 Chattam Mass 02633. owners of property located at 70 Sears Point Lane, also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 11A1, block 7, lot 5. The applicant proposes to
construct additions to a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot under section 7B20, historic preservation incentive. The existing dwelling is non-conforming and that it is located 14.1 ft from the Coastal Conservancy District. The proposed addition will be non-conforming and that it will be
located 14.2 2 ft from the coastal conservancy district where a 50ft setback is required. The existing building coverage is 2781 square ft and the proposed building coverage is 3,67 square ft where 2850
ft is the maximum allowed. The lot is non-conforming and that it contains 0 feet of frontage where 150 ft is required and contains 31,340 ft where 40,000 ft is required. In the R40 zoning district, a special permit is required under master law chapter 4A
sections 6 and 9 and sections 5B, 7B, 20, and 8D2B of the protective bylaw. >> Welcome. And this is the first time we've had this sort of application. So, congratulations. >> Lucky us. Yeah. >> Good afternoon. Jamie Norcross representing Greg and Susan Shorton. Uh
Susan is in the audience in the back today. Greg is uh logs in online. Uh with me is Leslie Schneburgger, the architect for the project. Uh Leslie's going to run through the design and some of the history of the property for you in a moment. I just want to touch on some of the non-conformities and then a little bit of background on the historic
preservation bylaw since it is the first time you've had an application under this particular section. So um the Shortens purchased this property uh just about a year ago in December. Uh they've been working with Leslie on renovations to the building. Uh the main goals are
creating additional living area in the home, which Leslie will touch on, while maintaining as much of the um historic architecture and design of the home as possible. Uh the property is non-conforming. It contains just over 31,000 square ft of area with just shy
of 22,000 ft of buildable upland, which will be important as you'll hear in the R40 zoning district, and it has no frontage. uh existing structure is non-conforming as it's located within the setback to the conservancy district which is the coastal bank that you see on stage harbor um but meets all other
dimensional setbacks. Uh the main part of the application today as you'll hear relates to building coverage. Uh the existing building coverage for the dwelling is 2781 square ft. Um while I me well while as I said the lot area is 31,000 square feet
cadam bylaw only counts buildable upland toward uh building the building coverage calculation. Therefore with just shy of 22,000 ft of buildable upland the bylaw limits the overall building coverage to 2850 ft. As a result um this house would
only be allowed to add about 70 square ft of building coverage u based on the dimensional requirements of the bylaw. The proposed addition um as part of the application today, while not large in size at 286 square feet, does result in the total building coverage increasing
at 3,67 ft, which of course is higher than the 2850 ft allowed by the dimensional requirements of the zoning bylaw. So, when it was determined that we were over the 2850, um we talked about options. Uh, one
option was a variance and as I explained to um the shortens and and talked about with Leslie, this board obviously strictly interprets uh the variance requirement. So the likelihood of success was not very high on a variance requirement for building coverage. So as a real credit to Leslie and her team,
they they dug into the bylaw and started looking at the historic preservation section which was adopted by town meeting back in 2022. And so the more we read and looked at the language of the historic preservation bylaw, we felt that the proposal and this house truly fit the
intent and spirit of that bylaw. Um the introductory just want to touch on a couple sections. The introductory paragraph to that section of the bylaw describes its purpose as encouraging preservation of building structure and other elements of historical or architectural significance and to permit
flexibility of dimensional requirements that might be an impediment to historic preservation. The bylaw gives the ZBA the authority to grant a special permit modifying certain dimensional standards on existing lots to incentivize the preservation of historic buildings or structures.
Uh the bylaw allows for waiverss or relief by special permit for certain dimensional requirements for structures that are deemed to be an eligible historic building. And as um outlined in that section of the bylaw, there are several ways for a building to be deemed
an eligible historic building. One of which is by designation from the Chattam Historical Commission, which is the case here. As part of the application, we submitted the findings from the historical commission that the building is uh considered a historic structure u
based upon their review of the property. So, as it relates to this particular particular project, the preservation bylaw allows for the maximum building coverage uh to be increased by a factor of no greater than 1.25 25 uh through
the issuance of a special permit by the zoning board of appeals. So translating that for this particular property, what that means is that the building coverage at the property can go as high as 3,476 ft if the proposal satisfies the criteria of the preservation bylaw. In
this case, we're only asking for uh just over 3,000 square ft. We're not quite going to the maximum. We're actually close to the maximum that would be allowed under the preservation section of the bylaw, but still an increase over what would traditionally be allowed under the dimensional requirements. Um, so before going into the criteria, which
are a little bit different than your standard criteria, I just asked Leslie to go through the design of the property for you. >> Of course, >> Leslie Schneburgger, hello. Architect for Susan and Greg. Um, so first I'll tell you a little bit the history of the house or um tell you the whole context. Um so this is actually designated known
as the Ruth uh Ruth Sears Reed House. Um so Ruth Sears was daughter of Willard Sears who is a prominent architect. He was Isabella Stewart Gardner's um architect in Boston and did a bunch of other things including the museum hence the name Sears Point. This whole
property was part of the Sears property um and is actually one of the last remaining structures related to the Sears property still on that on on the location. Um, it was not built by Willard. Um, we believe it was his son,
um, Ted, uh, Sears Reed, who is Ruth's son, that actually built this house in the 1940s from what we can find. Um, and obviously the front portion of the house that you're seeing right there is the portion that was originally built. And then, like all other houses, kind of
added on to over time. Um, Susan and Greg saw the view that you see here from the water. That's when you're sailing. um and and in stage harbor or at the lighthouse. Um and had actually always admired the house. Um they spent a long time restoring a house in Harwitchport.
Um they're a rare breed that really loves and appreciates historic homes. And when this came up on their radar of real estate, um they had to sell the house they had worked on and and bought this. Um it's a five- bedroomedroom home at the time, fivebedroom, three and a half bath. Um they have four adult
children and they went, "This is perfect." Um but it's actually quite quite small being a historic house. Um and so we have gone through I think six months of um designs looking at ways to add more space to truly get five
bedrooms in this house um more bathrooms um and do all of that without disturbing that sort of streetscape which is the water um and without taking down the historic portion of the house. keeping the language of the garage some addition in the middle house at the end. So we
worked primarily in the middle section and that's where it had to had no choice but to kind of move out a little bit and that's what's created the increase in coverage. >> Great. Thank you Leslie. Um so moving along to the criteria uh a lot of them will be very familiar to you. The first
three are are different. Uh number one is the permitted modification of bylaw standards and requirements is necessary to maintain the eligible historic building on the site on which it was religionally constructed. Excuse me. In this instance, the applicant is proposing an addition to the existing
structure to allow for additional living area with minimal disturbance uh to the antique home. Um it was important for the shortens to preserve as much as possible the historic structure. working with that their goal. Uh the shortens, as Leslie mentioned, determined the most
feasible area for expansion was the connector piece between the dwelling and the garage, which is narrower than the rest of the home and currently consists of only one floor. Um the historic preservation incentive bylaw will allow the shortens to add this amount of square footage of the home, which will
preserve an antique property and structure as a viable part of a family home for many years to come. So we think instead of uh requiring more demolition of the structure that's there, this is really use utilizing the incentive bylaw for the uh intent for which it was
created, which is to allow an expansion to allow these structures to stay in existence uh while allowing for some more living area for a family to use them for many years to come. Number two, propose renovation, repair, adaptive reuse or removal preserves to the
maximum extent feasible the historical and architectural features of the building. I think as Leslie has shown through the drawings and through the rendering that this while it is an expansion, it certainly maintains the historical and the architectural features of the property. That rendering from Stage Harbor, which is the main view of the property where it's visible,
I think is it's different, but it certainly doesn't lose the character of what you see today on the property. Number three, failure to grant the special permit is likely to result in appropriate use or physical modification of the eligible historic building, including the potential demolition or
loss. So again, if if they can't expand, um then it would come down to demolishing more of the existing structure to try to create the additional living area they're looking for. And this bylaw um as voted on by the the folks in Chadam is I would read the intent is to allow for an expansion
like this is expansions like this that have gone on through the years. uh properties that were built long before zoning. It allows them to expand with a little bit of flexibility and working within the existing structure. Um and then we'll just touch on some of the more traditional criteria. Number four, adequacy of the site in terms of size. I
would say this um property is certainly adequate for the proposed structure and the proposed use. I would mention that if we're working off the total lot area as opposed to building co excuse me, buildable upland, we wouldn't even uh be over the building coverage amount. So as you look at the property physically, it
certainly isn't overwhelming. The structure certainly is not overwhelming the property. Five, suitability of the site. It's a single family dwelling and will remain single family, so it's suitable. There is no impact on traffic flow and safety. Impact on neighborhood visual character, including views and vistas. Um
from the sides, there's heavy vegetation on uh to both properties. So it's largely um screen from view. Uh the most uh important vista is from Stage Harbor. And again, as I mentioned, while it's changing, I don't think it's doing so in any sort of detrimental fashion.
Adequacy of methods of sewage disposal, source of water supply, and drainage. It has an appropriate title 5 system, town water, and there's no issues with drainage. It has adequate utilities and public services, no concerns with noise and litter, single family dwelling in a residential neighborhood, and therefore
compatible. And lastly, impacts on the natural environment. Um this has been before the conservation commission and they are will be issuing an order of conditions uh for the project at uh a meeting in I believe in November >> right after this. >> Um so lastly I just mentioned one of the
conditions that's attached to the approval is that um the shortens will need to record a um preservation restriction with the registry of deeds which runs with the property in perpetuity and so we provided a draft of that. There was no form so we just sort of created that. I think it touches or
hits on all the criteria required by the zoning bylaw for the restriction. So I just to mention there is you know there are strings attached. They are tying this property um to uh to this restriction forever. So again they are committed to this uh change. They're committed to maintaining the structure
in a historic fashion as much as possible. So uh with that we'd be happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you very much. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams who wish to speak in favor of this application? If so, please raise your hand. Seeing none, I will read the
correspondences. There are three. And the first one is from Christina Bassid from the CHC. And they found CS Point to be historically significant, but the changes do not material diminish the significance. So, they did not impose a demolition delay. And that was October
22, 2025. Judith Giorgio, our health agent on October 21, 2025 had no issues with the remodel in the existing five- bedroomedroom dwelling to remain five bedrooms.
And then the conservation commission on September 30th, 2025, the project is scheduled for an order of conditions on November 5th when it will be conditioned to meet the performance standards. And that concludes the correspondences. Is
there anybody here on Microsoft Teams wish to speak against this application? Uh, yes sir. I has a specific question. One or the other specific to this application hopefully. Guess you guys are getting start to know
me. Uh, Brian Phillips, 374 Orleans Road. Um, I understand the uh, you know, the new bylaw we passed in order to keep things historic, but um, you know, I think the a lot coverage in a uh, coastal conservancy district is an
issue. Um, and I think it sets a bad precedent to kind of use this as a loophole to go to, you know, to expand in a coastal conservancy district, which, you know, when you build non-perial services doesn't allow, you know, to, uh, the flood waters to mitigate properly. So,
um I definitely think uh you guys should take a hard look at this and I'm against this project uh because it's being used as a loophole. Thank you. >> It's not a loophole because it's the law. >> But are you is >> loopholes are when it's not the law but they find a way to get around the law. This is the law.
>> Understood. Um I do think um the intent was not to expand lot coverage in a coastal conservy district or within the setbacks. I think this is fine for, you know, when it doesn't um interfere with coastal conservancy stuff, but in this
case, I do think it's an issue. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. Um let's see. Anybody else wants to speak against or has a question anywhere online in the audience? No, no, no. Okay. Would you like to rebut anything? >> Oh, no. That's okay.
>> No. Okay. Very good. Um questions from the board then. >> Mr. Nixon, we keep starting with you today. Why not? Uh >> yeah, >> I didn't have any question, but uh since um I can see this from my cottage that I
live in on Stage Island, every time I go outside, I make sure it's still there and it really pleases me that Leslie, you could figure out how to work this and for the owners that uh it's wonderful. >> Thank you. >> Okay, Ed.
>> Um no uh no questions. >> Questions and Mr. V. Any questions? >> No, I have no questions. >> And let's see, Jenny, any questions? >> No questions. >> Steve, >> um, I didn't see the letter from from the health department. So, I was going to ask about the septic system, but
apparently that's been explained and is acceptable to them. So, I have no other questions. >> Lee, >> no questions. >> And Paul, >> no questions. >> Nor do I. So, Paul, >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> Dave V seconds and votes yes.
>> Yes, we'll vote yes. Jenny votes yes >> as do I. All right. So now we're going to deliberate. Jenny, let's go down the row here. >> Okay. Um, so I had no questions, but I do have comments. First, I want to say thank you for saving the p this historic 1940s home.
It's agree with Mr. Nixon. It's absolutely stunning. We're thrilled to see you use the new bylaw. The Randy mentioned at the beginning, the chair chairwoman mentioned at the beginning that it's the first time we've used it. Um and uh with all due respect to the uh
uh indiv Mr. Phelps who opposed the increasing coverage is exactly what some of these older homes need. Um and so I I I disagree that it's it has it, you know, has that there's a problem with that. It specifically addresses and
that's because um and and Leslie, you mentioned it. A lot of these historic homes are smaller. they're smaller in in size and the the rooms are smaller and I think one of the problems with with the preservation of some of these homes is that they don't meet today's needs and
so folks go immediately to to building new. So, um I I did start by saying thank you for saving the home. It's not an insignificant thing to do. Um it's it it is costly. It requires an an excellent architect and and Jamie, you
did a great job of outlining the the new um bylaw. Uh well, it's not really new. You mentioned uh 22, but it's the first time we've used it, so it's new to us. Um very well done and I would support it. >> And Steve,
>> no, I think it's a great project. Also, I'm I'm glad to see that um the house is being preserved, deed restricted preservation. So, I think it'll be that way in perpetuity. Um, I think it's a great project. Um, and um, I'm looking
forward to seeing the end result. >> And Lee, >> yeah, I agree with my colleagues. Um, great project. So happy that this historic preservation bylaw is being used. Maybe more people will hear about
it and and use it as well because it's very important. Um, I think, um, what's also important to this home, obviously, you mentioned, you know, the view from Oyster Pond or Oyster River, is the watercape. I mean, it's going to it's going to be beautiful to look up and see
that. So, um, if I were voting today, I would be voting in favor as well. >> Paul, would you? >> Yes, I agree with my colleagues. I was uh I did view the u uh historic uh commission uh hearing and uh noted the
fact that uh when the ERS uh originally uh listed this property and looked at offers being made uh what was being thought of by most of the per purchasers was nuking uh the facility and putting in something new and using that
location. Um and they decided they weren't going to do that. um and uh looked for a purchaser who could do something like what you're doing, which is creative under our current uh bylaws. So, I think we're actually getting what we're trying to get uh with the overall
concept of the law and it's consistent with the law. So, uh I think from that viewpoint, it's an excellent project. It meets all of our standards. >> And Mr. Nixon. >> Yeah, as I mentioned, I'm very pleased uh that it's been saved, shall we say? And Jamie, you
mentioned early on uh not so long ago, you would have come in with a variance. And um I know I couldn't have voted for a variance for this. It just wouldn't have qualified. So,
town meeting has given us another tool to save something like that and I'm happy to support it. >> And Ed, >> um, if I was voting, I I would certainly support it. I I think it's uh, you know,
a perfect plan that you came up with using the historic preservation incentive. it it u seems to make total sense to me and I I think it's going to um continue to be a beautiful waterfront
house and iconic from from the water >> and Mr. V. Yeah, I um I Well, first I guess the first thing I'm thinking of is if even if no I mean I hopefully there will be and as a
result of this others will take notice and um think about applying this this revision to the bylaw that was done in 2022. Um, this is exactly
what was anticipated in the effort as far as I understood it to uh craft and pass this bylaw. This is exactly what was intended because it was to give some uh more incentive to someone willing to
uh um take on the renovation of an older home. And um they've really done an extraordinary job here. Leslie, you've done a great job. Susan has done and I met Susan out there when I was doing my tour and we um talked a little bit about
historic preservation and I've I've been through a little bit of that myself and um and I know and I've learned that they are very much committed to that and um and that's something that that we should do everything we can to con to encourage
people to do this. Um I it's it's a it's fantastic. So hopefully there will be others, but if if this is the only thing we get from that change of the bylaw, this is enough or would be enough. So that said, um more power to them all.
>> Yeah, it's a good one. Um so I think if town meeting wanted to exclude the coastal bank or the you know conservation that would have happened already. So I don't think anybody should feel uh any kind of negativity about that. And but also you went to conservation four times. So there must
have been mitigation, right? >> Yes. If I may, I >> can you tell us about that? >> I was going to say um this uh as far as conservation um there were mitigation and tradeoffs and um we removed a lot of um hardscape coverage um so that it
balanced out and we actually reduced coverage in the 0 to 50 area, the more volatile area and increased um in the other. So conservation was comfortable with this and approved it. And what about invasives? Did you have to get rid of some of those? And you're going to
have to planting as well. >> Will there will be some invasive removal on the coast bank? >> So, at the end of the day, it's probably an improvement for the environment. >> That's exactly right. >> All right. Well, with that, Paul, um, I'm going to move to approve the application as submitted with uh some
more extensive conditions than we normally have in order to comply with the bylaw and the intent. Uh first that uh uh the owner shall record at the Barnesville County Registry of Deeds a preservation restriction pursuant to
general law chapter 184 section 31 in a form approved by the ZBA which shall provide conditions under which alterations, additions or modifications may be made to the building or structure to which the permit special permit relates. Two, the termination of special
permit rights upon loss or destruction of the building in the event of damage to loss or full demotion demolition of the historic structure such that the historic structure cannot be restored to its prior condition in use. The LUT
coverage incentive or setback flexibility incentive per special permit granted under this bylaw shall expire and the owner shall thereafter maintain the subject property in compliance with the applicable building coverage and setback requirements for the underlying
district as specified in the Chattam Protective Zoning bylaw unless the ZBA issues a new special permit reauthorizing the previously granted building coverage and building setback waiverss. uh with respect to a new building or structure proposed for the subject
property. To grant such a special permit, the ZBA must find that the proposed spe replacement building structure will not be detrimental to or inconsistent with the established character of the neighborhood and will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this bylaw. The ZBA shall make
written findings confirming compliance with this standard and addressing at a minimum the criteria set forth above uh under items 4 through 12. Uh and then uh without prior approval by the Chadam
Historical Commission and the Board of Appeals, the owner shall not alter, partially remove, construct, remodel, or make other physical or structural change or any change to the footprint, size, mass, ridge line, and roof roof lines of
the building other than ordinary maintenance or repair. I guess uh it makes sense to continue with some of our normal uh restrictions uh given the isolated nature of the access over there. Um all uh
construction activity and vehicles to be contained on site or at neighboring property with the permission of the property owners 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. p.m. only. Dave V seconds and votes yes. >> Nixon. >> Paul, where did you get all that wording? >> He was ready. In case >> it just comes right off the top of my head. >> Came off the top of your head. I I could
actually add that there was some of that wording was added um at partially my request. >> Okay. >> Because uh >> we'll give you credit. I and I I mean I know it sounds like a lot, but there the
the draft of the bylaw actually possibly could set up a condition whereby if something had happened to the house, a fire or something that the the um the the owner would have lost the
additional space with no recourse to. So this gives recourse to come back to the zoning board of people. >> We're gonna let you read it next time. >> Okay. You voted yes, Mr. Nixon. >> Almost. >> Oh, yes.
>> So Jamie, were you part of this or you just said okay? >> He didn't know. >> Which part are you talking about? The >> all of the conditions? >> Oh, I Oh, no. Jamie. >> Oh. >> Oh. Well, yeah. >> Leslie came up with that. >> No, I'm being serious. >> All right. Well, anyway.
>> Yes. It's It's beyond my uh came from, but yes. Yes. >> All right. Very good. And Paul >> Paul votes yes. >> Jenny. >> Jenny votes yes. >> As do I. And maybe we'll get so many of these that we can just say the usual historic preservation conditions.
>> All right. Welcome. I mean uh goodbye. It's unanimous. >> All right. Here we go. >> The next one. >> Ready for the next one. Whenever you are, Sarah. Application number 25-093 Windsor Soal Living Trust Care of
Christopher J. Karen Esquire PO Box 560 MASHP PM Mass 02649 owner of property located at 50 Winteret Drive also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 11g block 75 lot H111. The applicant seek to enlarge, extend, or change a non-conforming dwelling on a
non-conforming lot via the conversion of the existing garage to habitable space and under the second except clause of section six of Mass General Law Chapter 48 requires the grant of a special permit. The law is non-conforming and that it contains 14,400 ft where 60,000
ft is required in the R60 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw. Welcome. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. members of the board, uh, attorney Christopher Karine from Dunn and Karine and Mashby. Here on behalf of the applicant, uh, with me
today, today, this afternoon is Mike Sol, uh, one of the owners of the property. I think this is a pretty straightforward project. What we have is an existing house with an existing garage. And all we're seeking to do is to uh change the interior of that garage to convert it from a garage to living
space. So the uh, as noted in the hearing notice, the lot is undersized. So we have a non-conforming lot. We also do have the three non-conforming setbacks. So the front yard set back to to winter set is non-conforming as you can see and then the two whether you consider them rear or side are
non-conforming to the or the I'm sorry the neighboring uh setbacks are also non-conforming for this zoning district. But what we're not changing anything other than the interior. So we're not changing the footprint. We're not changing building coverage. We're not changing lot coverage. We're not changing the height. Um the only
exterior modifications will be instead of seeing a garage door, you'll see windows and regular doors, but but again, no expansion of footprint, no expansion of uh coverage, uh no expansion of height. So, you know, given the the the the bylaws, uh you know,
criteria, you know, I don't know how many of them apply, but if you lump them together, again, the site is a residential uh a residential lot. There's already an existing house on there that's that's sized already. We're not changing that size. So, I think the adequate is adequacy of the site um is
perfectly fine and given the uh the neighboring lots. Um again, no, we're not >> That sounds good. So, it's no you're not going to cause uh substantial detriment. >> No, we're not going to Yeah, we're not your neighbors instead of seeing a garage door, they're going to see windows. So, I don't really see this
particular uh type of project being substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. >> It's not going to be a marching band in there. >> No. Nope. I think it's just uh going to be like a extra living room basically. So, it's not we're not increasing bedrooms or anything of that nature. So, I think this one is is pretty straightforward. Uh
>> Okay. We've seen them before. All right. Thank you. >> Anybody here on Microsoft Teams wish to speak in favor of this project? Please make it known. >> Seeing none, I will read the correspondence. This was from Judith Georgu. As usual, October 21, 2025. She
has no concerns regarding the changing the existing garage into a family living room as proposed. And I think that concludes if I'm not mistaken. Yes. Anybody here on Microsoft Teams wish to speak against or has a question?
>> No questions from the board. Are there any? >> No. >> No. Okay. Very good. Paul, >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> Dave V seconds and votes yes. >> Yes. >> All votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> As do I. All right. Deliberations. Mr. Vich, why don't you say it for all of
us? >> Deminimus. Oh, no. Don't say that. >> No, no, no. I This is certainly not uh has not not substantially detrimental to the neighborhood in any way, shape, or form. I mean, I again, I mean, it's the uh looking at some different windows
instead of doors and different kinds of openings. It's it's uh it's in a way it's kind of a shame that it needs to come to us for that, but I understand. So, >> yeah, >> law. Yeah. >> By the law, >> Mr. Um I I actually appreciate that um this
project is coming to us before the work has been done because a lot of cases they seem to come to us after the work is done and they give us a live model. Um but >> Oh no. Thank you. >> Yep. And Mr. Nixon, >> this is fine. >> Yeah. And Paul
>> certainly not more detrimental to the neighborhood >> and we nice modest project meets criteria. >> Steve, >> no issues. Jenny, Jenny, >> agree with my colleagues. >> All right. As do I. So, Paul, >> I'll move to approve the application as submitted. Um, I think we probably do
need to say that we need uh all construction activity and vehicles contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner. Um, with everything being interior, I'm wondering whether there's a need for further conditions. >> What What do you think, Mr. Applicant
need needs >> for the conditions or are you happy with see that there's any need for any additional conditions. >> All right, I'll I'll leave it at that one condition then. >> I'll move to approve on that basis. >> Uh and Dave seconds and votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> All votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> As do I. It's unanimous. Congratulations.
>> Thank you so much. I appreciate your time and consideration. Thank you. >> All right. Okay. We are moving along here. Application number 25-067 Thomas and Jill Madigan care of James Abnorcross Esquire PO box 707 Chattam
Mass 02633 owners of the property located at 22 Shady Acres Drive also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 7E block 2 lot R1 the proposes to change alter or expand a non-conforming dwelling in a non-conforming lot via the construction
of additions the existing dwelling is non-conforming and that it is located 2.5 ft from the southerntherly of butter. The proposed addition will be non-conforming and that it will be located 2.4 ft from the southernly of butter where a 15t setback is required. The existing building coverage is 878 ft
8.3% and the proposed building coverage is 1,214 ft 11.5% where 15% is the maximum allowed. The law is non-conforming and that it contains 10,525 ft where 20,000 ft is required in the R20 zoning district. A special permit is
required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw. This was continued from August 28th, 2025. Welcome back, Mr. Norcross. >> Thank you. Good afternoon. >> Madam Madam Chair, if I could just address the board briefly. Um I did not
participate in the hearing on the 28th and uh we went through the board went through half of the hearing at that time. Uh so I'm going to recuse myself from his condition. >> Sure. Steve was the voting member on that day. >> Okay then, Steve. >> All right.
>> Thank you. Uh Jamie Norers on behalf of Thomas and Jill Madigan. Um we were here the end of August presented the plans and the analysis and we had to continue uh because the project still had to go to the historical commission. Uh that happened a couple weeks ago and there's no demo delay issued by the historical
commission. They are fine with the proposal. There have been two uh changes, small changes. The um house has been shrunk ever so slightly so that we now maintain the 2.5 ft set back to the southernly lot line. We no longer
encroach by another inch uh into that setback. And then the um there was a third bedroom shown on the floor plans that's been changed into a cased opening. So that'll be an office and not a third bedroom to satisfy the requirements of the health department. >> That that' be our presentation. >> Sure. Yeah. Thank you very much. Is
there anybody here on Microsoft Teams wish to speak in favor of this project? If so, yes, sir, please approach. Brian Phillips, 374 Lans Road. I know this project's a little squirly with the setbacks and stuff, but this is for year-round residents and all the neighbors really like them and I think
it would be um I think it's a good project for these people. Thank you. >> Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak in favor? Seeing none, I will read the correspondences. There are two from our health agents and from um the
historic. So, the CHC found this home to be not historically significant and thus did not impose a demolition delay and that was received on October 23rd, 2025. And Judith Giorgio tells us on 8:21 2025
that the revised proposed site plan and building plan for this property is acceptable to the health division. The property will remain a two-bedroom dwelling and the additions will not encroach on the septic system. Thus, she has no concerns. Is there anybody here that would like to
speak against or has a question? No questions from the board. Jenny. >> Um, so, so Jamie, I know we saw this the first time in August. Um, it's two, Just want to make sure that I'm uh looking at
the any changes that you made. We're talking about two additions. One, um, smaller one on the left hand side of the front of the home. >> Correct. >> And the other one is remaining in its full size except for one inch. >> Correct. >> On the right hand side.
>> That's correct. >> Okay. Thank you. Steve >> questions. >> Um, yeah. Do you do you have any idea of what about when this house was constructed or the the butters? >> It's it just turned 75 years old. So,
it's 1950. >> Okay. So, it's been this way since then. There's been a very tight setback since then. Since that time, probably. >> Well, the lot was created, I think, at a later time, but the the structure has been there since 1950.
>> Right. Okay. Okay. So, this is this is a you know an existing situation for quite some time. >> It wasn't if you may or may not recall it wasn't read into the record, but the a butter to the south actually submitted a letter of support. >> Yes, I remember. Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you.
>> Why didn't I read that into the record? Was that last time? >> It was at last meeting. That's why that's okay. Very good. Very good. Uh Lee, >> no questions. And Paul, questions? >> No, I'm not participating. Oh, sorry,
Mr. Nixon. Questions? >> No questions. And my one concern was that setback and thank you for changing that. >> And Ed, >> uh, no questions, >> Mr. V. No questions. Nor do I. Okay. So, Mr. V. >> Uh, yes. I'll move to close the hearing
and move into deliberations. >> I second that. Vote yes. >> And you vote? >> I vote yes. And, um, let's see. Steve, >> I vote yes. >> I vote yes. >> As do I. Okay, now deliberations. Uh, Steve. >> Uh, well, I think this is a good
project. I think, um, it's not making it any worse than it already is. And, um, it's giving them a little bit more living space. I I think it's fine. >> And Judy, >> well, I I'm sorry. I don't agree that it's not making it worse. It's not
coming out any further, but you're adding 13 and a half feet of what was um way too close years ago. It's kind of in my mind um I want to hear what my the rest of my colleagues have to say, but I think it it's making a bad situation
worse by um being so close to the neighbor. Um and there is a I I understand there's a setback. I mean, sorry, a septic in the um in the back, which maybe that's was part of preventing some of the addition
consideration to be on that side. But there's there's just so much property there that I I wish they could contemplate um not adding 13 additional feet of um such a small setback to the neighbor. And I understand the neighbor
doesn't object, but uh because it's in the back of their property, but I I I just um I I don't like it. >> Mr. V, >> I don't share that concern. Um you know, it's a property that was uh building was
constructed before zoning existed in town of Chattam. Um they divided the property at some subsequent point. Um, they made an adjustment so that they weren't encroaching any closer uh to that neighbor. Um,
geez, I can't in I can't in good conscience. I mean, I was I had no problem with it the first time around. I I think they've they've improved it slightly. Um, you know, and I live in I living in in one part of town where, you
know, approximate buildings approximate to the to the property line are not uh uncommon. And I actually own a building in another part of town where the two sides of our
property lines are party walls, so they're buildings against each other. And uh people don't have a problem with that either. So I don't have any problems with it at all. Thanks, >> Mr. Actton. >> Um I mean if if it was my property or if
I was building this property or advising the homeowner, I would advise them to to move it. There's there's plenty of room to do so. But um there I feel they're well within their right to keep it where where it is if they want to. Um, so, um,
if I were voting, I I would I would say that it would be allowable. >> Yeah. And Mr. Nixon, >> yeah, in the perfect world, you'd pick it up and move it. But, uh, it's not in our purview to suggest that people spend that kind of money. And it has been here
um, since I'm sorry, January. Did you say 75 years? >> The building is 75. >> Yeah. Okay. So, um, it's it is not going to be substantially more detrimental to that neighborhood and so therefore I will support it
hopefully. >> Um, yeah, I agree. It's very it's a modest addition. Um, it's it's not going to be substantially more detrimental. >> Yeah. And I'm going to support it, too. And I I would also say that um it would
be nice if the uh town meeting got a um a proposed bylaw that said if the people that want to do construction are year- round residents, wouldn't that that would really be cool and maybe that would be helpful to the cause. So anyway, um it's not possible to me that
this could be substantially detrimental to that neighborhood. So um Mr. V, um can you move to >> Oh, go ahead. Um so um I will move approval of the um application as
submitted. Um I don't think um and I think um that conditions are are normal conditions would >> normal conditions >> would apply that that all vehicles uh
remain uh um um on site or with the >> I'm not prepared to do my reading. >> That's okay. Yeah, we caught you by surprise. So um >> Yeah. Yeah, here. Let me let me find >> Maybe Paul could pretend he's here just to >> No, I I already burdened Paul um
inadvertently earlier. So, uh let me take the uh >> I believe I found it. So, all construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner >> and that is a pretty tight neighborhood.
So, certainly between June 30th and Labor Day, no exterior construction will be allowed. No work should be permitted on the weekends. Construction activity between 8 am and 5:00 pm only with those conditions. >> And Mr. Nixon, >> I
>> second. >> I second it and vote yes. And >> I vote yes. >> You vote yes. And uh >> Steve >> Steve votes yes. >> Jenny, my colleagues have persuaded me I will vote yes. >> Very good. And as do I. So it is unanimous. Congratulations. >> Thank you very much.
>> Yep. We'll see you next time. Does anyone need a break before we go to I I kind of do just for a minute. Uh two minute five minute break. >> Thank you. We are back.
>> Welcome. Welcome back viewers. And our next application, Sarah. >> 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 showed on the town of Chad'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 via the demolition of the existing dwelling in construction of a new dwelling. The
existing dwelling is non-conforming and that it is located 30.4 ft from Little Beach Road, 13 ft from an unnamed way, and 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 feet from Little Beach Road and 12.7 feet from an un unnamed way where a 40 foot setback is required.1 ft from the cella butter where a 25- foot setback is required and entirely
within the coastal conservancy district where a 50-ft setback is required. The existing building coverage is 659 square ft and the proposed building coverage is 730 ft where 2,800 ft is the maximum allowed The lot is non-conforming and it
contains zero square feet of buildable upland where 20,000 square feet is required and contains 4,972 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
section 5B of the protected bylaw. This was continued from August 14th, 2025. Good afternoon. Bill Riley on behalf of Monoy Rips. The Hankle family, Rod and and Terry are here uh today. The uh I'm
assisted by Aaron Lean who's with Hucker Architects. Dave Clark is our engineer. He's available if you have any questions. And Teresa Sprag uh at our planting and she'll be doing a presentation as well on the planting issue.
So, since the last time we were here Oh, by the way, who's voting? >> Who's voting? Um, >> just want to make sure >> voting, right? Yeah. Yeah. Paul's voting. >> Okay, great. All right. So, the uh Paul, you missed a brilliant >> Yeah. >> representation,
>> but he signed his his first born away that promising that he did that. So, >> okay. So, since that meeting, uh there were a lot of concerns about height of the building and size of buildings. So, uh, Dave Clark, uh, did a lot of work.
And can you put up the colored? Yeah. Thank you. Uh, did a lot of work regarding the heights of the buildings in this area. Now, we used to call it Horn Cottages area, but you know, if you go down there today,
if you can find a Horn Cottage, you're lucky. So many have been modified and improved. and brought into compliance with the FEMA requirements. But so the remarkable thing is that
the uh there are a lot of houses in here. Some have been modified, some not. But most of the ones that have been modified, I was astonished to learn, are essentially 20 feet high from the first floor to the ridge. I mean you go
through all these all these properties. So the um so you start on the scallop terrace you know the first floor elevation at that time was you know required to be one
foot above the flood plane which is 13. So it's 14. So the height of the ridge is 34. And if you go through the neighborhood, you know, the the uh so number eight, number two, and number
16 are all exactly 20 ft high. The 16 came in when they had to be two feet above the flood plane. And so the first floor is 15 and the ridge is 35. And if
you go through the neighborhood, you know, that's what you see. I mean, to me was shows a the efforts of the zoning board uh to maintain to the extent they could,
you know, the cottage atmosphere. There is an outlier of course 46 which is over 21 feet tall but hopefully we're going to we we're going to deal
with that as well. The soian bylaw prohibits buildings being more than 30 feet above the lowest adjacent grade.
So our two structures are 30 feet as measured from the lowest adjacent grade. Uh but we have to start with the first floor elevation at 15 because the FEMA
requirement and the building code requirement are now that we have to be 2 feet above the FEMA flood plane. And so the house we're presenting right now is 19.8T
from the first floor to the ridge. So effectively 20 feet like all the other houses in the neighborhood. So I'm going to ask we did make some changes in the design as a result of our last meeting. I'm going to ask Erin of
Hutcher Architects to explain uh the changes they made and uh why the building looks a little bit different today. Erin, >> sure. Um, I'd like to start by saying, uh, at the last meeting, we really appreciated uh your comments and how much you like the overall design. Um, as
we mentioned before, we're designing a house, a year-round home for the Hankles and their extended family. It's been important for us to preserve the character and design of the home and for it to fit comfortably within the neighborhood. We were able to do that by reducing the footprint and the building height from the previous submission. And
Bill's going to present those numbers to you after. Uh we're proposing materials such as Alaskan yellow cedar and board form concrete that will weather and gray out and fade into the landscape. And we feel these homes are designed and will fit beautifully into the fabric of the neighborhood.
>> Thank you. The um piece of paper. So we've attached several sheets to the zoning bylaw analysis we usually do and we have the gross floor area which was uh is the first one and that was that
was essentially attached last time as well and the and you can see 47 Little Beach is at the top. The current gross floor area is 1,128 square feet and the proposed uh gross
floor area is 1,267 square feet. Both uh very modest numbers and the on the second attached sheet we have building coverage. And so the uh
right now the lot size is 4,972 square feet. The existing coverage is 13.25% and our proposed coverage is 14 uh.02. So again a very modest uh increase uh in
the size of the building in terms of u building coverage. And again on on the last page that's where we've put all the numbers for the heights of all the buildings have got the first floor elevations for each of the buildings and their addresses. They have the ridge heights
and then the difference. So you can see that they are in the main they're approx of them are right around 20 feet and and the u 47 which is on the top of that last page.
You can see that the first the current first floor elevation is 12.6. So when you're making a change in a flood plane, if it's a substantial change, you have to bring it into compliance with FEMA requirements, which means that the u
the first floor has to be at elevation 15 because our building code requires that we be two feet above uh the flood plane. So the existing ridge height is 30 ft. Our proposed
ridge height is 34.8 and that will leave the the building, you know, from first floor to ridge at 19.8 ft. Very uh similar, very much in keeping with the other homes in the
neighborhood uh that have been modified. So with that in mind, I think the we go through the criteria, you know, adequacy of the site uh in terms of the size of the proposed use right now, the existing building at 47
actually is over the property line uh as you can see on our site plan by a couple of feet. And so we're moving our proposed structure is located entirely within the limits of the lot on which
it's located rather than being split. The u our proposed um you know so we're relocating the building but and the building coverage is only increasing by 71 square feet.
Although the proposed coverage is 730 square feet, the actual living space on the first floor is only 660 square feet and 607 square ft on the second floor. So we think that this the size of the
site given the nature of the neighborhood where we're located is adequate for our proposal compatibility the size of the proposed structure with neighboring properties. So um I have a rather lengthy explanation
there of all the work that David did. I've already described it to you. The uh so we think that this building which is 19.8 ft from the first floor to the ridge
is uh very much compatible. And if you look at the excuse me, if you look at the gross floor area where our proposed gross floor areas, 1,267 square feet, we're uh very much
at the lower end of the gross floor areas in the neighborhood. If you look at our first attachment, so I think um by height and by gross floor area, we're very much compatible uh with the existing neighborhood
certainly not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. So extended the proposed increase in the non-conforming nature of the structure or use u we are reducing one non-conformity by moving the building source completely on its own lot but we are increasing the
living area and under the branch decision that's an increase an intensification of the nonconformity and so that would be an increase in non-conforming nature suitability of the site including but not limited to the impact on the
neighboring properties from the natural environment including slopes, vegetation, wetlands, groundwater, water bodies, and storm water runoff. So, uh, this property is subsection of the conservation commission. And what I'd like to do is have Terresa
Spray come up and explain uh the plantings that are going to go on this lot and how uh it's very much uh makes the site suitable and improves the site uh
in in for the ways they're relating to slopes, vegetation, wetlands, etc. Teresa, >> certainly. Um can I pass that on to share? >> Yeah, sure. >> Uh good afternoon. and Teresa Sprag with Bluefax Design um here on behalf of Rod and Carrie Henles. Um so when we were
looking at this property, we were really um considering the neighboring vegetation um particularly the neighboring vegetation. So I'm passing around a photograph of the vegetation um that's located just to the east. Um if you um there's a 20 foot wide way that
runs along the east side of this property. Um it's and then there's a foot path that runs through that. This property is located on the west side of that footpath and that's the existing vegetation on the east side of the footpath. So we really used that as a starting point of our pallet for
bringing planting in. In working with the property owners, it was very much their goal to ensure that these both of these houses, I know we're specifically looking at 47, but both of these structures really are felt that they were seated into the landscape rather than up on a pedestal. of course with
the understanding that we had to increase the elevation of the building because of the flood plane issues. Um so our goal in restoring this area and replanting this area was to minimize the amount of retaining walls required and certainly minimize the heights of the retaining walls required. They very much
did not want to surround this property with retaining walls and make it look like a fortress. They really wanted to use vegetation to um help this settle into the landscape. So with that um and as that picture passes around you can see that there are cedar trees, there's um groundill bush or high tide bush
backaris, there's little blue stem, there's native grasses. All of that's going to be um brought over onto this property here. So, we'll be planting four eastern red cedar trees on the north side and to the east of this property to help screen the property when you're coming down um Little Beach
Road so that you'll be looking at naturalized vegetation in um mainly those cedar trees with those shrub and grass species that are continuing from the east side onto this property and up the slope. Um, as you saw in the um in the drawings shown by Hutker, the um
retaining walls are remaining very close to the structure so that they're coming up in the stairway, which allows us to plant out the entire slope that will be remaining down between um the structure and Little Beach Road. So to the north, to the east, and to the west, this house
will be in completely surrounded by um native vegetation. Um, this is all located within the 50-foot buffer zone and parts of the dune. Um, so that we're really looking to restore that back dune vegetation and native vegetation in this area. Um, the other part of this is
taking advantage of the opportunity to do some minor regrading with the septic system that again we have the opportunity to very carefully raise some of the grades around the foundation, particularly on the north side, ensuring that within 10 ft of the structure, we're back down to existing grade. Um,
but that allows us to bring that great elevation up just directly around the foundation so that when we're planting that, we're not looking at exposed foundation on the structure. We're looking at native vegetation, um, mainly native shrub vegetation with grasses and, um, and native perennials mixed in.
So, I'm happy to answer any questions about the vegetation. Was there anything else? >> Retaining wall. >> So, um, the retaining wall on the west side of the property, we do have to maintain the retaining wall to the north and to the east side. There's an existing low concrete retaining wall.
Um, we do need to maintain that just because we're so tight to the property line on the north and on the east, but the retaining wall to the west side is going to be removed. And then that slope will be allowed to it will be the elevation will be or the grade will be allowed to slope very gently and very
naturally toward Little Beach Road. And that slope will be held by being entirely vegetated with a mix of native grasses, um, wild flowers and shrub vegetation. >> Great. Thanks. >> I don't know if anybody has any questions for Teresa. >> We'll we'll get to that. >> Okay.
>> Okay. So, the So, with the vegetation that the Henkles are planning on, we believe that the site is suitable uh for the proposed structure and again it's
certainly not substantially more detrimental. impact of scale sighting and mass on neighborhood visual character including views, vistas and streetscapes. So one of the things I think is important is we have this house which is an
eyesore for all of us uh and generates a concern for board members that it not be repeated and I think so that's why Teresa's presentation was so
important because there will be no wall. This house is 36 feet high. Ours from tops out at 35. That is from sea level. So it's only 30 feet tall.
Uh the building itself is less than 20 feet from first floor to the ridge. and and what you're going to see as you approach the property because of Teresa's grading is you're going to see uh Eastern Red Cedars and all the
grasses you described and then on the west side the site closest to 46 is going to slope down to Little Beach Road uh in the manner that Teresa described. So, I believe that uh you know the the house is is modest
in size compared to the other homes in the neighborhood and with the design uh that the Hangles are uh having Teresa put around the property that it brings uh it helps bring the the
scale and the mass of the building down because we're having plantings around it and we're having a gently sloping terrain. So, we think that uh you know the traditional design that uh
if you can you put up the front page again Sarah? No, the front p you know the one that shows our design. There you go. That one. So you you look at the traditional design and with all the plantings around
it, I believe that uh you could find that the scale sighting in mass always difficult in an area like this has been greatly mitigated by the planting and that the the uh with the
way uh with the design and the landscape design that this proposal is not substantially more detrimental. to the neighborhood than the existing structure. So, compatibility of the proposed use with neighboring uses to single family
residents in a single family neighborhood. Uh there will be a brand new septic system impact on traffic flow and safety. Uh you know, up until now, it's been used as a rental and it's going to be part of the Hankle family. Um Rod Hankle has
nine brothers and sisters. So uh and a lot of uh grandchildren, nieces and nephews. So that this is going to be used really for family uh and not be rented. The uh impact on traffic flow and safety again we think because it's
just a family use now it'll actually be somewhat reduced. the uh there's no change in noise and litter all utilities are adequate and the uh
terms of increase in you know the lateral expansion there's 71 square foot increase in the building coverage but we believe there's no negative impact on the impervious area because the applicant is proposing
to remove an exist existing retaining wall and do significant plantings u so that this modest expansion will not create any negative impacts uh on the on the uh
as concern which is a concern of that particular criteria which I've never really understood to tell you the truth but so that would be our presentation on 47. >> Thank you. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that would speak in favor of this application? If so, please
raise your hand. No, I will read the correspondences. There are four and they are all in favor. First one was from Kermit and Jean Eaton from 35 Little Beach Road received on October 23rd. We Kermit and
Gene East and near the about north of 47 and 53 Little Beach Road intended to be at the hearing today but had to leave Chadam because of an unanticipated situation. We intended to say when the property was recently purchased by the current owners, we were concerned about their plans for the site. In our
conversations, they said their intention was to demolish the existing dwellings and rebuild on the same footprint as feasible um as possible. the landscape and building envelope would be comparable with the surrounding neighborhood and their design would be sensitive to the neighborhood view. They
followed through on their intentions and additionally informed us of the plans as we went through various boards and commission reviews. As a past member of the planning board in my home community, I Kermit recognize that input from the abuters is just one, it's
supposed to be input, I guess, just one component of the rigorous process in improving site plans. And from that position, we strongly support this site for the north properties. Additionally, we feel that the proposed demolition and rebuild will be a significant upgrade to
the site. Then next is Michael Blech and Jill 165 Morris Island Road. We're the owners of of 165. Neighbors uh near the property at 47 and 53 Little Beach. We are writing in full support of the
applications for special permits in connection with the replacement and existing structures at the above reference addresses. Rod and Carrie Henles have provided us with submittal plans for the two houses. We appreciate their thoughtful attention and have
given um and they have given to ensuring their reasonable designs remain in keeping with the aesthetic and character of the Little Beach Road community and we wholeheartly support both projects. Next we hear from Brendan Driscoll.
Um my wife Heidi and I currently reside at 157 Mars Island Road. We own properties in the Little Beach neighborhood since 2000 and consider our it our primary residence. We have reviewed the re revised plans 47 and 57
which were created by Hutker Architects and fully support both projects. In our opinion, both homes are well suited to the scale character of the neighborhood. That one more Kimberly and Peter Chipman 10 and 21 Little Beach Road. We are in
total support of the above captioned applications and overall project and these pertain to u both 47 and uh 51 I think it is little beach. Um we have resided in this neighborhood for 29 years and feel strongly that they the
proposed plans will be absolute positive for the little beach neighborhood. In addition, as one of the owners on lot 113, which directly abuts the properties, we have no concerns with said enhancements. And that was received on August 19th,
2025. Okay, that concludes the correspondences. Is there anybody here or Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak against or has a question? Yes, sir. Please approach. All right, Brian Phillips, 374 Lanes
Road. So, you guys heard my speech last time. Pretty much anytime something's being built in a flood zone or coastal resiliency zone, I think it's bad. Um, you know, doesn't allow the flood water to mitigate properly. But, um, I'm going to try to appeal to you guys. Um, if I I'm
going to use a metaphor for a second. Um, you know, the 63 Corvette split window coupe, the Plymouth Superbird. Let's go with a 64 Chevel, uh, Mustang GT 5000 or 500, Camaro SS, Pontiac GTO Judge, Plymouth Hair, Barracuda. So, you
know, these cars aren't as fuel efficient or handle as well or uh, you know, as these, but these classic muscle cars are really cool. And I guess the point I'm trying to make is is these cottages, they're really cool and they uh they're definitely to me they're
historic. You they're almost like 100 years old. And um I think the you know the plans aren't up there, but I think these plans I think they're nice houses. Um you know, just not particularly for this area. Um you know, and if there was a way you could you know, not tear these
cottages down and preserve them, I think the community would be very appreciative. Um, I know that might be might not be the most practical, but you know, Chad was never about having a big house. It was about all the stuff you can do outdoors because I know you guys vacationed here a lot. Um, so I just
think it would be a tragedy to tear down these these beautiful cottages. Um, cuz you know, 50 100 years if we make it, you know, to then if AI doesn't take us out, um, people will say, "Hey, you know that that's that those cottages are still
here. you know, they're beautiful and um I guess that's a spiel I have. I just wish you would I just, you know, wish and I think a lot of members of the community wish you would, you know, preserve these. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anybody else want to speak against or has a question either here or
online? Make it known. No. All right. Questions from the board. >> Well, if I could >> Oh, yes. I'm sorry. >> A brief rebuttal. >> Yeah, sure. Okay, before we have the questions and concerns of the board members,
the uh I think one of the things that Mr. Phillips is missing in his comments is the fact that uh right now these are considered uh structures that are at risk because
they're located in the flood plane and they weren't built or designed to resist uh storm waters. And so the that's why FEMA and the building code require them to be elevated. Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you. Questions from the board. Steve, >> I just want to I don't I just want to clarify a couple things. Um um looking at the Hutker um page A300,
it looks like the existing house um is at about 34 1/2 ft to the ridge. If I could the numbers were very small so it was a little difficult to read.
the existing ridge is at 30.1. >> You looking at the existing or the proposed? >> I'm looking at the their A300 page and they're writing in green. >> Oh, that is the elevation if the existing house were raised to the current FEMA height which would be 35
32.5. >> Okay. So the proposed what you're proposing now is 34.7 >> correct >> which is really only a change of about 2 feet which is because you had a raise >> correct
>> that's the difference of of the foundation >> exactly >> so the house itself is not really much bigger than what's there now >> correct >> from the bottom of the first floor to the ridge >> correct >> okay and it it's substantially it's about three feet less than what you proposed back in August
>> that's right Okay. All right. I just wanted to make sure that I was reading that properly. Thank you. >> Okay, Jenny. >> Uh, we're talking just 47 here. I I don't have any questions about 47. >> Uh, Lee, questions on 47? >> Uh, no. Thank you. >> Well, questions on 47.
>> Um, one question I had is, uh, Chipman's refer to lot 113. What is lot 113? >> I'm sorry. the Chipman uh correspondence uh on this property refers to lot 113. >> Well, the uh Okay, so part of the
problem we have here is this is all registered land with the land court and the Horn family which has owned the property since the 30s divided and redivided and redivided. So when you have a land corore plan, the
first plan is the A plan and the first lot numbers are 1 2 3 and so every time you do a redivision of a Lancore plan the number on the lot goes up. So that
so what has happened is so these lots were the product of multiple I mean many redivisions and so that's why it's lot 113. >> Well the correspondents seem to indicate that they were aside from the addresses
that they talked about that they were on they said they also own lot 113 which is an abuing property. What is lot 113? Well, David, can you help us out here? >> Is it a budding property?
>> I thought that's what the correspondent said. >> I think this was on before they >> No, >> it might be this one. Paul, I'm just look I'm looking at our our Chattam maps online that we at the cover sheet here
>> and you know it shows the um the circle and and and colors in the abuing properties. There are um a couple of lots that are kind of swampy area now that are a little beyond um this but they but they fall within the the abutters. They don't
have numbers on them. >> Sarah has an answer. >> Okay. >> Okay. Uh, the lot on the screen is the one in question, I believe, because that's owned partially by the Chipman's. >> Oh, so it's not even on >> Yeah, it's not even on our site.
>> So, that's the one that uh 27 uh is partially on, >> I believe. So, >> so um when they say it's a budding property, that isn't a budding property, is it?
>> No. Well, a butter to a butters within 300 ft. So, >> right. Right. >> It might qualify that way. >> I'm sorry. I see the notice requirement is a Butters to a Butters within 300 ft.
So it might qualify as an abuing property because it's within 300 ft. >> So you think you're they were using that term not to mean that it actually is a budding, but rather that it's one of the butterers that would receive notice, >> right?
Oh, >> apparently. I mean, that's, you know, >> okay. Um, and just so that I'm clear, do we have any uh
uh visual presentation of the landscaping that uh was just talked about there to talk about a lot of screening to the northeast and so forth. Have we seen anything that shows that
>> we submitted stuff earlier or not? >> This I don't know if this was just submitted to J. This is our >> All right, we'll just give it to him. >> Okay. [Music] >> Was that Teresa? Was that submitted to the Conservation Commission?
>> This was July 31st. >> We're going to get knocked. We're going to get knocked. There we go. The revision date on that was July 31st. >> Okay. >> So, um yes, >> there isn't any uh uh visual
presentation of the perspective looking at it from Little Beach Road. >> So, an elevation for instance, >> pardon me, >> an elevation there is there is not, but we can certainly provide one. >> I mean, one of the things that I thought you were saying is that this is shielded to a large extent from anybody who is
looking at it from Little Beach Road. >> It it is. So, there's a number of cedar trees um on the north side of the property. And then as you're So, as you're coming down Little Beach Road, um there's cedar trees planted around the north side of the property that would screen the property as you're coming down Little Beach Road
>> that are not there now that are going to be >> that are not there that now that are going to be planted. Yes. And that was part of the conservation plan. >> Okay. So, there uh so there is no visual presentation of that perspective. But
but Dave can tell you what what the uh grading is as you as you approach the building, right? >> Well, it's on. >> Is that what you asked for? >> Yeah. >> Is that what you ask? >> And it's also showing on on that planting plan as well. The grading is shown on that planting plan.
>> I'm trying to get a feel for the streetscape. Uh you one of the issues that I seem you you you seem to be saying is that uh one of the reasons why this will will work well is because it will be screened from Little Beach Road and people coming down Little Beach
Road. >> People coming down Little Beach Road from the north. Correct. As you're driving down from the north, it will be screened on the north side. the west side as you're heading down towards Little Beach Road will be naturally sloping and that slope will be planted out with a number of shrubs um native
grasses etc. >> But there is no uh there's no visual perspective shown on any of the documents that we've received that would show what you're seeing >> in that situation. >> So an elevation or a model I I do not have an elevation or a model of that um
planting but we could certainly provide one if that was >> Thank you. I don't know whether you want to this in the record. >> Oh, M. Yes, Mr. Briggs. Uh, >> I just want to add a a point in here that might help Paul. Um, I'm I'm just a little concerned. I see that they're
removing a retaining wall on the westerly side of the property, but that whole site is in a flood plane and you can't fill or excavate in a flood plane. So, I don't know how they're going to remove that retaining wall and have that work fit in with the bylaw.
>> Go ahead. that grade will just naturally slope down. So that retaining wall is only a couple of feet high. It's it's a very low wall. It's a couple feet high retaining wall. So it's not a significant I I don't know. It's it's it was actually built to I think um uh hold
back the septic system if I'm not mistaken on that. That's correct. Yeah. >> Um Teresa is correct. So that retaining wall is retaining the existing leeching field for that lot.
So my question to you would be um a retaining walls allowed for repair of a septic system in the flood plane to meet the minimum requirements of the board of health. So what happens when that septic system is no longer required
or needed? that has that system has to stay per the bylaw or can we remove it? >> It's uh it's something to discuss. I don't have an answer for you, Dave. Okay. >> It was just a concern I had when I saw >> that. That was our assumption is that it's a it's allowed under the bylaw
because it's required because of board of health regulations. We're removing it because it's no longer required. >> I understand. >> Okay. >> But I I just don't know how that works with the bylaw. >> Okay. Well, if the grade ends up being
what it is today, >> okay, >> back to the Oh, go ahead, J. >> I was just going to say if the grade doesn't change, then it's not an issue if you get rid of the wall, but I mean, >> right, >> usually if you get rid of a retaining wall, the grade's going to change. >> You would never do a thing like >> No, I know you wouldn't, Bill. >> Well, and and Right. And just because of
the height, it's a very low wall. It's just a couple of feet. Okay, Paul, are you happy with >> Well, uh, questions. >> Well, there was, >> by the way, there was one of the one of the pictures from Huter that showed, uh, the house at 46. And if
you, if you look over on the left hand side of that picture, you can see, uh, a portion of the front part of the building. >> Yeah. See, like that. Yeah, I I see that. But I'm not Is that attempting to
show the perspective of the new landscaping as well? >> Well, that is the new landscaping. >> Well, the intent the intent of that is to show the architecture, not the landscape. >> I'm sorry. >> Well, if it's important, you know, we
can get you one, but it would require a continuence. >> Well, we'll see how it goes. >> Okay. See, >> do you want to put this in the record given that it's been submitted? >> Any more questions, Paul? >> No, not at this time. >> Okay, Mr. Nixon, any questions?
>> No, Mr. Aton questions. >> Uh, just just one question I think for Dave probably. Um, thank you for the uh the the plan that shows, you know, the FEMA regulations. And I just had a question.
The FEMA regulation of 15 ft when when was that adopted? >> Um it became effective June. >> Well, that's that Well, in the first place, that's not the FEMA regulation. That's the board. That's the building code. >> That's the building code when the new adoption of the 10th edition of the building code October 1st.
>> Okay. So, that that was o the year year of that. I'm just trying to get a feel for where the neighborhood is going. So we it was adapted and at it was 14 it was adopted to 15. Do we know?
>> Yeah. The the difference is the freeboard above the base flood elevation. So that Massachusetts adopted an additional foot of freeboard. >> That's what brings us to the 15 ft. >> Do we anticipate any other changes? We anticipate that potentially if the firm
maps get redone that the elevation is going to go up on the base flood elevation which again now your freeboard's going to go up as well. >> So maybe another >> Well, we don't know. I guess >> we don't know. The last time the flood maps changed was in 2014. >> Okay. >> And the time before that was 98.
>> The time before that was 1998. >> Okay. I I'm just trying to get a feel for the neighborhood because you can see there's um not yet adapted properties where they're gonna potentially end up at. That's that's all. Thank you.
>> Any questions, Mr. V? >> Um I know I don't think I have any questions on 47. >> Okay. All right. So, um I don't have any questions on that one either. So, Paul, >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> Give each seconds and vote yes.
>> I vote yes. All votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> As do I. Okay. Now we're going to do deliberations. Lee 47 only. >> Okay. 47. Um I
like the fact well I like the design still. Um I was definitely um in favor of the design um all along. I like the fact that um it really hasn't increased too much um building coverage.
Um I like the idea of the landscaping. I think that will help. Right now the um whole property is pretty bare and I think that you know the houses will stand out um
and until there's some effective landscaping. Um the I guess the height of the cedars. That was a question I should have asked. Um >> well I I can tell you that five or six feet >> when planted >> when planted.
>> Um I think that will help. Um I'm not concerned about the height. So if I were voting I would um vote in favor. >> Okay. Steve. >> Uh well there's a couple aspects that I like about this. It seems like you're
moving the house quite a bit closer to Little Beach Road, which in turn moves it away from the the coastal bank, right? >> So, that's a good idea. Um, the height of the house, the the design of the house seems to be pretty similar to
what's already there. Doesn't seem to be changing the look of the house that much. And the height of the house is due to the fact that you have to raise it so high out of the ground just before you even start. So, um I don't think I have an issue with with
this with this plan. It's good. >> And Jenny >> 40 uh 43, right? >> 47 >> 47 >> 47 >> just that one. >> You have 43 on your just >> We did that to
>> Okay. Just It did. Um Okay. So 40 47. Um yeah, the height was reduced uh 2 feet 7 in from um from the August meeting. So I appreciate the responsiveness to our feedback. Um also the building coverage
was reduced from the August meeting uh 33 square feet. It is still an increase 30 only 38 square feet but it is an increase from the existing. Um I guess mi Mr. Mr. Riley, maybe this is a question, but does that does criteria 12?
>> We already did questions, so just >> Well, I just I was worrying about um criteria. >> If you really need to know, then we'll let Mr. Riley talk. >> Does criteria 12 apply? >> Go ahead, Mr. Riley. >> Sorry. What? >> Does criteria 12 apply?
>> Yes, because we're expanding the >> Yes. >> the footprint of the building. >> I I I thought so just but I wanted to confirm that. So um so building coverage is increasing a little bit but an in a decrease from what was presented in August which is responsive. Um I agree
with Teresa that um I I think the uh proposed uh vegetation or landscaping is beautiful. I I love the house that's next to 40 um 7 what they have done with their landscaping and so I think it's
going to be great to continue that. I think that will u be enhanced and greatly mitigated by the planting the the height and the size of that. So I I I really like that. I wanted to comment on that. Um according to Mr. Riley's
chart here 47 is the smallest um of the of everything I saw here. the the entire sheet. So I think that is worth noting and um those were my comments. >> Yep. Um Mr. F
deliberations just on 47. >> Sure. Um well uh I I pretty much agree with the previous comments. Um it's um when I look at in in some of the numbers
that they've given us have helped help set it up. Uh but this is not a large building uh and uh as it exists and it's and what they're proposing is not a a big increase in it. Um I I appreciate
the um um that the ridge is lower than what was initially proposed and I think that will help. Um and and I think and it looks um you know that the the style of the building is is not dissimilar to what's there. Uh, and I think and I
don't think it's really going it certainly is not going to um this is a vast improvement over what happened at number 46. uh this proposal I with respect to
what's there what you're proposing. This is a tremendous improvement over uh the the change that took place at number 46 which um you know we we we gave that uh our blessing which I'm kind
of sorry about number 46 but I I'm not going to use that against uh what's what's happened at 46. I I wouldn't want to use against this proposal. I think this proposal is is much better and I don't think and and especially when I look in in in in in your numbers you're
showing when I compare what you're seeking to do here what first of all what you need to do in the elevating of the building and then increasing the the um living area somewhat when I look at the proposals and and the things that we've approved uh on Seagull Road and
and off Seagull Road and those those buildings back there um this is is very much in keeping with um any or all of those and and many those have all had to get our approval. Um so I I think this is very much in keeping of of with
things that we've approved in the past and I can't support it. I don't think this is substantially more detrimental to neighborhood. Thanks >> and thank you. Um Ed, you you didn't go yet. Yeah, go ahead. >> Uh no. Um I agree with my colleagues. Um, I think it's a thoughtful approach
um to what needs to be done out there to meet uh meet the FEMA requirements. So, if I was voting, I would support it. >> Yep. And Mr. Nixon on 47, do you have any love for 47? >> Well, I know Mr. probably going to be shocked,
but uh I'll probably vote for this. The coverage is up 38 square ft. You brought the height down 2 and 1/2 ft.
I still don't think it's great, but is it substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood? No, it is not. Y and uh Paul, >> well, I think uh I think the applicant
has been uh responsive to the concerns expressed by the board uh at the prior meeting and in dealing with this property overall. I mean, we've been going around and around on uh 4753 and uh and the major dumo uh over a
number of years here, >> four times. And uh it's it's been an education for the board. Uh and I think it's been an education for the public in general. Uh but I think that as this proposal has
come down, it's gotten to the point where uh it is again, I agree, not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. So I would support it. >> Yeah. And I agree with my colleagues. I I think it meets a lot of the criteria. It doesn't meet number one. It can't
because it's not an adequate size for this building. It's just it's just by definition it's not. However, it is compatible when you look at all the other structures. Absolutely. And even when you go even further down in the neighborhood and the extent of the proposed increase in non-conforming
nature is minimal. Um so I agree with everything that my colleagues have said. So I won't hold us up on this one any further. And uh Paul >> um I'll move to approve the application as
submitted with u our standard conditions uh which would be that all construction activity and vehicles would be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner that between June 15th and September 15th no exterior construction will be allowed. No work shall be
permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8 am and 5:00 p p.m. only. Dave V seconds and votes in favor. Mr. >> Nixon, >> I vote yes. >> All votes yes. >> Jenny, as do I. >> As do I. It's unanimous. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. >> Give us a moment to switch gears. We'll give you a moment. Application number 25-063 Monoy Rips LLC care William F. Riley Esquire, PO Box 707 Chattam, Mass 02633,
owner of property located at 53 Little Beach Road, also shown on the town of Cadam's assessor's map, 16A, block 26, lot H52. 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. 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 flood plane elevation 13. The proposed dwelling will be non-conforming and that it will be located 15.2 ft from Little Beach Road
where a 40ft setback is required and entirely within the coastal conservancy district where a 50ft 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 2,773
square feet where 2,800 square feet 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 master general law chapter 4A section 6 and 9 and sections 5B and 8D2B of the protective bylaw. This was continued from August 14th, 2025. >> Okay. Well, welcome back. >> Thank you very much,
>> Bill Riley on behalf of the Hankle family. >> Yes. I'm not >> in the >> Yeah. >> So, you know, this is the fourth time for this property as well as the
previous property. And I think the the uh one of the things I I wanted to point out because this building is is larger than the other buildings. The first thing is that we have reduced
u the building coverage by 473 feet from our our previous application. And I wanted to point out that on my attachment
for building coverage, you know, the lot on which 53 sits is 32,000 square feet. So the current building coverage is 4.25%. And the proposed building coverage is 7.06%.
So you know it's a larger footprint almost 500 square ft smaller than the previous application. Uh but I just want to point out we we believe it fits on the lot itself because the lot is so much larger. Uh I
mean if you look at if you look at the lot areas on that page u none of them are above 6,000 square feet and we're 32,600. So just in terms of how it fits on the lot I think is something for you to
consider. So on adequacy or what excuse me wasn't paying attention. So Erin's going to talk about the little changes they've made on that building as well. I apologize, Erin. >> That's okay. Um similar comments as
before as far as same roof forms, materials um as the other cottage. The, you know, intent is to um have them look as one. Uh but yeah, we reduced the footprint. We reduced the uh ridge height by um adjusting the width of the
gables. We lowered ceiling heights. We adjusted pitches to bring the scale down. All right. Thank you. So in terms of our criteria, adequacy of the size of the site in terms of the size of the proposed use.
So as the chair mentioned earlier, you know, 47 uh there's no way you could say it was adequate. This lot is 32,000 square feet. Uh and
The proposed building coverage is 2,300 square feet. The uh which is as I say 473 foot reduction from the previous application. The uh so we believe that this lot is adequate uh for the size of the site in
terms of the proposed use the compatibility of the size of the proposed trust with neighboring properties. So again we have a sheet um which is the gross floor area sheet which is the
first attachment and the u so our gross floor area is three proposed is 3,652 square feet which uh is the largest uh
in the neighborhood but the it's not significantly larger 71 Morris Island Roads, you know, 3,400 square ft. 156 Morris Island Road is 3,000. And when you look at
the buildings on Little Beach as you drive in 10, Little Beach is 3200 square ft. 16 is basically 3,000. 21 is basically 3,000. So it's a little bit a little bit bigger but not out of scale
when you consider the area of the lot. So Little Beach is uh 3,200 square ft and you know the lot on which it sits. I don't have the area on the lot on
which it sits but it's a lot smaller than this one is. So the um you know if you look on the second coverage building coverage you know we're we're 7% whereas
most of the others are above 15% and there are two at 25%. So the um even though we're a little bigger an area because of the size of the lot, we believe that we are compatible uh with
the proposed with the neighboring properties and we certainly don't think that uh this is substantially more detrimental than the existing structure. I mean this building's always been the largest building in the neighborhood. So uh it's really a pretty modest addition
extended proposed increase in non-conforming nature. Uh there's a small decrease in the street setback. Uh but the significant change is causes the increase in living area which is a intensification of non-conforming use.
Suitability of the site including but not limited to impact on neighboring properties. Um, if we point out, you know, this adjacent wetland across from Little Beach Road. Uh, but again, I'm gonna ask Sarah, pardon me, Sarah, I'm gonna ask Teresa
to come up and explain the planting plan here because we believe that u because of the planting plan that uh this makes this project makes this lot
suitable for our proposed project. Sarah Teresa. >> So, I gave my copy of the planting plan away, so I'm looking at it on my phone, so forgive me. Um, again, this whole area will be planted out with native vegetation. So, between um number 53 and
Little Beach Road, that entire area will be gently sloping down. Um, there will be the gravel shell driveway is located between the two structures. So the parking will be located between there on the slope going up um between the two structures. We have significant amount
of vegetation mainly bay berry um beach plum and service berry and help bring that structure the feeling of the structure down into the site. And then as we slope downhill we have a mix of native grasses and um bear berry between um the road and um the structure. Um
just to the south of that um there is also more um service berry as well as arowwood viburnum. Um there is some proposed um fescue clover lawn here which we would consider Cape Cod lawn mainly over the proposed septic system.
So that's on the east side of the dwelling or the southeast side of the dwelling and um just to the north of number 53 but between the roadway and the top of the slope where the septic system will be located. that will all be and the top of the slope where the septic system will be located that will all be planted with native vegetation.
Um as that gets over the septic tank in the fast system in the leech field that transitions to a fescue clover simply because we don't want to plant anything woody over the um proposed septic system. Um that will really be the only outdoor recreational area also for both structures. There's no proposed lawn at
number 47 and this small area of Clover um fesky will only be located over the septic system. um at number 53. Um for us, the big um piece of um improvement here from an ecological perspective is our ability to manage some invasive
species and then restore the area that transitions into the dune. Um there's an existing low retaining wall again um to the west and south of this property. That concrete retaining wall which is in the coastal dune will be removed so that
the dune can function the way it's supposed to function. No regrading is proposed. The area will just be allowed to function um as a June functions. Um the minor regrading that's done in that area related to the septic system is um it will adequately um hold that slope.
It's a very gentle slope down into that dune and then that dune area will be entirely replanted with native vegetation including American beach grass and um and then the native shrubs that we discussed previously mainly beach plum, bay berry, little blue stem
um etc. So the entire lot from the east and the west will be entirely naturalized with just the small area of fescue clover um where the septic system is proposed so that that area is not um so that nothing that we're planting is going to potentially endanger the
system. >> Thank you Teresa. So we tell the kids go out and play on the septic system in any event. So we believe that the site is suitable
uh impact of scale sighting and mass on the neighborhood visual character. Can we put up the front page again Sarah? So the um I think this is this is my personal feeling which is not important but I
think it's a very handsome design and you know because because of the size of the lot you don't have that sense of tall vertical walls that you get like on scallop terrace or or clamshell where
you have tiny little lots with the with all the buildings. So, it's it's far enough away. It's it's by itself. Um, and I think that, you know, once once the plantings are matured,
that it's just going to look like, you know, a very reasonably sized house on a larger lot. I mean, I was down there today and in and beautiful day. Uh, and you know, if you stand on this property
and look around, I mean, all you see is two-story houses, you know, the the older cottages are all hidden by vegetation and by the newer homes that are uh elevated. So I I believe that,
you know, uh that this design because we have a little more room is actually uh a more handsome design than a lot of designs on those narrow streets where the where the lots are only 4,000
square feet or 5,000 square feet. And so because of the size of the lot, I think the scale sighting in mass is really important because we're able to move things further away and we have more area uh to spread out over. So I think
that the the with the I think attractive design and the proposed planting plans and grading that the uh the fact that we've reduced the height of the structure. So it's now
20.6 feet from the first floor uh to the ridge. uh you know the previous ridge as you might recall was 37 feet above sea level and now we're 35.6 feet above sea level.
So uh and we have reduced the proposed uh coverage by 9 473 feet. So I think that I think that the hingles have uh listened to the concerns and addressed
them. uh Siri. Uh so we believe that on the scale of sighting a mass it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood compatibility of the proposed use against a single family home in a single family neighborhood. We do have a new
septic system. So I think the method of sewage disposal is adequate. Uh no change on traffic flow and safety. No change on impacted litter. uh utilities and public services are
adequate and visual impact a formula is not applicable. Here we have a lateral expansion of approximately 1300 square feet uh most of it in an existing lawn area and the applicant will be removing an
existing retaining wall assuming we work it out with Jay uh and that will increase the pvious area of the lot and the proposed dwelling is less than 10% of the lot area. So in terms of its impact uh you know with the with the
proposed planting plan we believe that the u the lot will actually be better able to absorb rainwater or storm water which is the concern I believe of this section of the bylaw.
So we think that uh there's no aspect of this proposal that is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Thank you. >> Thank you. Is anybody here on Microsoft Teams or wish to speak in favor of this application?
>> Seeing none, I'm just going to reiterate that there were four letters that I read before, all in favor, and they were all people that lived in the area. And then we have one other letter from the planning board received on August 27, 2025. The planning board at their August
25th meeting reviewed the zoning board's request for comment on 53 Little Beach Road. And let's see. Pursuant to the bylaw and maintenance of a driveway or roadway in the cons conservancy district
after review, the planning board voted 70 to request that the planning board receive the revised projects once they become available. Noting that a recommendation will be made once the new layout has been reviewed. If you have
any questions, contact Christine O'Grady. And that was from Art Sprew, the chair. >> I The only thing I can say is that the driveway hasn't changed. >> Okay. Very good. Um, is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that has a
question or wishes to speak against? Please go ahead, sir. >> Brian Phillips, 374 Orleans Road. I mean, uh, you're doubling the size of the lot coverage in a unbillable area, uh, flood zone seems like a bad idea. Seems like it's, uh, detrimental to the
environment and to the, uh, neighborhood. Although, I do think it's a pretty nice design, you know, of the house, just not for this, uh, lot. I think it's just it's way too big. Um, and again, uh, these are historic. These
uh these houses are, you know, part of the charm of Chadam. And I know you guys are from Philadelphia, I think, right? Pennsylvania. >> No, we we don't. >> Okay. A big fan of Joe Frasier. Um but I mean, I just think it is it's a tragedy. It's like, you know, do we want
all these McMansions everywhere? And it's it is bad for the environment. Thanks. >> Thank you. Okay. Do you need to say anything, Mr. Riley? >> Mr. Phillips. hasn't been looking at the other houses we get approved here that really are McMansions, but
>> he actually comes every week. So, >> yep. All right. Questions from the board. Oh, wait a minute. Yep. That that was it. Anybody else that wanted to speak against um just make it known no or
question? I don't see anybody. Mr. V deliberations >> questions. >> Oh, board questions. Questions. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. >> Ask questions. >> Yeah. Do you have any questions? >> I don't at this point. If something >> Sure. Oh, sorry. Sorry. Sorry.
>> No, I don't have questions at this point. If something jogs my memory, I'll let you know. Thanks, >> Mala. Uh, Ed Aton, questions. >> Uh, no questions. >> Mr. Nixon, question. >> No questions. >> Um, Paul, >> no questions. >> Lee, no questions. Steve,
>> very simple question. What is the access to the parking area? Is it cuz right now there's sort of a a sand driveway that sort of leads over 47 I think to get to this house. Is that is it just going to be directly off the road? >> That that actually is Little Beach Road. >> That is Little Beach Road.
>> That's Little Beach Road. And so they're just going to have, you know, a gravel parking space between 47 and 53. >> Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. >> And Jenny, questions. >> Was it Aaron? Is that >> Yes. Could you just repeat what the
height of this proposed building is? I know you were talking in elevation numbers, but I didn't get the actual height. >> Sure. The proposed is 35.6. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. So, if I could >> expand on that just a little bit. >> Sure.
>> So, the height of the building from the first floor to the ridge is 20.6 ft. So the building itself can't exceed 30 feet in height under our zoning bylaw.
So because we're starting at elevation five or six, that's why the ridge 35 ft above sea level, but the house itself is only 20t tall. >> And how much taller than than it is now?
How much how much are you going up? >> The existing ridge is at 32. So was say that again. How much >> existing ridges at? >> Just do the math for me. >> 3.6 feet. >> 3.6 feet. Okay. Is that helpful, Jenny?
>> Yeah. 3.6 feet taller than the current cottage. Correct. Yes. Okay. >> Okay. >> And what was the change from the last meeting? We reduced the width of the gable which brought the ridge down. We also adjusted the ceiling heights inside in numbers. >> So it's 8 foot ceiling height on the
first floor. And then we reduced the width of the gable by 14 inches. So total height was reduced how much from the last hearing? >> I can tell >> uh 8.75 inches. Okay. >> Yeah. The the previous um proposal
had the ridge at at 36.3 ft. >> So now we're at 35 >> 35.6 >> 35.2. >> Oh, okay. Thank you. Okay, Paul. I'll move to close the hearing. >> Did you have any questions? I'm sorry. >> Oh, I'm sorry. No, I had no questions.
>> Okay, now go ahead. Yeah. >> Oh, Dave Nixon, he didn't have any questions. Dave Beach, he Oh, you have a question now. >> No, no, I'm good. Thanks. >> All right, then. Paul, >> I think we're done with questions. I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations.
>> Uh Dave seconds and votes yes. >> Yes. All votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> As do I. Okay, now we're going to deliberate. Here we go. Um, Steve, yours. >> Um, well, I know we had a discussion last time about the massing of the
house, and I know you've done things to kind of reduce that, but I'm concerned still that it almost looks like two houses on one lot. And the fact that it's being brought closer to the road
makes it seem taller. If this was in under different different circumstances, if you didn't have uh the conservation area to to deal with and this house was back off the road a bit, it might not look so big. I know it's not a giant house, but because it's so close to the
road and tall, um I think the m I think there's still a massing issue. Um, other than that, you know, I'm glad to see that you that you were able to move it closer to the road and further away from the conservation area, but um I I I still think there's there's some things
to to be done that could be done to um to not make it seem looming over the road. I know it's not a hight traffic area there. There's not going to be people driving past this, but um it it still seems very uh very looming to the
area just because it is so close to the road and tall. >> Paul, what say you? Well, I think uh I think that the u uh photographs uh that are projected uh
that have been provided by Hutker uh do give us a perspective of what the property is going to look like. Um it helps in some ways, it doesn't help in other ways. Um
it's certainly uh if you take the perspective uh these are not actually numbered but if you take the perspective that looks at it from uh the extension of uh going down by scolop and oyster and so
forth in that area and looking back up that makes it look pretty massive. um and certainly uh substantially bigger than 47.
Um I'm concerned by the expansion of u gross floor area by uh basically doubling the the gross floor area. Um and uh I find that it's uh in that sense
uh perhaps not compatible with the size of the proposed structures of other neighboring properties. And um I think that the category of impact of scale and sighting on mass and visual character is such that um it
pauses uh me from uh voting to approve Okay, Paul. Thank you. Uh Mr. Mr. uh Beach. Well, um I uh I basically agree with Paul um on
this. I I think that it's when I look at the height and um the proposed the height the ridge over what's existing. I I think that's not that's not a a significant a big
change. I the style uh of the architecture is is modest and in and I think fits in the neighborhood. I think where I'm having a where I'm
having a problem is that essentially almost doubling the footprint of the building. And I think that that shows in the drawings that we've seen. And I and I I understand
Mr. Riley's presenting that well the lot is is considerably larger here. But I don't think we can ignore that none of there's no buildable upland on any of these lots.
So comparing it to the lot size is not I think helpful for us. So I'm I'm just I'm I've been sitting here looking pull I pulled up the some Google
images um from the neighborhood and actually some of them unfortunately from five years ago before 46 was had changed. Um, and when I but I when I focus on these two buildings
at 47 and 53, I I think that the this the style of what's proposed is is has a a good response to those buildings and for getting a second floor on them that's usable.
But I'm I guess I'm I'm finding that it's the the proposed expansion of this building is more than is too much for the neighborhood and and and I think that
that shows in the uh with respect to what what's there now. I think I I can and I would be um amendable to uh an increase of some somewhat
but to to essentially almost double the floor area of the first floor and thus I I'm I'm afraid that's that's one that that could were we to approve that I think it could come back to haunt us.
So, I don't I um I I could see a a request that that that wasn't a doubling um which it very close to. I mean, we're 1419 foot building coverage currently and the
proposal is 2773 or 2800 is so almost double. And I think that that's what shows and I think that's where I'm I'm sorry to say I have a problem because I I think these folks have done a a good job and I think the
architecture is good. I I just think that maybe they're asking a little too much on this lot. >> Madam Chair, >> yes sir. >> Uh the proposed coverage is going to 2300 not 27. 27 was the previous
>> the pre Okay. All right. So, we're now down to what is it? 2,300. >> 2,300 square f feet. >> It's on the I don't if you have the site plan. Can you >> Yep. Okay. I see. Well, all right. I have me. Okay. Yeah.
>> Yeah. I well I I so that helps me to a certain degree but I but again visually visually I look at those two buildings as they
exist now I see two cottages and I don't have I I really don't have a problem with uh expanding a cottage by adding second floor living space to it and I also and I understand the improvements are made
by by meeting the FEMA requirements for foundations etc etc but visually this is it's it's a mass and another mass next to it
that maybe now is not actually doubling it. But we're we're going what? One and a half times or something. I don't I don't know. But it doesn't it it it looks like a leap.
It's not a leap for what we approved for 47. This looks like a leap that may that that might be just too much. >> We're going to wait for you to come back, Mr. rally because um we'll save
our breath maybe. >> Do you want us to keep going and >> Yes. >> and vote? >> No, I want to I want to keep going because we learn. >> Yeah. >> We listen. >> Okay. Sure. Sure. Let us know if you want us to vote though. Of course. >> Ed,
deliberations. >> Um I I like the architecture. Um uh Mr. Rally makes a good point. It it is a large lot. Um and when you look at the building coverage,
4.23% previous and up to seven, you know, those numbers are are low, especially when you compare them to the other lots in the neighborhood. But when you factor in there, there's zero
upland and then you factor in the size of the existing house and the size of the new house. Unfortunately, your your rendering showing the house I I I don't think it helps the argument,
unfortunately. Um, it it does just look like a a a large expansion of the House that um I feel uh most of us are going to have trouble with.
>> Okay. Thank you. And Mr. Nixon. Well, to make it short, the existing floor plans up 1,7434 square ft over what exists today. The height is still up around 36 ft. And
I won't get into that any more than to simply state that. It's interesting. We were able to cut down the other house about 2 and 1/2 ft, but that didn't work here. It just It's the largest house. It would
be the largest house in the entire neighborhood. And it's also in absolutely one of the most prominent spots. If you go back to Scolop, Oyster, Lobster, the condominium, the old motel,
and you look, you say, "Wow." I mean that you see that spot every place. It's not like it's hidden. And uh I think Paul brought up the um a lateral expansion 1300. That's just too much.
>> This is not something I could vote for. And uh I'll just point out that um number one of our criteria adequacy of the size of the site in terms of the the proposed use it is a significant increase in building coverage as you
even say in your findings and I don't see any butts around it. Um compatibility of the size of the proposed structure with neighboring properties. It's um larger. It's much larger than other homes in that area especially the one right next to it. Um,
and the extent of the proposed increase in non-conforming nature, it's that is substantial and it's mass. It's all about mass. That's what we said last time. It still looks like two houses right next to like hooked together in a sense. Um, but I'm not talking about the
style of it. I'm just talking about the mass. Number four, I would say maybe you meet that one because I'm sure the mitigation might equal it out. So um in terms of the slopes, vegetation, we'll give you that one. Five, impact of scale
sighting and mass on neighborhood visual character views, vistas. It's it's not a cottage as you say in your findings at all. And um it it doesn't have a great streetscape in that spot. You you get six, seven, eight, nine, 10 because
they're really not applicable. Um, you can have 11 because it's not a formula business, but number 12 is a big one. That is a substantial lateral expansion. I understand and I think I've learned from you, Mr. Rally, that the bylaw expects an amount of lateral expansion
with these and and I accept that, but I think this is too much. So, I would not support it. >> All right. If I could have a minute. >> Sure. >> I don't think you've heard from We're not done yet. I That was my fault
100%. We just >> We have more people to deliberate. >> Yeah, >> we'll listen. >> Sure. Okay, let's go. >> Please. Well, >> sorry. >> These were notes that I had before um the board spoke, but the board covered
everything. I just want to recap just so Mr. Riley hears and the applicant hears. Um, on the positive side, landscape plan I think is great and the design architecture I agree. I like it. Um, the lot at 32600 is larger, but the buildable upland is
zero. Um, number two, building coverage from 4.23 to 7.06 is nearly doubling. We've talked about that. Um, which impacts criteria 12. That that's that's very important. Um, Mr. Riley said at the first hearing that lateral expansion
does apply here. Uh number three, massing. You can see through these images, this one in particular. Um and then I think Steve said it looks like a doubling of the of two houses. That's kind of what I think this one
shows sort of the house doubling. So that's massing. I agree with um Stephen Paul and the other um ZBA uh applicant uh sorry board members of feedback. And then I think the last one is it is the
largest gross floor area on your sheet that you've shared with us out of 26 properties that you noted. So um for all of those reasons I could not support it either. >> We're just trying to go through the criteria and Lee >> Y please. Um, for me it's the criteria
um, number 12. It's the lateral expansion. It's just it's just too much. I mean, I know there's a house there now. Um, but to expand even further, I I have a problem with it. >> Did I leave anybody out of deliberations at this juncture? No. Very good. So, Mr.
Riley, what >> we'd like to continue to a date when Dave's not here? >> That's never >> I know. We request a continuance for a month. >> Oh, we discussion >> discussion. Oh, well, we need a
discussion on that. Um, >> sorry. What >> for a moment? There needs to be a discussion as to that. Um, whether or not the continuence, >> Madam Chair. >> Yes, Mr. Mr. >> Yeah, I I suggest that we not continue
this again. I I you know, we've had it twice now and we're really all the way back to where we started. I truly believe this should be withdrawn and after Mr. Rally and his clients come to grips with what they think they want to
do going down, then they can apply again. But I think a continuence in this case is inappropriate. >> Does anybody else want to speak on the issue of continuence? >> I'd like to be heard. I'm talking with the board right now
first. Anybody? >> Um, >> yes, please go ahead. >> I'm not sure. I'm I'm I mean, I think we've all been fairly clear about what our problems and um you know, they have
a a a a creative team um in place and uh um I I'm not sure. I mean, I think I could go either way, but and I I think that continuence it's they they could come with a response that would have something that I could look more favorably on.
>> You can vote yes then when we if we >> I could Yeah. for Okay. Yes, Mr. Riley. >> Well, only that the uh I understand Mr. Nixon's concern, but all it does is impose an additional burden on the administrative staff
because we come back and and refile again. If we just continue two months or even three months, we come back with a new design. >> Okay. >> And uh we're working, as you can tell, they've paid attention and I believe
that uh third time is the charm. I think this is the third time. But uh anyway, >> this is this is the overall this is the fourth time. But there you go. >> I'm talking about the >> ankles. >> Yeah. Let's talk about dates. >> Okay. >> And then we'll vote.
>> So your options um for dates would be at the earliest December 18th. >> You want to go further out than that? Oh yeah. How about >> at least two months? >> Yeah. two months at least >> January or February
>> to get the plans in order. Okay. How you can have January 22nd, February 12th, February 26th. What do you feel like? >> 22nd. >> January 22nd. >> January 22nd. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay. We didn't do it yet. >> I know.
I'm thanking Sarah for her help. >> Yes, of course. Paul >> moving the affirm. Do I hear a motion to continue to January? >> We have to do the motion. We have to do the motion. >> Oh, you're requesting January 22. >> Are you request? >> Yes, we request January 22nd
>> to January 22, 2026. >> Yes, please. >> I'll move to grant the request requested continuous to January 22, 2026. >> U Dave V seconds and votes yes. >> Mr. Nixon >> no. >> Paul >> Paul votes yes.
>> Jenny Jenny votes yes. >> And as do I. Okay. Okay, we'll see you next year. >> Thank you very much. >> Appreciate all your thoughts, >> even yours. >> So, um, let's Whoops. >> One more motion. >> One more motion.
>> I'll move to ajourn. >> Dave seconds and votes yes. >> I vote no. We should sit here and talk some more. >> No, I don't mean that. >> We I think we do. We all vote on Yes. So, go ahead, Ed. >> Ed votes yes.
>> Yeah. Mr. Nixon, you're voting yes. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Paul, >> all votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> He votes yes. >> Kenny votes yes. >> As do I. And what time is it? >> 4:56 p.m. >> All right, another three-hour movie. >> Good night, child.
[Music] [Music]