Heat up here. I'm Welcome everyone to the March 12th, 2026 meeting of the zoning board of appeals in Chattam, Massachusetts. Please note this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly hereafter for
scheduled and demand viewing on any smartphone or tablet device. If anyone is recording the meeting, including those um using AI note-taking apps, please notify the chair. Seeing none, pursuant to Governor Hilly's March 28th,
2025 signing the act of 2025 extending certain measures adopted during the state of emergency for COVID provisions on the open meeting under the provisions open meeting law uh until June 30th, 2027. and the meeting of the Chattam Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted in person and via remote
participation. Every effort will be made to ensure the public can access the proceedings provided for on the order. A reminder, persons who'd like to listen to the meeting while in progress may do so by calling 508-945-4410 conference ID 56828244
pound or join the meeting via the link uh on the posted agenda. This is a live broadcast and simoc cast on Chattam TV, but despite our best efforts, we may not be able to provide a real real time access, but the meeting will be posted uh as soon as possible on the town's
website. In accordance with town policy, the public can speak to any issue um or business item on the agenda during the meeting when recognized by the chair. Before I go through the procedural steps, I just ask everybody to shut off any gadget that makes any type of noise,
if you would. Um the first thing we do is we do a roll call of our board members to um verify that they're uh on board with this type of meeting. We ask uh anybody on the phone to just make sure that they will be uh able to be identified. The hearing notice is read
by staff clock on my right and the representative for any appeal or application uh will uh present. After that, anyone we'll see if there's anyone in favor, read any correspondences, and then we will see if anyone is opposed or
has a question. Next, we take questions from the board and then uh we will close the public hearing, move into deliberations, and at that point in time, all votes will be taken by roll call and at the end of the meeting, we close via a
verbal confirmation and note the time of adjournment. So now is the time that we do roll call vote of all board members starting on that end. >> Lee Hubby, I approve this format. >> Steven Dbor, I approve. >> Virginia Fenwick, I approve.
>> Paul C. Zmple, I approve this format. Uh Ed Actton, I approve. >> David H, I approve. >> And Randy Pod, I approve as well. David Nixon, our chair, is not here today. Um, and so I am filling in as vice chair. Um, let's see. What do we do next?
>> Minutes. minutes. >> Paul, >> uh, we have minutes from two meetings, February 5 and February 12. I'll start with February 5. I'll move to approve the minutes as published. >> Uh, Dave seconds. >> And does anyone have any changes? No. Very good.
>> Votes yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> Genie votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> As do I. >> And we have the minutes of February 12, 2026. I'll move to approve those minutes as published. Uh Dave seconds and votes yes.
>> Paul votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. I vote yes. >> As do I. Uh that's unanimous. Um voting today um is Lee Lee Huby, Virginia Fenwick, Paul Simple, and uh
David Vich and myself. All right. Application number 26-004. Adam and Amy Fairh Hall, care of William G. Lichfield, Esquire, 330 Orleans Road, North Chattam, Mass 02650.
Owners of property located at 1691 Old Queen and Road, also shown on the Town of Cadam's assessor's map 3II, Block 20, Law R8. The applicant proposes to change, alter, or expand non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the construction of additions. The existing
dwelling is non-conforming and that is located 15.6 6 feet from the southeasterly of butter and 21 ft from the northwesterly butter. The proposed additions will be non-conforming and that they will be located 19 ft from the southeasterly butter where a 25 ft setback is required. The existing
building coverage is 2,137 square ft and the proposed proposed building coverage is 253 ft where 2850 ft is the maximum allowed. the law is non-conforming and that it contains 21,736
square feet where 60,000 square feet is required in the R60 zoning district. A special permit is required under master law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw. Welcome attorney Lichfield. >> Thank you very much. Good afternoon members of the board. Bill Lichfield
here on behalf of Adam and Amy Fairhall. Adam is actually working out of state today but Amy is here with us uh virtually. Uh, first I want to apologize again to the board for the error in regard to the staking and and I uh
appreciate you going forward in this regard. It it doesn't often happen but there were a remarkable number of circumstances that conspired against me. But uh I think from having been out there, you understand what is involved a very simple uh expansion or conversion
of the existing carport in part to a larger living area inside and also to have as shown there a proposed garage uh coming a little bit further to the northeast. I guess it would be. It's a fairly simple request and it also
involves expanding the porch so that it runs the entire uh or connects the front of the house to the new garage. Uh it may not be the only house in the town of Chadam with a carport, but it's one of very few and uh with your assistance it
will be one there will be one less carport in the town of Chadam. So uh what is proposed is fairly straightforward. Again, Sarah, if you could bring up maybe one of the elevations. So, the board Yeah, that the proposed north elevation will look like that. Obviously, that's a
two-dimensional screen. The garage will come out a little bit further, but in this location, uh I don't think anyone is going to see it anyway. So, I'll go into the criteria as to adequacy of sight, including building coverage and setbacks. Almost all the nearby lots are
non-conforming. At 2137 square feet, our 8.9% coverage is at the lower end of the neighboring properties. Our gross floor area and living area is at the middle of the neighboring of the surrounding properties. And notwithstanding the lot size and
sideline nonconformities, however, it's adequate for residential use. And I think you can approve the special permit based on a finding the site is adequate for the expansion of the porch and resulting internal expansion of the kitchen and construction of a real
garage to replace the carport. Uh the coverage will remain well below limit as Sarah indicated in the hearing notice and we are marginally further from the sideline than is the existing structure. As compatibility of size on the third page uh there was of the handout there
was a chart of the adjacent properties at least those in the town of Chadam. Uh Sarah appropriately asked me to get assessors uh records or addresses for the butters who were in Harwitch but I didn't do a comparison for those properties. Uh we have a relatively
large lot and a small house living area of just 1,700 square ft. The resulting living area of 1985 square feet will still be a modest home and the coverage is obviously below the maximum. It remains consistent or it will remain with your approval consistent with the
neighborhood gross floor area and living area increase obviously but they are still significantly lower than several and remain compatible as to the extent of increase in nonconformities. As Sarah indicated in the hearing notice, we have two existing nonconformities, lot size
and sideline. Uh while within the setback, the garage will be at 19 ft from the sideline. Uh which is 4T further away from from the sideline than the existing house. And as you know from having been out there, nothing is going to be built on that side because it
drops down. So no neighbors are negatively impacted. So there's no increase in nonconformity and practically no real change in that regard as the suitability of site. Uh the site is suitable certainly for the existing house. There are no environmental issues. While we do the
lot actually has a little piece of of the other mill pond that we touch upon. All of the work is outside of conservation's jurisdiction and it's without impact on the natural environment. It's a scale sighting mass views and vistas. What is there now is a
one-story Cape Ranch without impact on views and vistas. The sighting of course is unchanged and it will remain far from massive. The front of the house will be somewhat more balanced by the expanded porch even if not visible from any streets and totally without impact on
streetscape. There are no views or visitors involved. Compatibility remains residential. Adam and Amy have lived here since 2010. manage their their full-time uh property uh home and they'd like to have it a little bit more useful. Um the there is
no change in that regard as to adequacy of water and sewer. We have town water title five for three bedrooms. The chair will read a comment from the health agent who has no concern. There are no traffic flow and safety, noise or
utility issues. What is at issue as you know is whether the proposed addition of 260 square ft of living area uh for an updated kitchen and construction of construction of a garage is substantially more detrimental to the
neighborhood than the current non-conforming structure on a non-conforming lot. The project provides some additional uh small but important space for the kitchen. And certainly the recent weather reminded us all that garages are useful to have far more so
than carports. Uh it's a simple and appropriate design which is proposed. So in light of the criteria in the plans and particularly in this notably private location, I think that you can find that the proposed changes are not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. I'd be happy to answer any
questions. >> Thank you, council. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application? If so, please indicate. Seeing none, I will read the one correspondence from our health agent uh
received on March 10th, 2026. I have no concerns regarding this proposal for addition. The property is connected to the municipal sewer. Thank you, Judy. Now, is there anybody here that would like to speak against the
application or has a specific question? Seeing none questions from the board, uh, we'll just go around this way. And if you don't have any, >> I have none. >> Ed, >> uh, no questions. >> No questions. >> No questions.
>> I have no questions. >> No questions. >> Okay. Um, so Paul, >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. Dave each seconds and votes yes. >> All votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> As do I. So, uh, deliberations. Jenny.
>> Very nice project. U, Mr. Lichfield summarized it very well. Meets all of our criteria. Um, and I would support it. >> I agree. I think it's um a great project. I think that um converting the
carport into a kitchen and adding a real garage is excellent idea. >> Yeah. And Steve, you >> Yeah, I think it's a good idea. It better utilizes the uh the space that's available and it's that's good idea. >> Yeah, >> Mr. V.
>> I I agree. I've always thought the carports were not a good match for Cape Cod, so I think it makes a lot more sense. And yeah, >> it's certainly not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. >> And Ed, >> uh, yeah, I agree with all my colleagues.
>> I also agree with my colleagues. >> As do I. Uh, the carport may was, uh, held up during the storm, I take it. Yeah. Very good. And, uh, Paul, >> um, I'm going to move to approve the application as submitted. I think the only condition we might need would be
that all construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or in a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner. >> David uh David seconds and votes yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> As do I. It's unanimous.
Congratulations. >> Thank you very much. And whenever Sarah's ready, we're going to go to 722 Crawl Road. Okay. Application number 26-005 Jeffrey C. Raffuse Car of William G.
Litzfield, Esquire, 330 Orleans Road, North Chatam, Mass 02650. Owner of property located at 722 Croll Road. also showed on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 12I block 19 lot G4. The applicant proposes to change alter or expand a non-conforming
dwelling in a non on a non-conforming lot via the construction of an addition. The existing dwelling is non-conforming and that it is located 15.6 ft from the norly butter and 16.7 ft from the southerntherly butter. The proposed addition will be non-conforming in that
it will be located 15.3 ft from the northerly leutter where a 25 ft setback is required. The existing building coverage is 259 square f feet and the proposed building coverage is 2292 ft where 2850 ft is the maximum allowed.
The law is non-conforming and that it contains 21,682 ft where 40,000 ft is required in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protected bylaw. >> Attorney Lichfield, welcome back.
>> Thank you very much. Uh, Bill Lichfield here in behalf of Jeff Rafus. Given the uh very large audience, uh, you may have difficulty picking my client out, but uh, there he is. Uh, Jeff uh, Jeff's
family's owned this property since 2008, give or take. and Jeff uh would like to make some changes to the property which consists of basically replacing the northeast corner of the deck uh with uh
a structure which will be part of an thank you as Sarah just put the cursor uh converting that deck to uh living area which will allow for internal reconfiguration and a much larger and more useful kitchen with an island and
so forth, making the house uh more user friendly. So maybe you can get home before 5:00 if I go briefly. So I will go straight into the criteria. >> How about if you uh touch on the relevant criteria? >> Certainly work. >> Uh as to adequacy of site. Uh like all
of this neighborhood, it was developed under prior zoning. Every lot in the neighborhood is nonconforming. The site is adequate for a 230 square foot expansion which again is largely above the existing deck. As to compatibility of size, the numbers are on the third
page of the handout. The resulting footprint of less than 2300 square ft is well below the 2850 which is allowed. There is no increase in nonconformity. There's a slight improvement because we're about 3 in further away from that
lot line. no impact on natural environment as to scale citing mass views and vistas. It's a modest change at the rear without any effect on streetscape scale mass or neighborhood views. Um as to town water and sewer, we
have both. The health agent has no concerns. So I will skip over the other criteria and as you know the question is whether the proposed change at the rear of the lot behind the existing house and place of the deck is substantially more
detrimental to the neighborhood. I think the modest change 230 square ft. I know it will allow for improvements in the inside of the house and a larger kitchen will not have a detrimental effect in the neighborhood. coverage will be at less than 80% of what's allowed and
there's a marginal improvement uh in the sideline uh setback that we have now. So the house will remain appropriate for the uh for the neighborhood and I think you can find it to be a reasonable request and one that I hope you will find not to be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood.
>> Thank you. And and just for the record, uh attorney Lichfield has provided us with a comprehensive chart uh addressing all of the criteria and that could be found in the file. And at this point, is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams
that wishes to speak in favor of this application? Seeing none, I will read the one correspondence from a health agent received on March 10th, 2026. I have no concerns regarding the proposal for an addition to this property. Thanks, Judy.
Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wish to speak against the application or has a specific question? Seeing none, are there any questions from the board? I can do it that way. Um, and if there Yeah, Lee, you have a question.
>> I kind of do. Um, good. I just have a question as to how the proposed gross floor area seems to be increasing more than just the addition. And I know that there's a crawl space underneath, but that's not usually counted in the
>> It shouldn't have increased the GFA. By the numbers that I've got, it's the same 200 square ft. >> Okay. >> 230 square feet on the third page. Uh, GF GFA is going from 3863 to 4095.
>> Okay, there's must be a typo. Typo says 5095. >> You're correct. >> Okay, that makes sense. >> That makes sense. Thank you. >> Yeah, nothing gets past the CBA. >> We understand that,
>> Steve. Questions? >> Uh, that was my question. >> No questions. >> Uh, no questions. Nor do I have >> and nor do I. Well, >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> Dave each seconds and votes yes. >> I'll vote yes.
>> Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> As do I. Okay. Uh deliberations. Um Paul, >> it looks to me it'll be a fine project. I don't see a problem with it. It's certainly not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. >> And Mr. V,
>> I agree completely. >> And Ed, >> uh as do I. Okay. Jay, >> I agree with my colleagues. >> I think it's a nice project. It It's modest. It It proves the uh the living conditions for the applicant and it adds some privacy for him and his neighbor.
So, I think it's good. >> And we >> totally agree. >> All right. Very good. As do I. So, Paul, >> um I'll move to approve the application. Let me ask you your thoughts on conditions for Bill. >> Thank you. The summertime construction is something that I've spoken with Jeff
about. his builder is coming down later this month again to look at the property. I've explained that given the way things work, we can't start until essentially a month from now. So that's April 10th, give or take. Um it's
possible we can get the exterior work constructed or completed by June 30th. I can't guarantee it. We hope to, but if the builder indicates to Jeff that it won't be possible to to uh close it in by then, we won't start until September.
Frankly, we we'd like to get it done before the summer, but I just can't guarantee it. If if given the location where it is, if the board did not impose the seasonal limitation, but did include
the hourly limitations, that would make everybody's life easier. All right. I'll move to approve the application as submitted with a condition that all construction activity in vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner. Uh
that uh no work shall be permitted on weekends and construction activity would be between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. only. >> And that's during the summer months, right? Did you say >> that's during the summer months? between
June 30th and Labor Day. >> So, uh, Dave seconds and votes yes. >> Paul vote yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> As do I. >> Thank you very much. That's unanimous. >> All right. Second second to the last. Uh we have
12:00 Clark Meta's Way which is um something that we've heard and so we're today we're going to hear what's new. Sarah >> application number 26-003 Jeene and Anna Patel Carob Laya Warner PO Box 1249 Sandwich Mass 02563
owners of property located at 12 Clark Meadows Way also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 5B block 19C lot 13C the applicant proposes to change alter or expand a non-conforming dwelling in a non-conforming lot be the construction of additions decks and the
installation of exterior mechanical system appliances is the existing dwelling is non-conforming and it is located 28 ft from the coastal conservancy district. The proposed addition SL decks will be non-conforming and that they will be located 24 ft from the coastal conservancy district where a
50ft setback is required. The proposed exterior mechanical system appliances will be non-conforming and that they will be located 40t from the coastal conservancy district where a 50ft setback is required. The existing building coverage is 1,697 square ft 11% and the proposed building
coverage is 230 ft 14% where 15% is the maximum allowed. The law is non-conforming and that it contains 15,22 ft of buildable upland where 20,000 ft is required in the R20 zoning district. A special permit is required under
master law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw. This was continued from February 12th, 2026. >> Welcome, Miss Warner. >> Thank you. Um, yeah, so uh I am representing homeowners J and Anna Patel
for 12 Clark Meadows Way. Um, like Sarah said, continuing from our February 12th meeting. Um, at our last meeting, you were hoping to have conservation's comments. I uh due to circumstances with the snow and everything, we were not
able to get to the March 11th meeting. So, we were on the 25th, but now it got that meeting got bumped to the 1st >> because they didn't have a quorum, I think. >> Yes. Okay. >> Yeah. So, um we don't have conservation comments for you, but um but we do have some changes based on the uh our
discussion last time that I'd like to show you. So, um, the point of discussion last time was the stair. The stair at the rear of the house was not well received. Um, we had a L-shaped stair. Um, and we changed it
to a spiral stair. We were able to condense it more, have it protrude less. Um, uh, and, um, hopefully it's a little more amendable to you. I I took a couple views. Sarah, if you go to the next
page, too. Um, and this is from their neighbor's house. I just wanted you to see clearly what exactly where you'd see when you're standing on neighborhood neighboring properties. Um, so this is what the neighbor 382 Coal Cove Road would see.
This is kind of when you're entering their driveway. And then this is when you're at the intersection. I didn't draw the trees, but you can grasp that there'd be a tree here. uh at the intersection of Coco Cove and uh Clark Meadows. So you can understand how you
see the stair at those locations. Um and then uh the other the other point was the the Koopa was uh was brought up. We're willing to talk about we're hoping to keep it, but we're willing to remove
the light if it if it comes to that. >> Okay. >> So >> fair enough. Thank you very much. Um, is there anybody here in Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application? If so, please raise your hand.
I don't see anybody. Um, we have uh a note from conservation. Excuse me. And I'm going to read the last sentence first so everybody knows where where we're going to end up with this. Any revisions should not affect any decision of the zoning board of
appeals. So, they're saying that they were supposed to meet um and they are now going to meet on March 20, no, April 1st. Um they were supposed to meet on March 25th. Uh but there was due to a lack of a quorum. We didn't get to March
25th yet. Maybe that's a typeation. >> Yeah. Okay. But let's see. All right. So, in any event, they don't think that any changes that they're going to require would affect us. So, good to know. Um,
okay. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak against or has a question? >> No. All right. Questions from the board? Uh, Mr. Vch? >> Um, no. I don't have I have no questions.
>> No. Okay. Ed, do you have any questions? >> Um, I just one question is on the staircase. >> I don't believe it's a a requirement that you need it for egress. >> Well, they kind of have it. >> Nope. >> It's just What's the reasoning behind it?
>> Um, just convenience. They have kids and just don't want them trekking through the house when they're going to the beach or wherever else to be able to just come up that stair. >> Sort of like a squire door almost. I guess >> what >> a squire door.
>> I I don't know what that is. I'm sorry. >> Uh so when the kids get older, they can go to the squire >> in and out and >> Yes. >> No one knows. >> Yeah. >> I guess it's a chat joke. Yeah. Thank you.
>> Questions. >> A squire door. >> An interesting concept. Um, no. I think you you've done a good job of trying to adjust the uh staircase. I have no other questions. >> Yeah, I used to use the window, so first
I heard of it. Jenny, >> uh, I don't have any questions. Um I have a couple of qu and these they're probably more um conservation questions so you might hear them again but is what is the disturbance that's going to be in the conser in that inner
buffer zone for I guess in the hot tub area is that going to be on po is the deck going to be on posts >> it's going to be on diamond pierce so >> so there's just a few holes that you're going to have for the posts and then is there any sort of foundation or anything under the hot tub to No, it's going to
be a 12 inch deep uh 3/4 gravel. >> Oh, so it's not >> it's pvious. >> Okay. So, they might ask you questions like that, too. So, >> thank you. >> And Lee, >> no questions. >> No questions. Uh nor do I. Um so, >> I'll move to close the hearing and move
into deliberations. >> Um Dave seconds and votes yes. >> All votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. I vote yes. >> As do I. All right. Deliberations. Steve. Um, I think it's a good project. Um, it looks like that, you know, they're
they're concentrating on being able to have a view of the of the sound from from that hot tub area. So, I I think it's a nice project. >> Lee, >> I agree. I I I'm happier with the stairs um as a spiral. Um, I think it's it's
definitely um less visual um you know, impact. Um, and yeah, I think this is a nice project. I I mean, as far as the Koopa
goes, I'm not sold on it. I I don't I think it looks more capy without it, but that's just my opinion. >> Oh, that's that's important. Steve, what did you think about the Koopa? >> Um, I have no indifference to Koopas, so I I would I don't I don't mind having one.
>> Okay. and Jenny >> Koopa or or just deliberations. Okay. The whole thing. Um yeah, I had an opportunity after the last hearing to talk with the builder a little bit about why the staircase needed to be on that
side. And he did explain that there the the configuration in the house uh would have not would have been very challenging to have changed that to to accommodate uh you know the flow. And as you pointed out, Laya, the flow of the
family. So, I I can appreciate that. And I do appreciate the reduction in the mass. I frankly not a huge fan of a spiral staircase, but it it definitely um reduces the mass. And I and that was one of the concerns that I had last time
about the bulkiness of the stairs. So, um, and, um, I think you did a very nice job at the last hearing walking us through all of the changes and the what was really effective and is this time as well is the pictures, the way you lined
up the actual photograph from all angles and then how the uh, projected image was going to look. So, I think that was very helpful in getting us to see exactly how this was going to look um, and that it wouldn't be too big. and the neighbors vantage points. I think that's helpful.
Regarding the Koopa, um yeah, I I don't love it on that style house, but um it's not my house and I don't have a problem with the Koopa >> and Mr. V.
>> Um yeah, I think it's a good I think the spiral stair is a good solution to the apparent bulk of the stairs as they were first presented. Um, and I uh and I can think of another solution where someone had something
similar to that in the old um um sailoff building down on on uh um >> Stage Harbor. Um and as far as the uh Koopa goes, um I don't I'm I'm not as
strongly uh I don't have a strong position on Koopas as some member. This is a >> you picked the right day. >> Uh and and and but I do I do um appreciate the offer of taking the lighting out because I think the
lighting is a is a part that I definitely I personally have a bit of a problem with. I have a neighbor who has a light on all all night every night. And uh uh
that's that's actually how I knew the uh the um um blackout extended beyond our property because I can see there was no no light on the neighbors. But anyway, uh I I think I I much prefer these Koopas not to be calling attention to
themselves by having lighting them in them. So that >> and Ed >> um and no problem with the Koopa. um not a fan of the spiral staircase, but uh certainly it isn't um substantially
detrimental to the neighborhood. So um and I can understand having additional access for teenagers or uh 20-year-olds at some point. Um so I uh I'm not voting, but uh I don't I
don't have any issues with the Koopla or the or the project itself. make it look nice. >> And Paul, >> yes, I agree with my colleagues comments about the spiral staircase. It's not my favorite, but uh uh it does solve a
problem for them, and I can understand that they would need that access given the builder's comments. Um, in terms of the Koopa, I agree with Dave that it should not be illuminated, but um, I don't have a problem with Koopas in
general if in fact uh, the family would like one. So, um, given those conditions, uh, I can certainly find that it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. >> Yeah. And, um, I I think this is an important spot. you know, it's very busy beach and uh it's a beautiful beautiful
area and you can see the house, you know, from the road and all. And um given that um in my opinion by what I've heard that Koopal is a really not capy, I'm a capy kind of person. My favorite
house is just a plain cape with a with a chimney right in the middle and then maybe two windows on each side. I really like that look. That's cape. This is the cape. That's a very important spot. So, I would prefer not to have the Koopa. I don't know if anybody else was going to
vote no. Uh, yes, sir. >> Can I I'd just add to my comment, Randy, on that because I just realized this. Um, one of the one of the buildings that I own in Chadam is a 19th century, mid-9th century Greek revival. >> Uh, and it originally had a Koopla on
it. Uh, and I I actually considered restoring it when I did the renovation of the building and I ran out of time and energy. Um, but I can also look across the street from that building and and see on the Squire building there's a
Koopa and then there was at one point the that building that I own the uh opposite side of the street again this is not Cape style but all these were all sort of Greek revival base. The opposite street is now was formerly
called the swing basket property. Those two buildings were uh sister buildings built in the same family mirror images one of the other and that had a koopa in one point too. So there there is a somewhat of a tradition uh on
the cape of of having koopas on buildings. >> Yeah, somewhat. But yeah, somewhat. But a lot of things, you know, aren't right, but they're there. So I'm going to stick to my guns, but I'm only one vote out of five. So, um I
don't know if anyone else is going to jump on the bandwagon, but that's how I think how I feel only because like I said, that's a really important spot. It's one of, you know, one of the most important spots when it comes to our beaches, >> but um but you might get your Koopa. We
didn't vote yet, >> you know? >> Right. Would you're saying you would vote no? >> I would. >> Yes. even because I think that when when you were talking about a spot like that, if there's something that in my discretion um is substantially
detrimental, I mean a Koopa like you just see that, you know, this that's what makes it that's what why I could add the word substantial. it would be detrimental um if it wasn't a Koopa or it could be something else, you know, but I think that when you have that thing right
front and center in a in an important beach spot that I could find that it's substantially detrimental. But again, unless there's one other person that agrees with me, and it's probably not. >> I'll make a suggestion that we we take in effect three votes. One one would be
on the condition that there be a Koopa or no Koopa. Secondly, that if there is a Koopa that it be lit or not lit and then thirdly uh that we vote for the overall conditions on the uh approval.
>> So vote as as as presented. Want to do that one first? >> That's correct. >> Okay. Let's Yeah, fair enough. >> Yeah, I I think I understand. >> Let's ask Sarah. So the board wants to take straw polls on all of these not the
formal then you'll know. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right. So the first draw vote is well >> the first draw vote would be with respect to the question of whether a koopa should be a part of the project >> at all. >> At all.
>> Okay. Uh Mr. Vich >> uh I would support that. >> And Paul >> I would support the Koopa. >> Jenny I don't like the Koopa either. >> Okay. >> I don't like the Koopa either.
>> Oh, look at that. I I I you know, I didn't foresee that. However, uh there's that's that with the Koopa. So, now we could just vote on the project. >> Yes. I'll move to approve the application as submitted. I think given the location that we should have the
standard conditions that all construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner between June 30th and Labor Day. No exterior construction will be allowed. No work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction
activity between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. only. >> David seconds and votes uh yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. I vote yes. >> As do I. It's unanimous. Congratulations. You've got your approval.
>> We without the Koopa. >> Without the Koopa. Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I think you did a great job for your client. >> Are we supposed to say that? >> Okay. Whenever Sarah is ready, we have our final project. 42 Old Harbor Lane.
Application number 26-00006 Harris Family Realy Trust Care of William G. Lichfield, Esquire, 330 Orleans Road, North Chattam, Mass 02650. Owners of property located at 42 Old Harbor Lane also showed on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 16I, Block 20,
lot MD2. The applicant proposes to change, alter, or expand a non-conforming accessory structure cottage on a non-conforming lot via the demolition of the existing cottage in the construction of a guest house. The existing cottage is non-conforming and that it is located 16.2 ft from the
Westerly Butter. The proposed guest house will be non-conforming and that it will be located 16.3 ft from the Westerly Butter where a 25 ft setback is required. The existing building coverage is 2,781 ft 4.3% and the proposed building
coverage is 3,320 ft 5.1% where 10% is the maximum allowed. The lot is non-conforming and that it has 3.56 ft of frontage where 150 ft is required. The lot contains 65,200
square ft of buildable upland in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General law chapter 48 section six and section 5B of the protective bylaw. >> Attorney Lichfield. >> Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Bill Lichfield here in behalf of Harris Family Realy Trust which in terms of
real people is Peter and Jackie Harris and I think Peter maybe we be with us uh remotely this is a Koopilafree project. Uh I want to clarify that uh the Harrises have owned this property for
more than a quarter of a century and uh they would like to make some changes uh not to the house itself which is a lovely old colonial. Um but I actually I should also first point out that when you went out there looking at the site plan, you drove into the driveway and
you saw a building on your left that threecar garage that's not ours. Uh so that's the the line the lot line runs diagonally across that site plane as you saw. It's sort of an unusual circumstance but uh it's it's owned by
in the butter at 45 old harbor lane. The issue, as you know from having been out there, is the small cottage behind the house. And we propose to replace that and also eliminate a shed which is next door to it and replace uh the two of
them with a somewhat larger and much more useful uh cottage, studio, guest house, whatever you want to call it, uh for the family. Uh in talking with Peter, he explained that while the house
itself is large, uh he and Jackie have three children, four grandchildren, one more on the way. And uh they all think it would be a fine idea to have the next generation out in the separate house in the rear. Uh and also Peter is thinking
about uh retiring. not uh and nothing imminent. But as you know from the the floor plan, there's also a uh sort of a home office out there which is not a bedroom. It's got a 6ft cased opening. So it's a multi-generation multi-purpose
project and I'll go into what is proposed in terms of the criteria. Uh that's the structure there. It's quite small. Um and uh as to adequacy of the site, including a building covered in setbacks, notwithstanding our sideline
and frontage nonconformities, we have a 2 and 1/2 acre lot, one of the largest around, certainly adequate for house. Built 250 years ago in a studio of unknown age, but with 65,000 square ft of buildable upland, the site is
adequate for reconstruction of the studio, enabling continued family use. Uh coverage will be far below that uh the maximum under our bylaw. The sideline encroachment is marginally
lessened. Not much obviously, but that sideline is far from that of Butter's Home and coverage is not at issue as the compatibility of size on the third page of the handout. And as you know from having been out there, we have a very large lot, 91,000 square feet on an area
of larger lots. We have the lowest at 3.1% um coverage of the total lot and lower gross lower area and living area than on some smaller lots. And parenthetically uh four neighboring properties have
similar cottages guest houses whatever you want to call them. So if you approve the special permit and I trust that you will the uh size will remain compatible. Coverage increases to just 3.7% of the entire lot 5.1% of the build of L upland
where 10% is allowed. It will be consistent with the neighboring properties and the surroundings generally. And again, it's set back some 175 ft from the Westerly Abutter's home. The Westerly of Butter being the one on whose side sideline we are to which we
are too close. As to the extent of increasing and nonconformity, there is none uh no increase, very small decrease, but no increase. as the suitability of site. The site has been suitable for residential purposes for
240 years, give or take, and will remain suitable if you approve the special permit. The cottage is located the very very edge of the conservation commission's jurisdiction. There's a small triangle uh of the proposed cottage uh and we have filed with them.
They preliminarily heard the matter yesterday. They have no objection. And while I haven't seen it, I suspect the chair will read a letter to that effect. Some mitigation will be required anyway and some other mitigation will will be in proposed for unrelated matters, but
the project has no negative impact on the natural environment as the scale sighting views views scale sighting mass views vistas. Obviously, it's an historic home in a neighborhood characterized by houses like it and again several of them have similar
accessory uh structures. It is however actually a comparatively modest house compared to some uh but there's no impact on streetscape given the location what is proposed as a one c one story cottage of modest and appropriate scale in a very private location screened by
vegetation both the north and the uh west but it's nonetheless appropriate for the site there's no mass to speak of for the replacement cottage and there's no impact in neighborhood views and vistas and Peter and Jackie have spoken with their neighbors who who have no objections
as to compatibility of use. It will remain uh residential use. There are no issues as to uh town water and sewer. We actually have a very large number of bedrooms but we're not increasing the number of bedrooms. So the issue as you
know is whether reconstruction reconstruction of the existing cottage removing the shed replacing it with a slightly larger structure but without any increase in nonconformity is substantially more detrimental. The neighborhood the main house is
unchanged. Uh the enlarged cottage will remain compatible with the neighborhood. The combined gross floor and living area of the house and the guest house are in keeping with the abunding properties and still less than some. It's a reasonable change in either comparative or absolute
terms. It is plainly without impact on streetscape and on a very large lot. Uh again, accessory living quarters are consistent with the surroundings. So in light of the criteria and the plans, particularly in this location, I think that you can find the proposed cottage
is not substantially more or really at all detrimental the neighborhood. Be pleased to try to answer any questions you might have. >> Thank you very much. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application? There's no one here.
Um, and I don't see anybody on Microsoft Teams. So, um, I will read the two correspondences. One we received today from conservation March 12th, 2026. Um, the applicant submitted a notice of intent on February 12th. The project was
heard on March 11th. The project was continued to April 1st for revisions in order to be conditioned to meet the the applicable law. Next, we have a note from uh Judith Giorgio. The property is approved for total of six bedrooms which
conforms with the current proposal. A septic permit will be required for a new tank and tanks for the new guest cottage. A two compartment tank may be required at that time. more information
will be needed and that was received um >> March 10th >> March 10th and uh from Judith Giorgio our agent um I'll let you respond to that in a moment if you would um if there's anything you want to add. >> Yeah, just very briefly the the engineer
is very much aware of that and as you know we need approvals from everybody. >> Sure. >> So we'll be dealing with the board of health in due course. >> Yes, of course. Um, is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams, uh, which I the answer to that is no and no, that wishes to speak against this project or has a
question. I think that's no and no again. Um, so um, questions from the board. Are there any? Anybody at all? No. Everybody shaking their head no. Just for the record. No
questions. So Paul, >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. David seconds and votes yes. >> All votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> As do I. That's unanimous. And uh so Ed, your thoughts?
>> Um it's a beautiful property. Um rather private except for the threecar garage there. I think um no one's really going to even see this uh the the guest house and um I think it's going to fit in nicely with the existing house. So I I
would have no issues with the project and certainly not substantially detrimental to the neighborhood. >> And Mr. V, >> I agree with Ed completely. >> Very good. And Paul, >> I also agree with Ed. The uh I was out there today that Old Cranberry Bog is a
noisy uh location. There's a lot of activity, wildlife activity in there. >> Uh but certainly not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. >> Jay, >> yeah, I agree. I just want to make a couple comments. I think that um looking
at the bird's eye view of the of the proposed and I like I think it's very well and thoughtfully cited behind the house cleans up what's what's there currently with kind of the shed and the so the shed's going away and the house
is really taking that space. Um so I I think it's very thoughtful and um will actually look better. I also think that um what I noticed too in the plans is details like those um brackets wrapped
in the white cedar that's being proposed on the guest house and it connects to a really attractive detail on the current home. So I I think overall the project is um not just not substantially more detrimental but um an enhancement very
attractive and um I fully support it. Thank you, >> Steve. >> Um, I agree with with all the previous comments. I think it's a a very it's a very nice uh improvement to something that's already a great piece of property. So, uh, I wish them luck.
>> And Lee, >> I agree with my colleagues. I think it's a great improvement and, um, I'm sure it will be well used. >> So, I'm I'm going to vote yes. And you really had me sold on that. You're getting onetenth of an inch further away. So that that's the selling point.
I have a a quick question about the bedroom definition these days. Can you elaborate? Can you illuminate that at all? >> Yeah, the the there's all I can in well specific to this and in a general sense the assessors say that there are 10
bedrooms in the house. Um, older houses often have small rooms and some of them may meet the definition of the bedroom. >> That's that's actually what I'm asking you. What is the definition still now? Um, it's not a bedroom if it has a
six-foot case opening. Is that is that the status? >> Yeah, that yes, that's what I'm wondering. Yes, for new con uh five feet for existing structures and six feet for new construction as I recall. >> Okay. because I thought they were trying
to um um modify that at all. >> Uh it it there seems to be and I don't mean this unkindly, there seems to be sort of a continued review >> Yeah. >> by the board of health as to the language. The definition has been modified
>> several times over recent years. Historically, it was 70 square feet >> or more with sufficient privacy for sleeping. That was the the basic rule. But we've gotten into lots of things in terms of eaves and how much of a of a cased opening and so forth. But
>> yeah, >> this has a six foot cased opening. So, not a bedroom. >> Not a bedroom. No. And I knew that that it wasn't, but I just I'm still curious as to how that really works. But um Okay. So, Paul, >> um I would anticipate the standard conditions in this situation. Uh Bill,
unless you think there's some reason issue with that. Uh to be perfectly honest, they have not spoken uh excuse me with Mr. Harris about the timing, but I understand why in a location like this the board might impose a summertime
restriction. It seems as if that's logical. I'll move to approve the application as submitted with a condition that all construction activity and uh vehicles be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner. that between June 30th and Labor Day, no
exterior construction will be allowed, no work shall be permitted on the weekends, and construction activity between 8 am and 5 pm only. >> Dave seconds and votes yes. >> All votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. I vote yes. >> As do I. It's unanimous. Congratulations.
>> Thank you very much. It's before 5:00. And I also appreciate the good job you all did at the last property in regard to avoiding the uh goose results which were everywhere in the front lawn if you walked around that way. >> Thank you.
>> Oh, thank you. Um Sarah, um a motion to adjurnn. >> We'll do the motion to adjurnn. >> I'll move to adjourn. >> Dave seconds and vote yes. >> And everybody vote >> Paul votes yes. >> Ed votes yes. >> Vote. >> Jenny votes yes. >> Steve votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> As do I. It's unanimous. And the time
>> 4:55 p.m. >> Okay. Good evening, Chadam.