e e e e e e n [Music] y [Music] good afternoon everyone it's April 11th 2024 and this is the chadam zoning board of appeals meeting pursuant to Governor Hy's March 29th 2023 signing of the acts of 2023 extending certain covid measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law until March 31st 2025 this meeting of the chadam zoning board of appeals is being conducted in person and via remote participation every effort will be made to ensure sure that the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided for in the order a reminder that persons who'd like to listen to this meeting while in progress may do so by calling the phone number 1508 945 4410 conference ID 623 63515 pound or join the meeting online via Microsoft teams to the link in the posted agenda while this is a live broadcast simoc cast on chadam TV despite our best efforts we may not be able to provide for realtime access we will post a record of this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible in accordance with Town policy the public can speak to any issue hearing our business item on the agenda during the meeting when recognized by the chair first thing we do is we take a roll call of all the members to um confirm that they're satisfied with this form of meeting and to to declare a quorum Virginia Fenwick Virginia Fenwick approves and Steve Steve dor approves Paul all C sample I approve David S nion approves uh Ed Acton approves and David a I approve and Randy podes I approve as well so the way the the uh meetings are conducted are as follows a hearing notice is read by staff Central Permitting coordinator Sarah clar on my right after that there is a presentation of the the application or appeal by either a professional or the person applying um anyone in favor of the appeal or application may speak for up to five minutes um then I will read or summarize all letters and then after that anyone against the appeal or who has a specific question may ask that question and that's also a five minute time limit the applicant May then rebut testimony board members may direct questions to anyone present after that we hear further information um close the public hearing the board deliberates and then after that um we um vote on the appeal our application in most cases um all votes are taken by roll call in order to um Prevail in Massachusetts you need to get a four out of five vote which is a super majority and at the end of the meeting we close the meeting via a verbal confirmation and we note the time of adjournment um see so first thing we're going to do is approve minutes for March 14th 2024 I will move to approve the minutes of March 14 2024 and Dave V seconds and how do you vote Dave I vote Yes daveon yes and juny jny votes yes all votes yes as do I okay the first appeal is [Music] 24-13 application number 24- 013 Robert Stevens and Ellen Briggs car of William G litfield Esquire 330 Orleans Road North chatam Mass 02650 owners of property located at 72 Shore Road also shown on the town of chadam assessors map 16d block 21 lot B12 the applicant seeks to remove the condition placed on variance number 17-17 granted on December 14th 2017 that there be no sleeping accommodations within the mill structure the property contains 37377 ft within the R40 zoning District dimensional variance is required under Mass General Law chapter 4A section 10 and Section 8 d2c of the protective bylaw attorney Lichfield welcome good afternoon Madame chair members of the board Bill Lichfield here on behalf of the applicants Ellen Briggs and Robert Stevens who were here in the first row uh the legal ad reference is a variance but in fact we're seeking only a modification of a prior variance issued uh by this board in case number 17017 uh 107 rather in December of 2017 better lawyers what than I would say that a modification is a a lesser included aspect uh so it's less than a variance it's addressed in both the original decision and in section 14 of chapter 40 a so we're on perfectly Solid Ground legally back in 2017 your board correctly found that the preservation of this historic structure by moving it to the brig Stevens property on Shore Road from around the corner near to where it had been for about a century warranted the grant of a variance uh that variance was required only because the mill was about 18 in Too Tall under our bylaw you correctly found back in 2017 uh that a hardship existed due to the uniqueness of the historic structure and the potential loss to the town as a whole uh of the mill in the event of its demolition which was then quite likely and in fact impending and that the desired relief could be granted uh without substantial detriment of the public good and without nullifying the purpose and intent of the bylaw in fact preserving the mill uh served the public good and served the purpose and intent of the bylaw that was consistent with a ream of supportive correspondence that you had and also with uh significant number of favorable speakers several of whom are here again today very late in that meeting and several of you were members of the board of the time and perhaps without the the typical consideration that this board ordinarily gives to things a condition was included in the approval that quote there shall be no sleeping quarters in the mill structure that was in response to a concern expressed by one neighbor who was worried about noise there's a fair amount of noise on Shore Road anyway it's obviously well traveled in the summer it's close to town and uh there was nonetheless a concern Ellen and Robert were delighted by the approval itself uh and because the condition was imposed quite late in the meeting without a lot of discussion they weren't then able to give it full consideration and how that uh condition would impact the restoration of the mill instead they've spent the last five years uh moving and lovingly restoring the mill which has been an extraordinary investment of dedication and time and money probably probably in the reverse order uh and they're well along in the process one which you observed in your site visits but they've also been concerned about that restrictive condition and are respectfully requesting that it be removed for several reasons first Municipal staff and particularly Judy Georgio from the Board of Health have visited the the mill and have determined that the room in question on the second floor does not contain a bedroom is not a bedroom uh at least legally as defined under Board of Health regulations of course that's the opposite of the situation we usually have the Board of Health finds that a particular room is a bedroom here they found it was not a bedroom uh the building when fully restored May ultimately have a half bath but it won't be heated it won't be insulated and it won't have a kitchen or a separate dwelling unit but Ellen and Robert would like to have the ability to have the mill used occasionally by friends and family members primarily grandchildren of which they have five uh use asleeping quarters for overflow family now there were those who would probably install a pullout couch when nobody was looking uh sleeping quarters are sort of vaguely defined but Ellen and Robert want to follow the rules and have this restriction removed so that grandchilden and and family friends might sleep there from time to time but only on an occasional and limited basis there are two essential and I think uh persuasive reasons to modify the decision first while I anticipate that he can can speak for himself I don't see that he's on the zoom or Microsoft team uh link uh but Mr uh Mrs Briggs has been in touch with Mr OA the neighbor who raised the concern about the noise and explained the intent of this request and I'm told that as a grandparent he understands it uh as a grandparent he might want a mill of his own for overflow grandchildren but that's beyond the purview of the the board today uh he sent an email to Ms Briggs on Monday of this week saying quote regarding the mill and your desire to have restored sleeping accommodations for your grandchildren and friends on an occasional limited basis we have no objections so the reason as I understood it that board imposed that condition was to accommodate Mr R's concerns and he does not object uh to this modification request of at least equal importance relocating and saving the mill was part of a broader historic preservation effort of which Ellen has been a a significant part as founder of preserve our past and in granting the variance you noted the historic preservation goal being furthered by your approval that the town's people who enact all of our bylaws are favorable to Historic preservation was recently illustrated by the the change in our zoning bylaw forwarding special consideration to projects which help to preserve historic structures Sarah was kind enough to bring up that photograph uh that's from 1932 the mill had sleeping quarters it is not a traditional bedroom but it is nonetheless uh sleeping qu orders and there was back in 1932 a magazine story about the mill uh that said quote going upstairs one comes to an octagonal room that room reproducing as Faithfully as possible A Whaler's cabin here are two bunks the upper of which is reached by a ladder made by a sea Captain Barnacles still hang from the Timbers in this room and a captain's original Sea Chest is used as a dress in table through the room's many windows the open ocean is visible and one has there a feeling of being out to the Sea now I'm not sure whether you have the Barnacle still uh but you would like to restore what was historically a part of the mill which has for a 100 years had sleeping quarters Ellen and Bob want to Faithfully recreate it as it was limited to occasional use by friends and family members without a kitchen and a building that's unheated having sleeping quarters like that which is not legally a bedroom is an appropriate and I think you can find a reasonable modification to request your board correctly found that a variance was warranted to allow the windmill to be moved and saved and we not just Ellen and Bob but the neighbors and the town's people appreciate that decision as well as the result the modification of that decision today as requested will I think and you can find further the preservation of the Mill's historic nature and can be accomplished sort of a half special perit argument half variance argument but can be accomplished without any detriment to the neighborhood and it is not only without derogation to the purpose and intent of the bylaw but very much consistent with it I am aware that this board loves to read letters and invariably does read letters and that the members of the board have read the correspondence uh in light of the number of letters and recognizing that you have read them we would wave the reading of the full list of uh of correspondents that is the extent of my presentation be happy to answer any questions oh thank you very much um is there anybody here are on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application if so please indicate yes sir good afternoon I'm Bob leer uh live at 296 Main Street in chadam although that might not sound like it's right near the Briggs house in fact I can see it from my house so near neighbor um and for the reasons that Mr Lichfield just stated I I certainly approve and uh the application on that basis um in addition I happen to be in the interest of full disclosure a member of the historical commission and you may recall that almost exactly two years ago your board and our commission worked together for zoning bylaw change to incentivize people preserving histo historically significant houses on their property and they did that by ver by using some changing allowing more flexibility and setback and uh lot coverage conversely the action by this board five years five six years ago is serves as a disincentive to Historic preservation and for that reason I think it is appropriate that we get our acts together for our mutual goal of his preserving historic property so would ask you to Grant the application thank you sir thank you sir is there anybody else yes ma'am good afternoon um my name is Janet Tennyson and I serve on the chadam historical commission and I appreciate the rules and regulations that help keep chadam uh the Charming community that includes the preservation of its historic structures uh Ellen and Robert are dedicated to preserving and restoring historic structures that contribute to the town's charm as well and the family windmill they saved and moved to their property is an ex excellent example of this historically it was used uh as a place where the grandchildren could play and have overnight sleepovers Ellen slept there as a child uh I encourage you to Grant the variance they seek so that um it can return to its historic use and charm and thank you for allowing me to speak thank you anybody else here are on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application anybody on teams okay so at this point we're going to have uh questions from the board Dave Nixon questions oh forgot that part oh wait a minute yes I uh jumped ahead a little bit um so very enthusiastic by your by all your comments um so at this point I'm going to just note that we have had uh 21 correspondences this time we had more last time uh all in favor and they all sound a lot like those comments we're not going to read them we're going to um take council's advice and and and spare you of that um but I will read Judith Georgio's note that needs to be on the record Judith Georgio is a um Health agent and on 4924 she said I have visited the mill site with staff and I have concluded that it does not meet the definition of the bedroom under the current definition the property has no adequate heat Source nor Plumbing in the building the use of the dwelling for sleeping would be at the risk of the owner and would be strictly limited to family the main house is registered as a short-term rental and the use of the mill as a bedroom off of Sleeping by renters would be strictly forbidden um did you want to comment on anything thank you madam chairman um I actually took the liberty of drafting and haven't sent but I will present a uh suggested condition in response to Judy's comment that this would be a part of your decision if you approve the special permit and I appreciate your optimism and going forward to that next step uh the quote the condition prohibiting sleeping accommodations within the mill structure imposed in decision number 17107 is eliminated and consistent with its historic use sleeping accommodations for occasionally used by friends and family members may be allowed however the mill shall not be used as sleep keeping accommodations in conjunction with any short-term rental of the of the main house I think that would serve uh Miss Georgio suggestion okay so you're going to provide that to her I I'll bring it to to Sarah if the board wants to impose it oh okay sure um the only thing I noticed that it said it said family it didn't say friends in so we'll do it but when we when we get to conditions we'll we'll thank you I would simply respond that if we go back far enough I suppose we're all related to a degree uh but the the the uh the goal is to have it to be limited to I know what Judy wrote but in I think prior prior correspondence from December that Sarah may have in the file I think there was discussion which shudy was involved which talked about friends and family members but it's up to the board okay oh good as long as it's up to us very good very good all right so at this point is there anybody here or on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak against this application or has a specific question if so please indicate I see KN see knowing okay now questions from the board Dave ni I have no questions thank you Dave V I have no questions um Ed uh no questions Judy no questions Steve I have no questions and Paul one question in the uh uh original application in 2017 there was talk of putting a uh bathroom uh in the downstairs area I take it that has not yet been done it it has not yet Mr Simple I think I mentioned that there may be at some point in the future a half bath but it would necessarily be on the first floor it couldn't be upstairs there will be no heat there will be no insulation but a half bath would be uh no member of the board is old enough to have this issue but some of us have to get to the bathroom relatively quickly thank you okay so any question that was your question no other questions okay I have no questions so Paul I will move close the hearing and move into deliberations da V seconds and how do you vote day and votes yes yes Paul all votes yes yes as do I all right liberations Dave Nixon thank you madam chair um you know when when I looked at this I spoke with our po that's a primary permitting officer and I said why aren't we just doing a modification we've already had the variance hearing we already agreed on it Grant it was a number of years ago but the structure hasn't changed at all and it was pointed out to me well we don't have a mechanism for doing that unlike a special permit where you could come in if we gave you a special permit and say would you please change it that okay so we can do that okay so that's why we're kind of going through the variance again uh and relation to a comment that uh Mr litfield made um the then chairman uh came up with this restriction at the last minute and as it turned out it wasn't necess necessarily in response to the neighbor who was graciously written in favor of this and uh it was unfortunate that it was done without the applicants knowledge or really any for warning so just to qualify that so what do I think of this I think it is a modification of a variance that we've already approved and I do believe we should Grant it it certainly fits all the criteria for a variance and in relation to the bathroom just in case and I was shown where it would go you go in the north side door and there's a little closet there and that's where we go and that certainly is a a better solution than having a porta potty in the yard for the entire summer that's not attractive and nobody's going to like it so I think in our vote we should indicate that we encourage that bathroom and that room and just so it's there on the record thank you you're also in favor of those conditions I take it well uh no I don't think a condition is necessary frankly okay uh what we have is an opinion from Judith and she's very smart and very yeah I I I don't see that we need that I could be wrong on that okay very good so uh Virginia Fen deliberations okay um first of all I want to say thank you for saving the mill um it's a special piece of chadam history and um right on the seaside and I'm grateful and based on the correspondence the outpouring the first time the outpouring the second time um many citizens visitors um in chat are grateful um I also want to assure everyone who did write in that we all do read all the letters so everyone on the board has read the letters that you took time to send and we want to thank you for doing that um and then also another important role that we play is we we go to Every site we we visit the site so we have seen not only the mill but several of us have been invited um as well as staff um to the see the inside so we're very familiar with the description that you've talked about um so I just wanted to start with that um I think uh well I'm in agreement with Mr Nixon the health department the first sentence of the health department letter said the structure does not have a bedroom um we're here today to remove the condition that was put in place five over five years ago which has been strictly adhered to my understanding from the BRS um so I I don't see that a condition needs to be another condition needs to be replaced we're here to evaluate removing that one um so I see no reason and also I want to comment on what Mr Lear said about the change in the bylaw my understanding I think what he read was that that occurred um after 2017 when this was heard and it is all about trying to encourage historic preservation and the Briggs uh again my understanding have have exerted tremendous amount of energy effort at considerable their own expense um to restore this and that we should be celebrating it not restricting the use of it so I I would um not be in support of restricting okay thank you uh Steve your thoughts well I certainly agree with everything that's been said previous to this and I want to thank you for taking on this project restoration project it's I know it's probably gone on longer than you anticipated or wanted it to but I you know I think everybody appreciates the effort that you've put in and you know it sounds like it could be a lot of fun um I spent uh two nights in a lighthouse a couple years ago and I thought that was probably the most amount of rustic sleeping I could have done but this sounds like it this might top it um but but you know I I think it could be a lot of fun it' be a nice project I think so good luck right great DAV deliberations uh I agree with all previous comments um I I watch the tape to re refresh my memory of what had taken place and um you know I think at that point I expressed that I wasn't didn't think the condition was necessary but I would go along with it which I did um I kind of especially now looking at it all I I I wish that I'd pushed back a little bit more on it uh to be honest with you because it I think it was generated from one of Butters um concerns which was addressed and and and also spoke about the rental of the main house and some concerns about this would be used as a bedroom or whatever and so I this and then but I looked at you know and then I this afternoon because I wasn't sure you know what we were encountered there I got my Google Maps out and calculated the distance from that butter to the um Windmill and it's 160 ft and in the R40 Zone um based on the setbacks in the R40 Zone bylaw presumes the 50 ft is enough distance between structures to provide adequate privacy so this is these are some things I I would have preferred to pointed out at that time so and for that reason for all the others said um I and I don't and I would also agree I don't I think that we need to substitute a uh a new uh um condition on this I think Judy's statement stands and as far as those issues about rental and things that's a much larger issue than than this particular property and I do think that um the effort that they've gone through to to do this preservation uh and do historic preservation if if anything deserves that we be a little more lenient than we might normally be under other circumstances thank you okay thank you um Ed Acton sure um I have to say when I originally saw this and I and I saw that it was a variance it I was you know suspect but um I went out to the property uh looked at it and um researched it and it that that windmill meets all the setbacks it uh it it meets the coverage um that restriction you know to me seems somewhat arbitrary or capricious um you know if if the owner wanted to to have a bedroom there and as long as it met the you know Health requirements and met the building inspect you know the building code I don't I wouldn't have a problem with it so um I I I don't see any issue quite honestly and uh if I was Voting today I would I would vote yes very good Paul your thoughts um I agree with the sentiments that have been expressed I think that uh the initial condition arose out of the uh concerns that Mr OA had for uh the proximity of the his place to uh the mill and the fact that uh it could be um lead to uh lighting problems and noise problems and so forth because it was being used as a short-term rental um I think that um the condition was imposed as a result of that but really the variance was in front of us for a height problem had nothing to do with the bedrooms or use of sleeping conditions um it seems to me that um and and it was specifically designed to deal with with sleeping in that bedroom because uh at that time bedroom was considered to be too narrow a definition I think and U uh because it's controlled by uh uh the town Health regulations and the state regulations I assume the reason why uh it's not considered to be a bedroom at this point is because it does not um meet the minimum standards of Fitness for human habitation as such I.E Heating and uh uh Plumbing which do not exist um so my feeling is that um we really should not be messing with conditions with respect to this particular property um given that the height restriction is the one that is the one that we should be dealing with I don't think we should uh impose a restriction based on sleeping accommodations and I don't think we should deal with the bathroom I think all of that should be dealt with by uh the health uh Department and uh Judith Georgio so that would be my view okay well and I have to say I most I I agree with everybody but I'm in perfect alignment with what Ed said this was a this was a height variance and that was arbitrary and capricious it it it totally was to to start talking about whether or not people can sleep in there um especially where it met the setbacks so I'm really happy that you came and um I'm happy that it looks like we're going to vote in favor of this and uh so Paul I will move to uh approve the application as submitted I think it satisfies all of our conditions with respect to a variance and I think it resolves the problem that uh we in part created and Dave seconds and how do you vote and V votes yes yes jny yes Paul votes yes and I vote Yes as well congratulations it's unanimous thank you very much okay whenever Sarah is ready we'll go to the next application application number 24-27 an M ker and Eric W Kerner to Sherlock Lane westf Mass 01886 owners of property located at 44 Spring Hill Road also shown on the town of chadam assessor map 14i block 38D n25 the applicant seeks to enlarge extend or change a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the construction of an addition the existing dwelling is non-conforming and that is located 23.7 ft from the Northerly of butter the proposed Edition will be non-conforming and that it will be located 22.3 ft from the Norther L of butter where a 25t setback is required the existing building coverage is 1,487 square fet and the proposed building coverage is 1,772 square fet where 2850 ft is the maximum allowed the lot is non-conforming and then it contains 20,27 ft where 40,000 square feet is required in the R40 zoning District a special permit is required under master under Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5 be of protective bylaw okay so they're online online we have iann and Eric Corner perhaps uh yes we're both here and this is Eric how are you this afternoon welcome so go ahead and proceed with your application with your presentation thank you very much so um my name is Eric perner I'm here with my wife an uh we're Property Owners at 44 Spring Hill Road in north chadam um sir if you could make your volume a little louder and um per uh etiquette take off your hat I'm very sorry and happy to do that is that any better very good uh great so my family's been coming to chadam for over 70 years uh I've actually been coming for the entire uh like my life of 60 years we're very appreciative of the zoning bylaws and their intentions and with as background we'd like to construct a SC a screen three season porch at the rear of our home the footprint of the porch essentially overlays a portion of the existing deck footprint uh and as was mentioned we will be slightly inside the 25 foot setback from our property line to the east the porch would extend to 22 Feet 3 in from the property line which is just over a foot closer than the existing deck footprint our options for the ports were limited in width by not wanting to extend beyond the side of the house to the north and by an existing bulkhead um to the South and wanting to have adequate room for a dining table in a small sitting area uh as best we can tell there's no detrimental effect of the structure to the view from the road or the front of the house it's completely hidden to the rear and there are Woods separating our home from the properties to the east on Old Mail Road so that's basically our request and uh with that I'd open it up to any questions do you have a copy of the uh criteria um I have the information that was uh provided from Sarah in terms of the um the setbacks and the the property size house versus property size is that what you're referring to um no wait sar's going to pull it up for you sir and I'll help you through it if you need it okay there there's a list of 12 criteria um do you see that yes yes if you could just run through you know the ones that you think are applicable um sure that would be helpful sure okay um so adequacy of the size of the site um as I understand it based on the the 15% limitation we're well under that restriction um and so I think that also would addresses the second item which is compatibility of the size of the structure with neighboring properties the houses in our neighborhood are all of of sim relatively similar size and this would not change that our total house square footage is 2,000 square feet uh with the addition of this deck it would add 280 square feet to that um I think I addressed the uh well suitability of the site uh impact on neighboring Properties or the natural environment uh again we already have a deck where this um structure would be it extends a couple feet beyond that deck and as I mentioned one foot 4 inches closer to the property line so there's really no change in terms of the the Landscaping uh in terms of impact of scale uh the roof line is well below the roof line of the house it's it's typical for a you know for a um a structure of that size with a with a sloped roof um no impact in terms of seage sewage disposal water noise litter um utilities visual impact on the neighborhood I addressed with my comment uh in regard to the the porch will not be visible from the front of the house it's it's directly to the back of the house from the road okay can you scroll down a little bit Sarah if there any more uh and then flood plane is not an impact for this property right okay so does that conclude your presentation yes it does all right very good is there anybody here or on Microsoft teams that wishes speak in favor of this application if so please indicate seeing nobody in the audience and no one online I will read the one correspondence from our health agent Judith Georgio she writes on um April 9th 2024 I have no concerns about the pro proposed Screenhouse addition to this property and now is there anybody here or Microsoft teams that wish to speak against this application or has a specific question if so please indicate seeing none here and none online take questions from the board Dave V I have no questions Ed no questions Dave Nixon no questions Paul no questions um Steve um I just have one question could you and I think you explained it but could you explain one more time why it needs to extend beyond the existing deck yes so was we actually had looked at several locations around the house and uh for variety of reasons the others were not suitable for one they would have been much more visible from the front of the house by putting it in the back of the house we limited on the souths Side by an existing bulkhead so we're actually going within 4 in of the edge of that bulkhead and couldn't go further and on the on the North side um if you look at the line of the uh proposed screen porch it's the line of side of the house so if we were to extend it further um that would have been anable design so those were the limitations left and right and then in terms of the depth we were just advised in terms of being able to fit a table on one end and then uh a small seating area on the other that 20 ft would be an appropriate distance so it added an extra foot okay okay thank you Jenny no questions all right Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations Dave seconds and votes yes yes all votes yes any yes as do I okay deliberations Jenny um yeah I I thought that um it's a nice lot size um and uh the product is the project looks like it's very um a modest project um meets our criteria and not substantially more detrimental all right um Steve um I I feel the same way it is you know getting slightly I think you said 14 in or so or 1 fo4 U closer to the setback but I think the houses that are on the other side of that property line are quite a bit elevated on Old Mail Road I believe so I I don't think you're really encroaching um you know although you might be getting closer to the property line I don't think you're really encroaching on their on their privacy so um I I you know I I think it's a a nice project and it should serve you well okay Dave deliberations um I agree I mean I and I think of anything you know but putting a roof over what's now a deck there You' probably increased uh privacy of the neighbors so uh certainly not substantially more detrimental it's an improvement don't even see it from the street I I I will support it okay um Ed um I I would certainly support it it's very small modification and certainly not substantial or detrimental to the neighborhood Dave Nixon yeah I see no issues that would make this not acceptable and Paul I agree with my colleagues and motion I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations uh Dave H seconds and how do you vote and votes yes and how you vote Yes and Jenny Jenny votes yes and Paul votes yes you did that so now do we need condition conditions and let's take a vote on the project okay um in terms of conditions I uh I think other than the standard that all construction activity and vehicles contain on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner that may be all that's necessary does anybody else have any comments on conditions Dave nion no all right so now let's take a vote on the so I will move to approve the application as submitted with one condition that all construction activity and vehicles be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner and Dave V second how do you vote and votes yes yes and jinny jinny votes yes all votes yes as do I congratulations it is unanimous wherever you oh they're online I forgot yeah okay you're all much thank you thank you all right moving along here When Sarah's ready we're going to go to the third application 24-28 application number 24- 02819 Highland LLC care of William G Lichfield Esquire 330 Orleans Road North chattam Mass 02650 owner of property located at 19 Highland Avenue also shown on the town of chadam assessor map 15E block 47 lot 57 the applicant seeks to enlarge extender change non-conforming structures on a non-conforming lot be the demolition of the existing dwelling and garage and the construction of a new dwelling in garage the existing dwelling is non-conforming and it is located 21.2 ft from the road where a 25t setback is required and 9.3 ft from the East jilia butter the existing garage is non-conforming and it is located 5 ft from the West a butter and 7.5 ft from the Northerly a butter the proposed dwelling will be non-conforming and that it will be located 9.3 ft from the easterly butter where a 15t setback is required the proposed garage will be non-conforming and that it will be located point8 ft from the westa butter and 5.7 ft from the Norther Le butter where a 15t setback is required the existing building coverage is 1,559 Ft 22% and the proposed building coverage is 2,19 90 sare ft 30.9% where 15% is the maximum allowed the LW is non-conforming and that it contains 70 ft of Frontage where 100 ft is required and contains 7,078 Square ft or 20,000 ft is required in the R20 zoning District a special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of protective bylaw welcome back Mr litfield thank you Miss PES members of the board Bill Lichfield here on behalf of Bob and Susan Gallagher Bob is in the front front row and with us also is Mark zebr of zebr McCarthy Mark did the plans for what we would like to build at 19 Highland Avenue uh and Sarah maybe you would be kind enough to bring up the the house plans the elevations that would be appreciated what is there now uh which Mark and Mr dubis and I have known for the last 65 or 75 70 years is a simple one-story house uh of no particular charm and Mark has designed I think a very very attractive uh Gable end to the front Greek Revival as shown there which is an a I think extremely attractive garage proposed for the rear uh which is much more in keeping with Highland Avenue uh on Old Harbor Road there are three or four four Greek revivals in a row uh this obviously Highland Avenue is a j runs right into Old Harbor and we think this would be an appropriate replacement structure uh obviously like everything in the neighborhood uh and this is sort of a segue into the criteria as to adequacy of site including building building covered in the setbacks all of the Lots in the neighborhood are non-conforming that neighborhood existed before we had zoning uh but not withstanding existing non-conformities as to lot size and setbacks the site is adequate for the existing house I think you can find the site to be adequate for the construction of the replacement home and garage yes the coverage increases the percentage is high uh but we are eliminating the street setback non-conformity moving the house further back from the street and we're not exacerbating those of the sidelines as to compatibility of size on the third page of the hand out there is a comparison we currently have a small lot in a small one-story house with excess coverage which is characteristic of the neighborhood but it currently is compatible with this with the surroundings even though the house itself may not be as expanded it it will in I in my opinion anyway become more compatible with the neighborhood again it's being moved further back from the street to meet the 25 ft setback and some of the excess coverage relates to the porch which I think is is an attractive architectural feature and also the garage about which I'll touch in a moment the full basement inflates the grace gross floor area number but the living area remains consistent and reasonable with others in consistent with others in the neighborhood and reasonable and I think you can find it's in keeping with the surroundings as to the garage I know some some members of the board are particularly interested in them this one is too small to fit in a modern standard the one that's there now is too small to fit in a modern standard siiz car uh so in order to uh have a garage we need to expand it a bit we could have reduced the coverage by eliminating the garage in which case you'd have one or two cars sitting in the driveway I don't think that would be a wise choice to have made so keeping the garage while it increases the coverage is appropriate as to the extent of increase and non-conformity the existing nonconformities are as read by Sarah in the hearing notice coverage again increases but we are changing that uh by getting rid of the street setback nonconformity and the garage is far at the rear it is still consistent with a neighborhood as to suitability of the site there are no natural environment issues as to scale sighting Mass views and Vistas what is there now speaks for itself it's far far from massive with no impact on views and vistors but what Mark has designed there is an appropriate I think uh esta style Greek Revival with a porch the scale remains appropriate it will have a positive impact on the street scape rather than a negative one the one and three4 story house is consistent with the street but at I believe it's 24 feet is it not Mark Height yeah at 24 feet uh we're not maximizing the height which could go up to 30 ft and as you know the garage and the barn are set far at the rear that elevation is two-dimensional but the garage is way at the back of the lot as the compatibility of use we have a residential use which will continue adequacy of water and sewer we're on Town water the AL agent has reviewed the plan and has no concerns traffic flow and safety noise and litter adequacy of utilities are not involved that leaves us then with a question whether this proposed house uh architecturally appropri and providing for additional but still reasonable living area with a garage large enough to fit a modern automobile is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current non-conforming structure on a non-conforming lot I first spoke with Bob I think almost two years ago uh about the plans that he had to make some changes he has worked long and hard with Mark to design something uh that is appropriate he has consulted he and Susan have consulted with their neighbors as to the the design of the replacement house its impact the neighborhood and they have received strong support the chair will later read three letters uh not 21 but three uh and from three very close abutters uh the abutter on Old Harbor Road immediately to the west and the two abutters on Highland immediately to the east you obviously make a determination of substantial detriment to the neighbor neighborhood but in a neighborhood like this comments as positive as those in the file are I think instructive and I hope they will be persuasive I think you can find the proposed change is consistent with other upgrades on Highland Avenue further toward uh cew street but this is of a much more modest scale it's appropriate for this end of the street it's an attractive design the house is reasonable and consistent with its surroundings yes the footprint increases by about 500 square ft but sensibly we're retaining the garage and that bumps up the coverage similarly the porch which I think is very attractive does the same so in light of the criteria and the plans in this neighborhood and particularly with the strong support of the abuts who are most affected by it I think that you can find the proposed changes are not substantially more detrimental of the neighborhood and can approve the special permit request be happy to answer any questions thank you is there anybody here are on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application if so please make it known seeing no one here and no one online um I will read the correspondence there are five two two from staff and three from uh people in the neighborhood so the first one is from Judith Georgio the health agent 4924 she writes I have reviewed the plan to rebuild the dwelling at this Pro property the proposed dwelling is acceptable to replace the existing three bedrooms the existing septic system will be reused I have no concerns and then we have a note from Christina Basset um from the um historical um commission and she writes that the CHC found 19 Highland EV not historically significant and did not imposed a demolition delay and that was on April 11th 2024 then we have a letter from Joseph and Meredith de Barista and that was on April 8th 2024 we are writing in support of the petition of our neighbors Bob and Susan Gallagher for a special permit to construct a new home and garage at 19 Highland EV as immediate Butters we are in favor of the proposal which by no means is detrimental to our neighborhood the GS of g girl have spent several years working on their plans and have done a good job designing appropri replacements for the house and garage as we understand they've moved the house back um to eliminate one non-conforming aspect and the footprint of their new house will be in keeping with our little neighborhood where all of us have undersized Lots we went through a similar process with our home at 23 four years ago and while we also increased our excess coverage the result was good for us in our neighborhood and we think the same will hold true for the Gallagher proposal we urge the board to support this request then we have a note from Steven E West and Susan T West on April 8th 20124 we are in direct we are direct AB Butters of the gallager home on 19 Highland AV and we are writing in support of their request for a special permit to demolish and rebuild their house and garage we understand the need for more living space and a reasonable expansion of coverage part of which stems from the proposed porch and part relates to their need for a larger garage the porch will be a welcome architectural feature similar to ours and while the garage will only be inches from our shared lot line we have no objection to it uh or the overall proposal and we understand it also involves eliminating their street setback non-conformity our family has enjoyed being part of the Highland AV old Harbor neighborhood for several generations and we care very much about it the scale style and style of the proposed house are compatible with our neighborhood and will fit nicely given some of the things which are being built in town we are fortunate to have neighbors who have an appreciation of what belongs in chadam and this design reflects that understanding this is an appropriate project and we will it will not be detrimental to our neighborhood we hope the board of appeals will approve um in that respect then we have another note from Mark J Sullivan and Heidi Sullivan on April 8th 2024 we are the we own property at 29 Highland AV and in fact formerly owned 19 Highland AV so we are very familiar with this property we are writing in support of the application um of our neighbors Bob and Susan Gallagher to demolish and rebuild the existing house and garage having owned the property we know its limitations and understand the desire for the gagers um to have some additional living space all the properties in our neighborhood are non-conforming and what the gallers propos to do is sensitive to the location and will be compatible with the changes and improvements which have occurred we are close abidance to this property and fully support Bob and Susan in their requests for a somewhat larger house and garage which will have no negative consequences to our neighborhood in in fact it will not not be detrimental and instead be an improvement we urge the board of appeals to approve the special permit that concludes the letters is there anyone here or on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak against this application or has a specific question if so please make it known seeing no one here with the hand raised and no one online we'll go with questions from the board Steve um well I'd like to say I like this project very much the one question I was going to ask um was if you ever considered rotating the garage maybe 90 degrees and sort of tucking in behind the the house so that and then you would end up with sort of an L-shaped driveway so you would eliminate the less than foot uh setback to the West I I can't tell you whether it was considered or not I I know we can't go too far to the east because of the septic system um the West family which is immediately adjacent to that lot line has no objection to it and the drive the garage and driveway are there now right uh so I can't specifically answer the question Mr dor I don't know Mr Gallagher or Mr Z brat can if I could Madam chairman sure good afternoon Mark zbr uh we did look initially at relocating the garage to a better location uh the problem is that if we move it further to the east just to as it is to get it further off the lot line it puts a curve in the driveway makes it much more difficult to get a car out of it if we rotate the building 90 degrees and approach it from the west side we really end up with a significant amount of driveway on the property you need about 35 ft when you back out of that garage so that essentially would kind of push out all the way over to the east side and cover a lot of the property with the driveway we so we felt leaving it where it is where the neighbors really didn't have a problem with it like it there uh we thought that was the best location thank you Steve any more questions that's it thank you no more questions okay Jenny questions no questions no questions Paul questions no questions no Dave I have no questions yeah maybe a question for Mark or Mr Lichfield uh is there a uh currently is there a full basement in the in the property no there is not there's a partial full basement in there yeah so it looks like um the new basement is approximately about 2,000 square ft that's adding to that gross floor area where there there really isn't much of a basement now yeah that that's one of the I give you gross floor area but to me it's nonsensical if I have a th square foot one-story home yeah with no basement it's got a th000 square feet of gross floor area if I have that same house with a basement completely below grade that no one can see corre the gross floor area is 2,000 square ft so to me it's a false calculation and in this case it it does inflate the Gallagher number inappropriately but it's in your rules and I follow your rules okay uh thank you y thank you for that Dave Nixon questions well Mr lville I like the garage but that's it so you know what I'm going to say it's already coverage wise and I I'm taking out of your chart 101 old Hamra because that is all itty bitty hous and it's got nothing to do with that neighborhood I don't think uh and really part of the garage that it's part of anyway so we're already at 22% the largest in the neighborhood and you want to go to almost 31 this is a a gigantic leap so tell me why you couldn't have a house designed that kept it at 22 but added a second floor it it would not have provided that the house that the Gallaghers would like to have uh certainly we would be doubling the gross floor area uh by doing that but in terms of the house itself it remains a fairly modest house uh the footprint of I don't want to misstate it uh the footprint is less than 2200 square fet which is not a large house uh it is a small lot we know that but it is not out of keeping with the neighborhood and again you know as I said you make the decision and I know it's a jump and I had this conversation with Bob gallager and with Mark I said this there's going to be a question about going to that number if the people in the neighborhood who were going to live with it uh perfectly candid particularly Mr West who was immediately next door and who was not shy about expressing his views um if they don't have any problems with it not withstanding the percentage it to me is not substantially more detrimental the neighborhood two other aspects um this property is across the street from a very very large parking lot with a thus a large area of open space and to to the visual sense we get sort of credit for that large open space area except on Saturday afternoons at Sunday mornings uh so it's not going you know it's not going to loom over everything because there's nothing on the other side of the street and again the the I fully anticipated the question I understand it I recognize the percentage is high the hard number the actual number is not excessive and again those who live there are supportive of the request okay um questions Paul uh I have no questions and did I miss anybody with questions no everybody had their questions St i y and I I don't have any questions at this point so uh Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations da second how vote I votes yes yes Jenny Jenny yes well Paul yes as do I all right deliberations um DAV um I'm I'm not as um uh concerned or put off by the lot coverage change um this is a a a really nice design in that location um I think uh it very much fits in especially on this end of the street I I I I kind of find other parts of Highland AV to have seen some architectural exuberance and um I'm happy happy that this is a this is a very uh a handsome looking uh classic looking building it fits right in certainly on this end of the street uh and um it's not then thus and it is so yes it's a small lot and we get things come to us proposals on small Lots um maybe maybe some of my thinking about some of that is is influenced by the part of town that I live in where there are a lot of small lots and buildings closed together and so I tend to see the Street Cape uh independently of the lot size themselves um so I don't find it to be substantially more detrimental I think is a nice proposal uh and I find that it meets all our criteria and I'll support it all right Dave Nixon deliberations well I think I I mentioned earlier you know my my huge concern uh to me because you already have coverage wise a home that's almost 50% larger than the zoning alows far there that to then ramp it up so that now it's going to be double is really pushing the envelope too far as I mentioned uh I could see having this home go up and adding space as we go up so that the coverage would be you equal to what it is and about but to me this is just too much of a jump beyond anything else in the neighborhood and already as I mentioned it's the largest so I don't think that I could vote and truly believe that this isn't substantially more detrimental to the neighbor I just think it is Jenny okay um Highland Avenue is a great Street um I too understand the desire to want to increase the size and expand the lot is small um I agree with my colleagues that you presented a really thoughtful Proposal with respect to the setbacks um you've You Know M made an improvement to the one on the street and you've kept the other ones where they were um they're all under what's required but but we get that it's a non-conforming um as you mentioned non-conforming lot all of them are on that street um so that was really I can tell that that was a challenge and your plan was was really thoughtful there the height is great really appreciate that I agree with Mr Nixon the coverage is a problem um when I in my view when I look at the chart that you have here Mr Lichfield it is a 40% increase to what's there now 22% which is as Mr Nixon pointed out if you take out 101 old Harbor it's the largest uh coverage on the street and yet it has the second smallest lot so it's when I think of neighborhood I think a little more broadly than just Highland Street I I do agree that there some um that all the neighbor you know the homes are challenged on that street but you know more broadly when you're looking at chatam the coverage is so important to try to make sure that it's appropriate you know broadly and I just I think it's too uh much of an increase if if it could be just shrunk a little bit I love the plans and the design and I can appreciate the the the desire to increase your space it's just a little too much for the lot that's my view Ed your thoughts on deliberations um well as far as like the gross floor area you know a substantial amount of that is is basement and then um you are you know it's one floor now you're adding a second floor so you're getting that increases also I I do see ways you could reduce the coverage um the porch could be eliminated the um the shed Dormer off the garage could be eliminated but I I think that that adds to the architecture and and and to the usability of of the property you know to have a nice porch fronting on Highland and say hello to your neighbors um certainly that onecar garage unless you had the the little shed off of it you know it would be impossible to really get in and get out and store a few hand tools or a lawnmower or anything so um I understand why um you know some of these increases are are necessary um I'm not voting today but I if I was I I'm a little B skeptical of the size but I I I understand um some of the additions and why they're there and they do add to the the footprint but I believe that necessary so you know I would be a yes vote okay um Paul well I uh did notice the uh the upkick to the 31 or 30.9 uh in terms of coverage but uh and when you go out there and look at the lot uh the lot feels small when when you look at it but um I don't think that's inconsistent with the neighborhood in general and I think that uh I agree with Ed that the uh the changes in the design and so forth that might be recovered by changing uh the coverage really affect the look um and the look is more important I think than the coverage number so um I think as result overall my conclusion would be that this would not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and I think the design would be complimentary to the neighborhood so I'm more inclined to say um let's give way on the coverage issue and preserve the design that's been presented Steve your thoughts on deliberations if you were voting yes well I I said before that I I like the design um you know that the lot is so small that no matter what you do there um is going to add a percentage point or two um just you know by building a a a a mudroom off the side so you're sort of behind the eightball in some cases because of the lot size um and I'm wondering that if and I don't know if some of these other houses had full basements you know their their gross floor area number is going to go up portion so that's that's sort of a difficult number to use because it may not be you know uh Apples to Apples um I I was concerned about the the proximity of the garage to the property line um but the people who who uh are most affected don't seem to have a problem with it and it looks like they they also have some sort of structure that's close to the property line as well um the the the difficult thing and I think other folks have said it is that um you know you're already above the the the lot coverage percentage and you're increasing it by quite a bit but again anything you do there is going to increase that number um could would this be scaled back a little bit maybe but I'm not really sure of how much it would pick up you might be able to gain you know two or 3% but you're still going to be considerably over um the lock coverage um I I think it's in keeping with the neighborhood I I think a lot of the other houses have similar designs to this I think it would fit in nicely um and I guess if were voting I would probably support this okay well I can comment if you'd like or very much appreciate your comments yeah so um I sadly for you I agree with Mr Nixon and U Miss Fenwick I think I can just put it in very simple terms too big of a house on too small of a lot I think it's a really important spot in chadam it's right on the end there and I asked Sarah to put the rendering up again so I just think it's too big for that lot um and uh if you shrunk it down a little bit um I think we'd be very happy to to approve it would you like us to vote or uh you can be if you be so gracious Madam chairman approximately one minute sure thank you madam chairman in light of the circumstances a couple of of one quick response if I could we we we could cut off the shed attached to the garage Which is less than 100 square ft slide it a couple of feet away and just gain 100 square ft from coverage because it would no longer be counted that's the sort of thing that could be done but I'm not sure what end would be served having said that we understand what you have said to us uh and we would ask that the matter be continued to allow U the Gallaghers and Mark to work on something and ask Clark engineering to plot it and I don't know what date would be best for Sarah um October would would be a little bit much but uh I'm I'm guessing June uh right now I'm currently scheduling for June 13th Would you feel that June 13th would give you enough time recognizing the we'd have to rely on clar engineer June 27 might be a better date June 27th is wide open what about with drawing and without prejudice and uh I'm politically liberal but economically conservative and I don't want to file another filing fee and advertising fee unless necessary I'm going to see what the what the board thinks of that it it's up to the board but uh if if it if a continuance to June 27th would be satisfactory to you fine otherwise we would ask to withdraw what do you think Mr Beach I I think a continuance is appropriate here given given Where We Are and where they are um I I I think it's I I don't think you know they're either going to be able to come back with something that's satisfies enough board members or or they're not and and and I don't see rather than asking them to um withdraw and and come back I think we can go ahead with this the way it is yeah what do you think Ed I'm fine with the continuent I'm probably not fine with the continuent because what we don't have is any concrete idea of how to do this you know you had a quick conversation the three of you if all of a sudden you said to us hey look uh we're going to do X and we think that that's going to satisfy what's going on here then I'd say great but I don't get that feeling I don't get the feeling that it has been thought out to the point we say okay this is the house we're going to design and if that's true I think it should be with withdrawn and then come back with that so if I'm wrong about my assumption say so but I just don't get that feeling respond well clearly with the message is to reduce the coverage uh I can't yet tell you how it will be done uh we recognize that this matter is almost certainly if if we were approved if we approved the end of June the special permit wouldn't be available until end of July and this would be a post l day construction project it wouldn't slow us down because the board imposes limitations it wouldn't slow us down if it were continued to a July hearing uh that would give uh us time to come back I would be reasonably certain we be able to do all of that but if the board prefers that we withdraw without prejudice I would so ask it's up to the board let me ask the rest Paul what do you think I don't see the need to require withdrawal it seems to me we could continue this and uh if they don't have an appropriate uh plan when they come back in then that's it and Steve your thoughts I I I guess I would be for a continuance but as long as it's going to be a relatively short time you know if it's June I guess that's okay if you're going to push it out to next fall no then probably not but a continuance is probably okay with me Jenny what do you think I agree with Mr Lichfield um the issue is the coverage and so there's really and it's a small lot so there's really no one was really opposed to the gross floor area we understand you're going up and you're going below it's the it's the footprint so um there's really not that much you can do it's just shrinking the footprint so I think you probably can do that rather quickly and you're probably anxious to do it so I I would support a continuance I I'd be willing to uh vote for a continuance if it was July okay all right so our first meeting in July is July 11th Madam chairman we request the board allow us uh that request that you continue this matter until July 11th all right Paul I will move to uh granted requested continuous to July 11 2024 and Dave V second how you vote and votes yes nion Jenny Jenny votes yes and Paul vot yes as do I thank you so much thank you very much all right we sign that one no okay all right When Sarah's ready we're going to go to application 24-30 I think we're going to take a five minute break before we do that if we could uh chat on TV okay com break e e e e e e e e e e e e all right Sarah we're back welcome back everyone this is uh the chadam zoning board of appeals and it's 4:30 and we're going to continue our meeting application number 24-30 Robert DS 60 Indian Hill Road North chattam Mass 02633 owner of property located at 85 Stony Hill Road also shown on the town of chadam assessor map 14g block 29 lot 5 the applicant seeks dimensional variance to allow for an exterior mechanical system Appliance generator to be located 8 ft from the easterly butter where a 15t setback is required the proper contains 4,400 ft in the GB3 zoning District a dimensional variance is required under Mass General law chter 48 section 10 and Section 8 d2c of the protective bylaw welcome Mr dubis good afternoon uh nice to see the board all chipper today anyway uh my name is Bob dubis UH 60 Indian Hill Road North and I own a with uh used to be a family dwelling but now it's a uh sing single family dwelling that I own and my wife own and we have uh an issue with it being a very small lot uh only there's only so much I can do with it and there is a temporary generator there now and I'm getting sick and tired of going down and in the middle of the night if it's a snowstorm a rainstorm or something starting starting it up going inside flipping all the buttons that are supposed to be flipped so that the family that's there can have food uh in heat and a little few lights and and they have small children which I know is irrelevant in a lot of times but but the kids like to watch TV obviously so I'm willing to spend the money to put a a real generator in there and I know that the 15t setback is mostly for for sound between neighbors this particular lot has an 8ft concrete wall with its nearest neighbor with a six foot high fence on it I went and I have an app that shows me the decible output of the generators uh starting at 15 ft it's 80 80 Deb and if I go 30 ft it's 75 DB if I go 70t it goes to 66 DB and that's a straight line across to the neighbor's house uh that's about 100 ft away if I go to the top of the hill where my closest neighbor is the decel output at 15 ft is 62 if I go to 30 feet it's 55 and so it's considerably less with that concrete wall the further I bring the generator out into the yard the higher the decibels will get to the to the closer neighbor because it goes as you go out the it goes lower and lower the neighbors's fine with it I believe he wrote a letter stating that um the other problem I have is it's on a little banking to keep it up in the air a little bit because the backyard floods in a very heavy rainstorm and there's not too much that I can do with that um moving it is kind of tough because no matter where I put it then it becomes more involved in the electrical part of it and the gas part of it so I'm asking to let me place it between eight and 10 ft away from the wall or the property line I should say would you like to go through the criteria please the only thing that I can see because it's not a house or anything is the soil conditions whereas if I move it the more I move it away from the wall the deeper it goes into the lot where where it could get flooded out and I do not want to put it near the barn because I'm afraid if if there was ever a fire that it would it would light the barn up or the house up those are my concerns uh it's not a hardship to me uh you know what I'm saying I can't I can't I can't see any any of the criteria that that I lay a generator other than the Noise Okay so so are you saying that um the soil conditions um are met in in your case well no because if I move it the further I move it out the further down it goes to be flood and I'm afraid of flooding yes that might be topography yes so the topography correct yeah okay I'm not I'm not affiliated with your lingo okay well you're here to ask ask some for something so we have to affiliate you so um are you saying you don't have a hardship at all if you don't get this well I do because I'm going to have to keep coming down and pull cing it it's it's a a movable generator yeah and I'm tired of doing that I want to make it a permanent generator can you think of any other type of hardship you might be able to um claim you want me to be honest with you no yes we do um so I think you've said that desirable belief can be granted without a substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying the uh intent of the purpose of the bylaw because you feel that it won't be noisy there correct it it will uh it will that's basically my neighbor will be more happy with it where it is than if I move it out all right so at this point um thank you for that presentation is there anybody here are on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application if so please make it known seeing none no one here no one online um I will read The Correspondents there are two one is from uh let's see Jason grel and he lives at 85 Stony Hill Road um let's see um um my name is Jason Grell I am writing to express my support for the variance request submitted by my ab budding neighbor Robert dubis for the installation of a permanent generator at 85 Stony Hill um he actually lives at 93 I believe it's important to share my perspective on this matter I fully understand and endorse my neighbor's need for a reliable power source especially in a Coastal Community like ours where severe weather events can disrupt electrical services given the importance of ensuring the safety and comfort of their household the installation of a permanent generator is both necessary and reasonable I am confident that my neighbor has considered any potential concerns regarding noise Aesthetics and property values and has made efforts to mitigate any adverse effects on the neighborhood additionally I believe that the benefits of having a permanent generator far away any minor inconveniences that may arise thank you for your attention to this matter feel free to reach out if you acquire anything further Jason grel and then we have a letter from I think it's the hbdc they met on March 6 2024 the historic business district commission met and rendered the following decision with regard to the application of 85 Stony Hill Road to replace the existing generator they approved 5 in favor and uh that is the extent of the correspondence is there anyone here or Microsoft teams that has a question or would like to speak again this application if so please make it known seeing none we will go with questions from the board Dave V any questions I I think I understand the the nature of the so I don't think I have any questions at this moment if something comes up of all right very good Ed Acton questions um yeah I just so I I guess I fully understand the closer the generator to the wall the the less Deb because the wall less Debs to the to the nearest neighbor he lives on he's the one that wrote that letter he's he's the closest AB budding neighbor yeah and the the current gas generator seems It's a couple feet from the wall it's close it's probably four feet away yeah okay and then um the new generator is it uh is it like a full house generator like uh 22 kilow or something like that uh it's 18 18 okay and you're suggesting moving at 8 feet but if it was even closer to the wall it would probably be less noisy for the neighbor is that probably five five or seven Deb yeah yeah okay uh no further questions questions Dave Nixon yeah um so I understand the noise for the neighbor but you seem to be convinced that this is something you want to do for your tenant so I I don't understand how it's going to be quieter for your tenant because it's right there it's not it's benefiting my tenant no matter what I do this this allows the tenant to have the electric oven the electric stove the dishwasher the washer dryer she she is a professional woman they have two small children uh that and so laundry is a big a big thing which which with the generator that's say now they can only have heat um the burners on the stove the refrigerator and the TV and a couple of amenities uh internet and sort of stuff so what I'm trying to do is to because of the kids they need laundry they they're uh a young family they they need clothes they need food they need everything uh it's not so much the winter I'm worried about the house freezing in the winter but what I'm worried about is when we have a big storm out here sometimes the power goes out for four or five days that's not unheard of in chadam so I I would like to be a good landl and have the family be able to maintain themselves without me worrying about them this will be uh fed by the gas on the street is that correct okay um that's the only questions okay jny questions yes I have a couple um let's talk about the gas line so I thought you made a comment that um you like the Loca you want the location where it is in the back because it's uh more of a problem for you yes gas line uh I want it in the back because they can run the gas line through the house okay because there's already gas to that corner because there's gas right there on that's the outside yeah that's that's that's the opposite side of the house but they there's a gas line that runs through the house okay and they're able to uh bring it out and they would only have like a a 20ft trench for the gas line coming out of the house the same with the the electricity comes out that way too okay so it's it's economical it's economical to put leave it and not do it in the front where the where the gas line I would never put it in the front the hbdc probably would hang me put it in the front Okay um all right another question I had was um how long have your the renters you're referring to how long have they been renting there they've been renting a year and two months we we rented the house before uhhuh and uh two people lived there for 12 or 14 years okay uh and the house was in such disrepair that the family was going to tear it down and we decided to uh uh rehabit because we need young families in this town and they're looking for a a permanent house but because of the interest rates they asked if they could stay a while and I said as long as you want well no I appreciate that um in in the time that they you've referred to them a few times and the things that they need and as Mr Nixon said the concern for the tenant which is admirable how many times have you had to go out and turn the gener right on cuz you twice in a year and in a year and two months um do you have plans for that garage I called a garage but I think you called a barn well it's it is a garage 2K garage okay do I have plans for it yeah I'd love to leave it just the way it is okay um you mentioned that the uh current generator is 4 feet from the about 4 feet and you want to move it further four feet close farther away out CL I'm trying to I'm trying to make it uh not as uh non-conforming as I can um four if you're am I asking for I'm asking for roughly seven feet okay but but the closer it is to the wall the better it is for so that was the reason for the extra four feet is to try to get it to at least half of what you're the I'm trying to I'm trying to not you know ask for the moon I only asking for a couple shoes well I just was wondering why you wouldn't want to just keep it where it was did you own on the other side of the wall okay I do would like to keep it exactly where it is okay they had the two kids that's the only uh playground they have in the back uh the two kids and I am going to put a fence around it okay that's that's all I have thank you um Steve I was going to um ask a couple of questions I I don't think I uh I think you might want to consider putting it on the side of the house where the gas meter is because I I think they're going to be reluctant to use um an existing gas feed in your house what what's what is that feeding currently just the furnace it's already been approved uh everything by the generator company oh yeah I'm I'm only this whole thing was going to go if I if I used propane they would have just put it in but because they needed a gas permit then they found out they had to have 15 ft and that's the hold up it's sitting it's sitting it snows are ready to go in okay because that I'm surprised that they're willing to because a lot of times they need a certain amount of pressure and volume and they'll actually go directly to the to the regulator and the meter you're right but there's only there's only one one one service on the on the gas line now and that's the the heater and it doesn't take much all right and I don't think um they're going to want you to have that enclosure either around the generator I think they need a certain amount of feet around either side of it they need two two feet around it okay so are you intending to keep that enclosure that the existing generator is in no no that I made that box right so that so that the generator that is there right could have air and not get rain and snow on right but I don't think you're going to be able to keep that oh no that's no that's going away okay sorry no this is a regular gener generic generator that you see all over the place I understand I understand but I'm going to put a small picket fence so the kids don't go near it because I think they require they would like to have two or three feet all the way around for maintenance and for uh yes for air for air cooling yes um and you might want to consider you know if you get some flooding back there you might want to consider maybe elevating it somehow that's up to you um it's not where it is right now won't flood it's not easily done later in a depression after it gets installed okay I was just kind of curious why you didn't want to put it on the side of the house um there's there's really there's no neighbor there to to disturb it looks like there's a um driveway to your property in the back that actually is very that's even closer to the lot line than where it is now believe it or not the the I the the sidey yard okay the the front of the the front of the gar garage has 2 in to the lot line okay the when you walk out the door of the house it has about five feet so and it's really not uh conducive to do that okay okay that's it thank you Paul I think uh I think Steve may have asked some of the questions I was concerned about is uh the water that you're getting uh as I look at the photographs um would be between your existing generator and towards the house in the in the barn it slopes down yep back back in the 49 they didn't really care about uh grading that was uh that was given to my uncle my uncle donor uh by my grandfather because his wife and my grandmother were sisters and they needed a place place to stay so they gave him that small square and said here you go so they really didn't care about grading they just got a house yep mhm so you're not going to need to elevate it in order to avoid getting water on that generator well I need I need the elevation where where the generator is now is the perfect spot to keep everything out of the way mhm okay I don't think I have any other questions Dave V you had another question yeah I just want to clarify uh Bob it sounds like uh I mean if if we are able to if we're willing able to Grant a variance sounds like your ideal place for it would not be the 8T that you're asking for but maybe two feet off the wall where no I I would go four feet off the wall it would give it enough air space to to run properly okay so because when we if we Grant um it it it needs to be specific to the specific location so maybe we might want to be asking well we can't ask for Less now okay we can't ask for any less it's been advertised so yeah so if you wanted to if we go if we Grant it today you'll need to put it at the 8 fee that's fine I have no problem with that just CL trying to clarify that um is there any reason why you can't put some fill in the backyard yeah it'll flood the basement can I I'm going to ask the Building Commissioner what do you think about this uh topography back there I haven't been to the site to check it out to look at it but I mean I understand what he's saying if he elevates the grade he's going to pitch the water in some other Direction sure okay thank you yep very good very good um okay so if no one else has any other questions um Paul let me ask one other question um what about adjusting the lot lines uh uh can you can you add can you add some space um if you uh were're to negotiate something with whoever it is that owns I own the property next door that's what I was thinking there there no there was uh I have partners and they uh yeah it's it's uh sometimes it doesn't get too pretty yeah they're not they're not partners of the house situation well it really it really um no matter where I try to put it really it it it's not the perfect spot okay unfortunately this this one spot happens to be economical for the gas and the electric and and the noise to the to the close neighbor um I've uh like I said the bound on both sides is the property line there not really there's a fence back there I don't know if you can see it or not uh and that that is if you look at at the gate the gate is tipped is dropped to allow the water to come out so it it uh but it does get spongy back there in the Heavy Rain okay I don't have any other questions I guess I'll move to close the hearing and move into the liberation D second votes yes yes Jenny yes PA all votes yes as do I okay deliberations um jinny well I mean microphone I um understand everything that Mr dubis is saying but I I I mean we have very strict criteria and I I don't know that there's really a hardship other than an inconvenience venience and a desire to not have to come out and start it I also am not sure I understood maybe some of my colleagues can clarify um why it couldn't go closer to the garage which would be um I think the comment was potential fire but I don't don't generators go within a reasonable distance to structures frequently so I I wasn't sure about the the hardship I mean the the the Topography is you know the concerns that Mr dubis raised the slope and it's mostly that he just doesn't have much of it to to to Really put it in another place um so balancing the strict criteria that we have to follow with the best location which maybe is where it is is um is is challenging okay uh Paul yeah I think uh I can understand that you want to help the tenants and it makes sense um but I think it might help you if you had perhaps a little bit more uh professional assistance in making an argument on behalf of the generator um to do it uh in a manner that would present it uh a little stronger to meet our criteria than what you've been able to do um I just I'm having trouble seeing how the topography here is so much different from anything else in the neighborhood or couldn't be uh corrected sufficiently or um would come up with a justification for the generator that would satisfy our crime criteria DAV well I I to me I I think that the topography includes the the retaining wall and and the and and I think that I mean I can at least look at it as that's that's a significant part of the topography and it's also an issue with respect to the noise and and Noise for the neighbor and things like that so I I mean I I think that maybe it's a little bit of a stretch as far as it me it meeting our criteria but I think that that's a I think that that's a a good reason for the for what he's asking for um I I think it's a very good reason for what he's asking for as I said earlier I mean it you know i' I'd be fine saying you could put it closer to the wall given all things concern but that would mean a read advertising and all those other things which I'm sure he doesn't particularly want to go through and with respect to the hardship um you know it says hardship Financial or otherwise and and honestly uh I I'm I'm glad I've got a generator that's piped in gas if I had a generator that know a building I was responsible for that I had to go out in a storm and keep putting gasoline in that's a hardship as far as I'm concerned so I think he's showing enough of a hardship here and I certainly don't think that this uh derogates from the intent and purpose of the bylaw um so I I have no problem with supporting this Ed if you were voting there's days when I'm glad I'm not voting lots of days um I I you know I don't know that it necessarily meets the criteria for a variance but you know it it because of noise because that walls there it it makes sense to you know I I appreciate what you're trying to do um even closer to the wall might make more sense but I don't know that it meets uh you know a hardship criteria and Dave nion uh if I could ask the uh building commissar question how close to that garage now you haven't seen it but it's a garage that's separated from the house by X number of feet how close can this generator go to that garage it's no living in the garage it's just place for two cars right yeah manufacturer specifications I would assume 3 to 5 feet okay okay thank you thank you so um I really feel it doesn't qualify for the variants um I have a generator and I know what you're talking about uh fortunately it's run off the gas on the street and when you put one in wherever you put it you're not going to continue with filling it up with gasoline and all that so I'm sure you'll take care of that even if you put it 10 feet east or west or whatnot so uh I don't see the hardship for you I see frankly you have to be one of the nicest landlords that I've ever met than you that you would no I mean it I even put air conditioning in too okay see I mean you're a good guy but in the variance world there's needs and there I understand and there's wants I understand and this is not a need it's a want so Mr DUIs you have to have uh four out of five votes um you heard the Rumblings here go ahead and vote you want us to vote one way the other the generator will go in whether it's where I want it or not or where I think it should go and be the best for the Neighbors is is another thing so uh excuse me one second you exp yes please um so a if you are denied by this board you cannot come back for two years um I I will make it work it won't not be the most perfect thing okay but I will make it work so that the option is either being denied or you can withdraw without prejudice and locate I I've I've spent too much time doing this already okay I I I know where it should go and I understand the qualm about it all right but only it only affects the neighbors differently wherever I put it and I don't uh in the in the kids whatever I do I have to worry about where the kids are okay and I have to worry about fire and I have to worry about other things so I'm here to I wanted to be here to see if I could have this put in a proper place that would allow the neighbors the least amount of trouble myself the least amount of trouble and and it's it's uh where I put it it'll be difficult to bring vehicles in there to work on the house okay uh it's the only access to the backyard yes so I go ahead and vote if you vote it down you vote it down if you vote for it I'd appreciate it but uh I don't want I don't want to carry this on forever this is costing me a lot in in time and energy and and I appreciate uh your feelings uh we I might just add that um I tend to agree with uh uh Mr Acton who was basically saying maybe you maybe you want to end up applying for a variance that would not take it as far away from the wall as you're suggesting now would be more compatible with the people in the neighborhood and so forth but you can't do that without read vertising I understand that but um withdrawal without prejudice would allow you to come back at any time the generator is going in no matter what happens okay okay I I need I'm I'm trying to get it where it should go right but obviously I've I've already spent uh a lot of time and energy on this and like I said it's sitting in Orleans right now so uh uh I'm worried about we if we have a bad storm that that I want it to work I want to take care of these people they're nice people I understand uh um it is what it is okay I'm not I'm not going to hold it against you it's just I'm trying to do it the right way and I understand if I hire a lawyer and come back and this and that I don't want that's a one shot deal okay all right I just wanted to make this suggestion all right so um I'll I'll move to approve the application as submitted Dave V seconds and how do you vote Dave V votes yes I vote no and Jenny uh I vote no Paul I'd vote no and do I sorry sir that's all right thank you for your time thank you thank you all right we have one more application uh When Sarah's ready it's 24- [Music] 032 application number 24-32 Pacifico M and Marlo Ruth M deamo care of Dave Rina one Mar and Drive Unit 5 Carver Mass 02330 owners of property located at 20 Skippers way also shown in the town of chadam assessor map 1A Block 14 Lot s30 the applicant seeks to enlarge standard change a non-conforming exterior mechanical system Appliance AC condenser on a non-conforming lot via the replacement of the exterior mechanical Appliance the existing exterior mechanical system Appliance were non-conforming and that they were located 9.6 ft from the Souther Leia butter the proposed exterior mechanical system Appliance will be non-conforming and that it will be located 9.8 ft from the southerly of butter Weare a 15ft setback is required the law is non-conforming and that it contains 10,752 ft or 20,000 squ ft is required in the R20 zoning District a special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5D of the protected bylaw sir please state your name and go ahead and give your uh presentation absolutely Madam chair thank you very much I'm the home builder for20 Skippers way uh David ruina uh we were before this board on March 9th I believe of 2023 to get a special permit to raise and reconstruct this building um we started constructing the new house in November of last year and the the the owner of the property realized that the AC condensers are or are or would be um really visible from the street um where we had requested them previously would be um so on on that image there on the north side of that image so when you're coming down skipp's way you could see it there it be right out in the open uh so uh they had asked me if we could put the AC condensers under the proposed staircase as you can see there on the south side of that image um we reviewed the size of his two condensers and we came to the conclusion that they would fit Under the Staircase um and then we would screen around the staircase to hide the condenser so uh it actually provides additional screening for those units um they they'd be out of sight uh it would help to block some of the noise and the original AC condensers were on the South Side just to the east of that staircase there that's there now that's that's almost exactly where the new staircase is going to go um one thing I did want to clarify I know there was some confusion as to um what what we're proposing now and what was approved prior um when we came last year uh as you saw in that last image the AC condensers were going to go on the east side of the property we we are proposing to put them where they were before on the south side of the property um and again they would be below the staircase and we would screen the two AC condensers in that space it doesn't get any closer to the property line we're not increasing any lock coverage um it actually red produces the sound to the neighbors I think um and and it it hides them out of sight nobody will see them so there are criteria and so can I clarify if um where it says proposed so that's not where you want to put them so in in this image here Madam chair the the proposed location is correct it's Under the Staircase yeah but there we got some paperwork where it said proposed um seral pointed out sure um the the plan that was also included was the original location that was part of the previous special permit this location complied with all of the required setbacks therefore didn't need any relief from the board but this is what the owner had originally considered doing um Mr Rina came into the office to speak with us prior to um filing or going ahead with the installation and we explained to him that the old site plan we had didn't show the location of the exterior Mechanicals so we were able to find um an electrical permit from I think it was 2007 or 2008 when they were installed so they've been there for more than 10 years and prior to this bylaw going into effect um and the applicant was also able to provide us with an image of the existing or before the house was demolished the unit in that location now that location coincides with the this plan which shows um on the southerly side there had been existing units there and they're proposed to go approximately in the same location um maybe a few inches further away that's right s okay thank you thank you all right so um could you go through the criteria quickly yeah I didn't see a lot that applied as aside from I mean it's it's in in our opinion definitely not more um it isn't more detrimental to the neighborhood when we're not getting we're not increasing any lot coverage I mean I I can go through the items one for one if you want to put them on the screen everybody's comfortable yeah there isn't a lot that really applies on the list I'm sorry very good yep all right so is there anyone here or Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application if so please make it known seeing none I don't think we have any correspondences we do not so if there's anybody here on Microsoft teams that wishes speak against this application or has a specific question please indicate seeing none questions from the board Jenny questions yeah I have a few um let me make sure I got this straight okay um the existing proposal the mechanical the AC unit was going to be on the sub side correct uh the original proposal that was approved last year uh they were on the east side the okay well um it's confusing so so Skipper you really have a corner lot correct okay you made the comment like where it was proposed so you're saying that proposal spot is the East Side um so yeah if you wouldn't if you wouldn't mind so yes I'm sorry I see that now yeah yeah so yeah so originally the house that existed the the AC condensers were on the south side of of the house by the staircase um we had be because of the lot we had proposed that we move the utility to the east side okay which is what you see there yeah um but it's it's it's pretty um it's going to pretty visible so the the owner had requested that we relocate it back to where it was originally which is over on the side on the South Side okay but would under the stairs so do you not agree that it's actually more visible from that side of Skippers Lane no it isn't because we're going to screen Under the Staircase so it it'll be out of sight entirely um I didn't see a staircase when I went to the site plan is it not up there it isn't there yet because it's not final graded so is it going to be a staircase from up above going down like the the old one was or is it just going to be off of the doorway no so it comes up as you see in this image here it's there's going to be stairs that go up along the house to a landing and then goes up onto that first roof deck okay all right so they're not there yet they aren't there okay so when is it um does the pool come into play is that part of the reason you didn't mention that but I see now the original plan didn't have a pool uh and the new plan does so so is that one of the reasons why you want to move it um from that location it it doesn't really interfere with the pool at all and I I think he he had brought this up prior to the pool because where it was going to be was right outside the entry door so it really doesn't interfere with that part of his patio at all just his main concern really is that it's just right outside the door when you come out of the house and on the plan he couldn't really visualize that but on once the house went up it it's really obvious you walk out the door you're going to look at two AC condensers and they're going to be right there that's the only place we could really put them because how you get into the his his new basement there's a staircase right there that's that little wing off the east side they they have to go close to the door and it really is an eyesore yeah yeah so I I was just asking for that clarification because your original location did not require the relief for the setback where this one does correct so and and you made a comment I think that what you're proposing is actually going to be better for the neighbor but the neighbor isn't the neighbor right there or and I know there's a bit of a wall a retaining wall and I'll B the neighbors right there yeah I mean there's a fence and there's uh there's there's a row of shrubs but we we are proposing to enclose the equipment um soy okay well no so underneath the deck um we we actually want to enclose the equipment with with like a horizontal lattice kind of like what you had before um hidden underneath the stairs correct yeah correct okay I don't have anything else thank youc thank you questions I don't have any other questions all questions no questions da nion questions if you left it on the East where it on the original s plan couldn't you have hide that I mean you can put you were describing how you would hide it on this side but couldn't you hide it over there um I mean these these things are not huge so you know shrubs or whatever I mean I don't see why it has to be visible from the street if you put it where it was proposed in a year ago it could easily be hidden I I suppose that accurate but now we're adding another structure we're adding the fencing in an area that's already relatively tight it's not um you know he had the equipment on the South Side before and he's just asking to put it back where it originally was yeah okay and next question where are you going to put the generator um if he does the generator it's going to be where his uh pool equipment is going to go and it it'll be conforming [Music] I don't understand why I would go where the pool equipment is but um because if if all the pool equipment is there instead of having one fenced in area in the front and one in the back and have them all over the place that pool equipment area is compliant so if if we put it there it's going to be inside of a enclosure inside of fence and other Shrubbery as well so it'll it it'll be pleasing when you come down the street that's still being worked on by his architect um so I don't want to speak too much to that but if he does a generator it'll be compliant with the code mhm we aren't proposing any any other non-conformities okay but there's a huge difference in noise between pool equipment and a generator uh generator a pretty low decel these days come and listen to mine no I I understand but I think they've come a long way I think they are pretty low decel now I mean we install them pretty often they are pretty low decible and if if you put the generator inside of that enclosure it's over 15 feet and it's actually if you look at the neighbor's house to the east his house is back where that engineer's stamp is on that plan so he's actually it it's actually a lot farther away from any houses in that location the front so Y no I just to clarify so you're you're talking about the AC condensers or heat they're heat pumps or that they aren't heat pumps they're they're they're actual AC AC condensers yeah but you know the noise level is much less than in a generator that's all I had thanks no questions no okay Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations Dave be seconds and vote Yes okay Dave yes J yes PA well yes and I vote Yes as well all right deliberations Paul well uh I can see as as he looks back on it why he would not want the exterior utilities located where they were proposed um I think in part because the pool is going to go into that location or close to that location but um the location underneath the stairs uh given that uh U it's going to be enclosed and given that it's not objected to by the neighbor from that location on that side of the house um and it replaces what was there before it seems to me it it probably complies with our our standards okay Dave Nixon well my problem is that in the future we may we have a generator maybe we have all the pool equipment and maybe all this all this stuff should go together not just what you were talking about the pool equipment and a generator maybe this stuff should go there too you know instead of having some here some there some there yeah anyway yeah can I just comment to that M chair go ahead so so we we have considered that uh the only downside to that is that have to run the refrigerant lines underground and that is not efficient um and it's it's a hard thing to do and if there's ever any issues with those lines you have to dig them all back up so we it's it's it's wise to keep that equipment as close to the house as possible Dave dve um yeah I don't I'm I'm in agreement with Paul I don't think uh I I think this for some of the reasons he just said this makes more sense uh and um you know if in the future they put a generator and they put it in a conforming location well more power to them um but I think I don't think that this uh proposal is any way more detrimental than what was initially proposed as far as the neighborhood goes so um I support it Ed if you were voting yeah if I was Voting um uh it's it's unfortunate that you didn't note the the existing location on the plan when you originally filed it because I don't know um whether that there would have been any objection or you know you could have made an argument but now after the fact um it's not meeting the setback requirement um so I I guess if I was Voting I would say you're you're sort of stuck where with where it is and Steve um well I think putting it under this under the stairs is probably a good use of space that would normally probably be wasted and the the fact that you're going to screen this and this is where the where that this equipment was previous before you started this project um uh um and we didn't get any negative letters from any of the neighbors or anything right so uh I know I realized it does have to be close to the house for reasons that you explained um I so I don't think I have a problem with this thank you and Jenny so this picture speaks a thousand words um this and Mr Acton's right that um we didn't have a chance to really deliberate before with the location Vis the setback and now you're asking for that relief but it was there before um and this picture does show that even though it wasn't the site plan we didn't deliberate um so that that's in your favor a very smart thing to do to take the photos as you are be preconstruction um I think the fact that it's an AC unit I and also when we went to the S plan we did not see the stairs it just looked like it didn't make sense there because it's so narrow it is right on the street you can see it it's actually closer to the street than the other one it's just because of the corner lot right ske it it it's actually farther away from the street it it okay it doesn't look that way from the site plan but um so anyway it just seemed as though uh at the time we were I was looking at it uh on site it looked as though it didn't make sense to try to move it over there but your uh comment about the refrigerated lines and it it really St uh as close to the house as possible and if you screen it there um I uh and and as Mr V pointed out they're not very loud the AC units um but I am curious about the generator location you're going to have a quandry when that comes up but I I think I could support the um because because it was there before yeah and no I I I I see that too because it was there before and now you're a little further from the neighbor even just a teeny bit so it's hard to say given that this is the application we have in front of us that it's substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood um although I I understand Mr Nixon's uh concerns about what could come down in the future um but I I I couldn't vote against it um should we uh do a straw vote or really not positive where we're at U we um I should just vote yeah okay um all right Paul well I'm trying to think where we're at have I moved to uh close no you might as well do that think so we'll do that well I think we could just vote actually why don't I move to close the hearing and move into deliberations we did do that we did that all right then let me then move to approve the application as submitted and Dave each seconds and how do you vote and I vote Yes and da well I don't like it but I can't vote no in this case it is is it substantially or dentl metal to the neighborhood no it is not and Jenny uh I vote uh to approve yes and Paul I vote Yes and to I it's unanimous congratulations thank you very much thank you very much you guys are fun to watch I have to tell you you guys are very organized well I guess we put on a good show anyway that's we enjoy it all right so that concludes the one more motion CBA we just need one more motion I'll move to a journ and Dave V second and how do you vote and votes yes da Nixon yes and Jenny Jenny votes yes all votes yes as do I so steveen Ed Sten Ed stepen Ed how do you vote you vote to Steve votes to uh adjourn all right we all vote toour then and uh that's that what time is it Sarah it is 5:19 p.m. all right all right good night [Music] [Music] shadam e