Heat up here. Good job. Good afternoon everybody. Please shut off all devices or any gadgets that make any noise. Um, welcome. This is the
April 9th, 2026 meeting of the zoning board of appeals here in Chattam, Massachusetts. Please note this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly hereafter for scheduled on and on demand viewing on any smartphone or tablet device. If anyone is recording
the meeting, including th those using AI note takingaking apps, please notify the chair. Are there any? None. Okay. Pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28th, 2025 signing of chapter 2 of the acts of 2025 extending certain COVID 19
measures um adopted during the state of emergency the for the open meeting law um until June 30, 2027. This meeting of the Cadam Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted in person and via remote participation. Every effort will be made
to ensure that the public can access the proceedings provided for in the order. A reminder, those who'd like to listen to this meeting in progress, call 508-945410 conference ID 392 623
716 pound or join the meeting online via the Microsoft Teams link in 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 real time access, but the
meeting will be posted as soon as possible. In accordance with town policy, the public can speak to any issue, hearing, or business item on the agenda during the meeting when recognized by the chair. The way we run our meetings is that we do a roll call v
vote of all board members. We ask that if you are participating by the phone, just make sure that we can identify you. The hearing notice is read by staff Sarah Clark on my right. You or your representative um will present your appeal or application.
Anyone in favor will have up to five minutes to speak. Then I will read any of our correspondences. Anyone wants to ask a question or wants to speak against the application will also have up to five minutes. The applicant can rebut
any testimony that they heard and then our members will have questions. The board will hear further information, close the public hearing, deliberate and vote on the appeal or application. All votes are taken by roll call and at the
end of the meeting we close with um verbal confirmation of the time and note of adjournment. So with that um we will start with our roll call vote. We have one uh associate member online today and
uh we have a couple that are absent. So we're going to start with our roll call vote. Mr. Nixon. >> Yes. David S. Nixon and I agree with this format. >> Virginia Fenwick, I approve of the format. >> Paul C. Simple. I agree with this format.
>> David H.V. I approve. >> And Mr. um Steve Dbor online. Could you um acknowledge your presence? >> I I am I am online. Yes. >> And that you approve this.
>> Okay. Very good. And Randy Pardash, I approve this form of meeting as well. Um, so we have one um set of minutes, Paul. >> Yes. Uh, we have minutes of March 12, 2026. I'll move to approve those minutes
as published. >> Dave seconds in votes yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> Did you have a change? >> No, but I wasn't here. So, >> okay. So, you abstained, Mr. Nixon? >> I wasn't here either. >> You weren't here either. And Steve,
>> he was here. Did you say you were here and you agree with the minutes? >> Yes, I was there and I agree. >> Okay, very good. And Randy P as well. So, that sounds like enough for an approval. >> Uh, we'll do it as a four zero vote since David and Jenny were not there.
>> That works. And now, uh, we will go to the first application. Sarah, >> application number 25-065, the Lime Hill 22 Trust Care of James M. Norcross, Esquire, PO box 707 Chattam, Mass 02633. Owner of property located at 202 Lime
Hill Road, also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 12E, block 4, lot B6. The applicant seeks to create an unpaved foot path and construct an elevated stairway and an elevated walkway with attached kayak racks under section 4 A3A of the protective bylaw.
The lot contains 31,100 square ft in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 9 and section 8D2B of the protective bylaw. This was continued from August 25th, November 6th, 2025,
January 8th, and February 12th, 2026. >> Tony Riley, welcome. >> Uh, good afternoon. Uh, as the junior member of the partnership, Amy asked me to come today to speak about request for continuance.
The uh at our last meeting with the conservation commission uh the uh conservation commission was very ambivalent because they uh in a minimum
the design proposed a permanent uh catwalk which is not appropriate. So they're doing a redesign. We're scheduled to go back to the conservation commission on April 22nd.
Uh and so we'd like to continue it to you know the first meeting in May after that. >> Okay. Does anybody have any comments? >> No. So Paul, >> I'll move to grant the requested continuence to May >> May 21st.
>> May 21, 2026. >> Uh Dave V seconds and vote yes. >> All vote yes. Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> And as do I. >> Thank you very much. >> Yep. You're welcome. Now we're going to go to 89 Barl Cliff. Whenever Sarah's
ready. >> Application number 26-014, David and Caroline Cole, care of Christopher Cannon, PO Box 2011, Chattam, Mass 02633. Owners of property located at 89 Barliff Avenue. also shown in the town of
Chadam's assessor's map 15F block 34 lot 43. The applicant proposes to change, alter, or expand a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot be the partial demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of an addition. The existing dwelling is non-conforming and that it is located 5
ft from the east Julia butter where a 15t setback is required and 15.2 ft from the road. The proposed additions will be non-conforming and that it will be located 15.2 2 ft from the road where a 25 ft setback is required. The existing building coverage
uh is 2,172 ft and the proposed building coverage is 2288 square ft where 2850 ft is the maximum allowed. The lot is non-conforming and that it contains both a dwelling and a guest house on a 21,800
ft lot where 40,000 ft is required for the two structures in the R20 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law, chapter 48, section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw. >> Mr. Cannon, welcome. >> Thank you. Um, for the record, I'm Chris
Cannon representing David and Caroline Cole. Um, it's not often you get to say you were working on a 1730 house in well, pretty much anywhere uh in this country. Uh, but this is 1730 house and
uh we're doing our best to uh spare what we can. Um the portion that we're looking to uh remove has been approved by the um the historic committee uh commission and uh it was you know deemed
not significant. Uh there was a portion that it was elevated uh 56 in from the original house and uh was in pretty rough shape. It houses the kitchen and this whole project uh revolves around replacing it and putting in a modern kitchen. Um, at the same time, we're
looking to get a foundation beneath it because there's no foundation beneath the house. And the house, uh, what's interesting about a 1730 house is the soil takes it over from the outside. And, you know, you don't realize how much in a couple hundred years soil comes up, but it's it's up quite a ways
around the perimeter. So, this is going to allow us to uh deal with some of the issues that uh probably have been caused by the soil. uh it's going to allow us to get some heat underneath uh the house and up and into the house. Uh they're currently living there year round and uh
expect to uh for their lives. Uh I don't think the house was ever used as a as a year-round house much before uh before this. So uh the point of the whole thing is to to get the kitchen. We're going to add a mudroom space that accounts for
the 95 uh square feet. And then there's a small portion uh of coverage that also is a little roofed area out uh as you're going into the mudroom. Um that's pretty much the gist of the whole thing. As I said, the foundation is really so we can
get in and and do all this work underneath. Currently, we can't get to any of the uh any of the utilities beneath the kitchen. So, I don't know how they've done it over the years other than tearing up the floor. So, um I can speak to the criteria. Yeah, you can you can um go over the relevant criteria if
you like. >> Okay. Well, um let's see. Adequacy of site. Well, you know, I can't speak to the to the guest house piece, but you know, we do have spare coverage to to use here. So, and we're staying well underneath it. Um the compatibility of
this uh it's a very mixed neighborhood. Houses next to it are twice the size. Houses next to it are across the street kind of the same size. uh you take all the buildings together and you're still probably not as big as some of the other buildings. So um it's a mixed uh lot
sizes as well uh in the neighborhood. So uh extent of the proposed increase non-conforming nature. We are sort of rounding out the dimensions for the simplicity of uh formwork and and framing um by an inch or two in each
direction or you know it may it may be less in one direction but it's we're we're cleaning cleaning it up a little bit. So uh that's the extent of that but again the uh you know the added square foot is only 95 square ft uh suitability
sites absolutely suitable and and impact and scale of sighting and mass. Well, we're just barely impacting anything. We were cognizant of the fact that we're putting a u a bulkhead in towards the street. Everything is behind uh fairly
substantial cedar uh hedges. Uh we looked at the side of the building and thought, well, you we could go there, but that push pushes it a little bit more to the to the neighbor, and we thought this was maybe a better way since it was behind the hedges. Um, beyond that, uh, impact traffic flow and
safety. They, uh, I want to say that recently they had, uh, roofing done and even though there's not a lot of parking, they were able to get, u most of the vehicles onto the site as well as a large dumpster. Um, and and, uh, it was not disruptive to the neighborhood.
So, um, noise and litter, typical uh, you know, we'll see during construction, adequacy of utilities, really nothing is changing there. So that's the gist of it. >> All right. Thank you very much. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor of this
application? Please make it known. >> You are right about black women. >> Seeing none, I will read the correspondences. First one is from Judith Giorgio, our health agent, and that was um from April 8th, 2026. I have no concerns about the
proposed demolition in addition to this property. There will be no increase of the septic flow or encroachment of the existing septic system. Next, we have a note from the historic commitment. I missed one. Next, we have
a note, another note from Judith Georgia. No, that was the same one. Sorry. We do go to the historic 89. above clift is historically significant but the work proposed did not did not diminish its
historical significance so they did not impose any demolition delay and that was received on April 3rd 2026. Next we have a note from Debbie Rosski and she
let's see we are writing as neighbors and longtime residents of Barl Cliff AB to express our full and enthusiastic support for the application submitted by David and Caroline Cole of their property at 89 Barlcliff located just two homes down
from ours at 67. The Cole property is one of the few remaining classic Cape Cod homes on our street, complemented by a charming and well-maintained guest house. It is precisely the kind of property that defines the historic character and architectural identity of
Chattam. We wish to convey to the board how thoughtfully and carefully the Kohl's have approached this renovation proposal. We are aware that the existing property does not fully conform to the current setback and dimensional standards as is common with many of
Chadam's um homes. However, we believe it is important for the board to recognize the historic and architectural appropriateness of the property in its current form. The proposed addition has been designed with great care to complement uh Cape Cod's aesthetic um
entirely. From our perspective as an adjacent neighbor, this proposal will have no negative impact on any surrounding properties. The scope of the renovation is focused on providing the coals with functional improvements while retaining the defining character of
Chattam uh Cape. We are confidential. We are confident that the completed project will be a model of sensitive historically um appropriate renovation. and Dave and Caroline are long-standing, deeply respected members of the community who
have generously contributed their time and energy to this town for many years, their thoughtful, conscientious neighbors. Um, and uh, we com have complete confidence in their judgment and intentions. And that was from Mark
and Debbie Rosski. And that concludes our correspondences. Does anybody here are on Microsoft Teams wish to ask a question or have a problem with this application? Please make it known. If so,
seeing none. Oh, yes. >> I just had one question on the bulkhead. It's not delineated. >> Just identify yourself, please. >> JBriggs, building commissioner for the town of Chadam for eight and a half lovely years. >> Okay. uh the bulkhead is within the required setback and so in order to do so it
wasn't called out as uh it needs to be under 30 square feet in area and it's not delineated on the site plan. So I just wanted to verify that. >> Okay, we'll give the applicant a chance to um respond to that and then we'll ask questions. Would you like a moment um Mr. Can or would you want to respond to
that? >> Um so it the question is is it uh 30 square feet or or less? Uh I believe it's a Bill Co, which I I believe it it is. I think that uh those are 6 foot by 4 foot8, which
my math serves me would be under 30. Um but I don't I can't absolutely say. >> Will you be able to provide a plan that just makes that clear if that's necessary? >> I'm sorry. If it's necessary, could you
provide, you know, >> I can certainly provide information on that? >> Yes. >> Pretty sure it's a bill. >> So, >> okay. Is that okay, Mr. Briggs? >> Yeah. Otherwise, they would need relief from the road set back down to 9.8 ft
and right now they're at 152. So, I just wanted to bring that up. >> Oh. Oh, that sounds important. >> Yeah. Well, I mean, did it did he uh put on the uh site plan the distance to it? Yes, he did. 9.8 8. So, you know, I mean, with or without that, we'd be
looking for the relief. You know, if it's if it's if it meets the 30, the house is still in the setbacks. So, >> right, but it wasn't advertised at 9.8 ft is my point. It was advertised at 15.2 from the road. >> Oh, I see that. Uh,
>> well, that's why I'm assuming it's under 30 square feet, but I just wanted to ask the question, >> right? Well, I didn't bring I didn't bring a measuring tape. Um, so I can't tell you with absolute certainty, but I'm really >> pretty sure that it's it's like 4'8 by
by 6 foot on a Bilco. My memor is only so good, though. >> 28. >> Okay. So, if it has to come back, it'll come back. >> Yeah. >> You have a heads up anyway. >> Yeah. I I don't think it's it's great.
Great. Sounds good. Uh, any questions from the board, Mr. V? I have no questions, Randy. >> Well, >> I have no questions. >> Okay, Steve, online, do you have any questions? >> I do not have any questions. >> Okay, Jenny.
>> Chris, I had a question. Um, I watched the historic um commission hearing and they made a comment about the chimney and you said the chimney is going to stay. It is in the picture, the photographs. It isn't in the um in our plans. Do we need to note that
just officially? It's irrelevant >> is why it's not there. It's it, you know, why why measure something that's irrelevant to the >> I just wanted to know if we needed to note it on here. >> Yeah, I know they they did talk about that and I agree, but nothing's happening to the chimney. So,
>> okay. Thank you. Okay. And Mr. Nixon, no questions. Okay. So, Paul, >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> Dave seconds and votes yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> Yes. >> And I vote yes as well. Okay. We're going to do deliberations. Um, Mr.
Nixon, I know you have laryngitis. Would you have any deliberations you'd like to share? No. Okay. Um, >> yeah. I, um, I love it. I know the historic commission liked it. They did render it, um, his uh, historically
significant, but not materially. The changes would not materially diminish that. Um, I think that it is a minor change for a major improvement. um I think both to the integrity of the home as you mentioned the new foundation that is so important and to uh the longevity
of the home. So I I'm very in favor of this project >> and Paul >> yes I would say if the site is not suitable it's probably been not suitable since 1770 >> just pretty much. >> So uh I think we can overlook that issue. Uh it's nice to see something
happening on Barl Cliff which is not a knockdown and great inc uh expansion. Uh it really looks consistent with uh with what you need to do and it makes sense. So I think it is certainly not substantially more detrimental to the
neighborhood. >> And Mr. V. >> Yeah, I I agree with my colleagues. Um I had I've been in this house. It was on the market in I think the early 90s or so sometime. Naomi and I looked at it and what a beautiful, it's such a sweet
old house. Really gorgeous. Um, and we realized that it was that, but it wasn't for us at the time. But it really is what you're doing. What you're doing really is going to be a vast improvement and um very much uh enthusiastically supported.
>> And Mr. Dbor, what say you? Well, you know, I'm glad to see that this is as much a restoration as it is a renovation. And I like the approach that was taken rather than demolishing the whole house. So, I think it this is a good project.
>> Yeah. No, and I do as well. I agree with all my colleagues. Um I I think it's fascinating that you're that it's still there and that you're not trying to tear it down, which is really wonderful. And uh with that, Paul
>> um yes, I'll move to approve the application as submitted. Uh it seems to me that we probably want our normal conditions given the location. Uh is that consistent with what your plans are as well? >> Absolutely. And I'll move to approve with the condition that all construction
activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at neighboring property with the permission of the property owner that between June 30th and Labor Day, no exterior construction will be allowed. No work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. only.
>> Dave seconds and votes yes. >> All votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> As do I. And uh congratulations. It's unanimous. >> Thanks so much. Thank you. Next, we're going to go to 100 Round
Cove Road. Application number 26-016, Mark P. Sperry and Cameron M. Sperry, care of William G. Lichfield, Esquire, 330 Orleans Road, North Chattam, Mass 02650. Owners of property located at 100 Round Cove Road, also shown in the town of
Chadam's assessor's map 8i, block 35, lot C210. The applicant seeks to enlarge extend or change a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the construction of dormers and the conversion of an attic to habitable space. The existing dwelling is non-conforming and that it is located
16.2 ft from the northerly of butter and 15.6 ft from the southerntherly of butter. The proposed dormer addition will be non-conforming. uh in that it will be located 16.2 feet from the northerly of butter where a 25 foot setback is required. The building
coverage will remain 25566 ft where 3,000 ft is required is the maximum allowed. The law is non-conforming and that it contains 29,556 ft where 60,000 ft is required in the R60 zoning district. A special permit is
required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw. Welcome, Attorney Lichfield. >> Thank you very much, Bill Lichfield, here on behalf of Mark and Cameron Sperry in regard to a proposal to
provide some additional living room living area at their home on Round Cove Road. Uh it's a fairly simple proposal. It involves uh putting on a some dormers on the front of the house as shown
there. uh doghouse dormers over the existing uh right hand side main portion of the house a single one over the setback above the porch and then on the side I guess that's sort of the east side I think it's the east side it's the
left hand side facing the house uh to accommodate some additional living area uh which is simply a function of a growing extended family there are three grandchildren involved and they'd like to have some additional room. When the
house was built, uh it was only a two-bedroom house. It is just about 400 and some odd square ft short of having enough living area for a three-bedroom house, lot area for a three-bedroom
house. Uh but we went to the board of health earlier in the week and they approved the addition of a third bedroom with an IIA septic system. So I'll go into the criteria uh the relevant criteria as adequacy of sight. All 350
Riverbay lots are non-conforming as is the existing house as the sideline setbacks but we have relatively low coverage at 8.7% and unlike most we conform to the new it's not so new anymore but to the current 40ft street
setback. The site is certainly res adequate for residential use and it will remain so if you approve the additional living space on the existing footprint. Uh there's no further encroachment into the sideline setback. The coverage is unchanged of course and it will remain
well below the maximum at 8.7% as the compatibility of size on the third page of the handout and I apologize Mr. Debor that I didn't email you one uh but on the third page of the handout uh the relevant or the
neighboring lots are shown. We have a relatively large lot uh with a relatively small footprint including the garage of just about 2500 square ft and uh 2572
ft of living area. If you approve the special permit, it will remain compatible. Again, the changes on the footprint living area and gross floor area are approximately the same or even less than houses on either side. Even with the addition, there's no increase
in coverage. There's no increase in nonconformity being built on the existing footprint by conversion of the attic above the garage to living area. Uh, and the addition of the dormers, the suitability of the site is not really relevant. There are no environmental issues as to scale sighting mass views
and vistas. The existing structure is an attractive cape set back over 100 ft from uh the street. It's part of an attractive residential landscape. I think it's three doors down from Mr. John Fredo's house. Mr. Nixon served with Mr. John Fredo and remembers where
he lived, former member of this board. Uh the siding and facade of the streetscape are unchanged with the added living space again being constructed on the existing footprint. The garage above which the bedroom will be built is 105
ft from the street and about 115 ft from the p pavement and the scale is in keeping with the surrounding properties. There are no views and vistas involved. uh as to adequacy of sewer. As I indicated, the board of health approved the IIA septic system for the third
bedroom. In their commentary, which the chair will read, I believe they state correctly that that is actually an environmental improvement, a net gain. The other criteria are not at issue. So the question is whether you as you know whether the proposed construction of a
bedroom and some additional living space to be built on and actually within the existing footprint is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current structure. There's nothing particularly detrimental about it now except the lot is too small under current zoning. Uh but it's attractive
and it will remain so. The design that has been developed is consistent with the traditional Cape SC style and the growing extended family with as I indicated three get three grandchildren so far makes the third bedroom uh
important to the Sperry family. So in light of the criteria and the plans I think you can find that the proposed changes are not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Be happy to answer any questions. >> Okay. Thank you. Is there anybody here
on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application? If so, please make it known. Seeing none, I will read the correspondences. And there is one single correspondence from our health agent
Judith Giorgio received on April 8th. The board of health reviewed the plan on April 6th, approved the addition of a third bedroom contingent upon upgrading the septic system to include a nitrogen reducing IIA system. The property is
located in zone 2 of a public water supply. The installation of the NIA system represents a more environmentally environmentally protective solution compared to the existing system. So that's an interesting concept. they they
made it clear that if you left it the way it is now um with two bedrooms it would be worse than adding a third bedroom. So that I just think that's an interesting fact. Okay. Um is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wish to speak against this
application? Please make it known or if you have a question seeing none questions from the board. We'll start at this end. >> I have no questions. Randy >> Paul >> no questions >> and Mr. Dbor, any questions? >> I'm not I have no questions.
>> Okay, Jenny. >> No questions. >> No questions. Nor do I. So, >> I'll move I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> David seconds and votes yes. >> Paul vote yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> As do I. Okay. Deliberations. We're
going to start with you, Mr. Dbor. Um, deliberations. >> Okay. Well, I you know, this I think this seems like a very nice project. It's more familyfriendly by adding a third bedroom. Sounds like it's needed. It's not affecting the existing setbacks
or the building height and I don't see this as being more detrimental to anything. So, I think it's good project. >> Okay. Very good. Mr. Nixon, anything? >> No, I agree with that. >> Yeah. And Judy? >> Yeah, I think it's a very smart plan to expand that space. Um, as you mentioned,
no increase to the building coverage. Even if it was, there's a large lot. um not substantially detrimental. I I it meets our criteria and I would support it. >> And Mr. V. >> No, I agree with all previous >> and Paul. >> Yes. I think given the topography of the
land and the setback, uh it really is not even going to be seen by anybody in the neighborhood >> and it clearly is not substantially more detrimental to >> No, I I and I think it's an improvement and I'm very h happy to learn that fact. Uh, I've heard it before, but um I think it's very important for everyone to know
because when you hear about adding another bedroom, you might think that that's going to be detrimental, but it it's great that it's actually helpful in cases like this. So, Paul, >> um, can you tell me, Bill, what the concept is in terms of construction?
>> Do we have a likely time frame for construction? >> Possibly September. >> Possibly September. That is delightful to the board. They can't you can't speak without the mic, but that answers the question. The board is presumably going to impose what is referred to as their
standard restrictions, which essentially means no summertime construction, but that will not be a problem. All right. I'll move to approve the application as submitted with the condition that all construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the
property owner. that between June 30th and Labor Day, no exterior construction will be allowed, no work shall be permitted on the weekends, and construction activity between 8 am and 5:00 pm only. >> Dave V seconds and votes yes. >> All votes yes.
>> Um we're we're just about to approve your application. That's very dangerous to do that. And first of and you can't talk from there. So, I'm going to use my discretion and say let's not have any questions or any further comment. Okay, Jenny. >> I vote yes.
>> Yes. >> As do I. So, that is approved. Um, >> thank you very much. >> unanimously. Congratulations. >> Thank you. >> Um, okay. >> Shirley. >> Now, we're going to go down to South Chadam. Six Shirley Drive when Sarah's
ready. >> Application number 26-017 James Griffith and Sarah Cobb Griffith care of Llaya Warner. PO Box 1249 Sandwich Mass 0262 02563 owners of property located at 6 Shirley Drive. Also shown on the town of
Chadam's assessor's map 2C block 3 lot N6. The applicant seeks to enlarge, extend, or change a conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the construction of an addition. The proposed addition will comply with all bulk and dimensional requirements of the bylaw, but is considered a substantial
alteration and under the second except clause of section 6 of Mass General Law Chapter 4A requires the grant of a special permit. The existing building coverage is,483 ft, 7.9% and the proposed building coverage is 2,277
ft 12.2% 2% or 15% is the maximum allowed. The law is non-conforming and that it contains 18,712 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 the
protected bylaw. >> Welcome. >> Thank you. Um I'm Laya Warner. I'm representing homeowners Jim and Sarah Griffith. Um Jim is sitting here. Um, and I want to clarify something about the gross square footage. I sent a
letter about that. I got the um existing gross square footage incorrect. So, I had to send a follow-up letter. So, I believe you have that in front of you. So, it's the gross square footage that is uh proposed is 340
um instead of the previous number that I had given. So, just for clarification. Um, so I want to give a brief background so you know why we're proposing what we're doing. Um, so this house has been in Sarah's family since it was built in the 60s. Um, she's
the third generation to own it, her grandparents and her parents, now she and Jim, and with the full intention of passing it down to their kids. um and it's currently being used as a second home um as they live in Virginia, but they are planning to move here full-time
upon hopefully the approval here today and completion of construction. Um and the other part of the background is that um Sarah recently became wheelchair bound and so and the house as um sentimentally valuable as it is is very
inaccessible for her. So, in order to be able to live here full-time, they have to make some changes. Um, and I want to emphasize that a big part of the project that we're doing is within the existing footprint of the house. So, we're changing what we can within the
footprint um to make it accessible. Um, so the there's a couple programmatic areas that we need to add, which is um why we're proposing to add a uh why we're doing an addition. So those programmatic areas include a primary
suite with accessible bathroom um p accessible bedroom, bathroom, sitting room, and a mudroom that will receive a wheelchair ramp that is to the uh uh west side of the house. Um and we've been working with the board of health on
decommissioning an existing second floor bedroom that they have. They have three bedroomedroom house currently and they have a three-bedroom septic. So we will be decommissioning a second floor bedroom, opening up, making an encased opening so we have a bedroom to spare
and so which is gives us the opportunity to build another bedroom. Um and um in proposing this addition and I'll if if you can go to the site plan real
quick. So, are you able to zoom in just a little? Just Okay. So, um we are proposing a uh deck then in between the existing house and the
proposed addition uh because this is the only accessible exterior space. So, we want several points of entry from the house to for uh her to be able to go out onto the deck. So, in doing so, um, the bulkhead, which is currently right here,
has to move. We're moving it to the east side of the house. Uh, we're still abiding by the properties at Vax doing that. Um, uh, so the other site alteration that's required is the septic tank. Our addition is going right over the
existing one. So, we are relocating the the septic tank um to the side. And because of our septic setbacks, part of our addition is on peers. So the part that's within the 20 foot setback from the leeching. Um but and if you go to
the the pictures, Sarah, we're to mask kind of the eyesore of a house being on peers, we are doing vertical board screening so that no neighbors are, you know, and so that it looks nice.
Um okay so going through the requirements under section 5B so the adequacy of the site um so our proposed coverage is 12.2% and 15% is allowed um and we're abiding by all of the setbacks
with the exception of the wheelchair ramp which is exempt. um the compatibility of the site. So our property is uh 043 acres. We'll have 34 uh40 gross square feet. Couple houses down at 28 Shirley Drive, they have 047
acres and they have 4,800. So it's very similar to that. We're well within the gross square footage of the surrounding properties. Um the increase in nonconformity, so we are not increasing the non-conformity. Um the thing that's non-conforming on
our lot is that it's an 8,712 foot lot when 20,000 is required. Um so we are not uh increasing that nonconformity um the suitability of the site. So storm
water runoff we are proposing a um a dry well that will be to the west side of the property. So currently all the storm water drains to daylight. So the addition plus the existing storm water will drain into the uh dry wells
making it um a significant improvement on the property for its storm water overall storm water management. The slopes are going to remain the same. There's no topography alteration planned besides what we need to do to make sure that all the topography is sloping away
from the new construction. Um and to make sure where we move our septic tank that we have the proper slopes um and we are not in conservation jurisdiction. Um the impact of the scale and site. So we're appropriate scale to the site. Uh if you can go to those
pictures. So the the maximum height of the addition is roughly 2 feet lower than the existing peak of the house. Um we're continuing the same massing and architectural aesthetic as the existing house. It's simple singlestory gables um
or matching the roof pitches, similar roof spans. Um and it's going to be minimal change from the front of the house with the exception of being able to see that wheelchair ramp. Um and the neighbors, the views from the
neighbors, there aren't s significant views from there's a lot of trees around. There aren't views that we will be impacting for neighbors. um >> the um adequacy of the sewage. So, like
I said, we're relocating the septic tank um and there's no change in the source of water or drainage and um impact on traffic flow. So, this is a neighborhood street and many of the people are seasonal. Not all of them,
but many. Um, so we'll of course be com abide by all of Chadam's requirements for working offseason. Um, but we'll combine all construction vehicles to the driveway and that we can and um make sure that we don't have an impact
on the neighborhood traffic noise. Um, like I said, we'll be working offseason um on all exterior work. Um, and there'll be an on-site dumpster, so we don't anticipate any litter. Um,
adequacy of utilities. So, we do have to upgrade the house to a 200 amp service. Um, but after this, we don't anticipate any issues with the utilities or public services. And, um, the visual impact on the neighborhood. So, we're just
continuing the same architectural aesthetic as the existing house. Um, and most of the addition cannot be seen from the street. uh the it can mostly be seen from the side street. So that would be this view here. But a significant amount
of it is blocked by trees and shrubbery. So in the summer especially there won't be um it won't be especially visible to their neighbors. >> Um and we are not in the flood plane. So hope that you >> Yeah, that's great.
>> Thank you very much. Um, is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak in favor of the application? Seeing none, I will read the two correspondences. One is from our health agent,
Judith Giorgio, received on April 8th. I reviewed the files and proposals for this property. Our records indicate this is an existing three-bedroom dwelling. The attic attic space considered the third bedroom must be altered and used
only as an unconditioned storage space moving forward to allow for the addition of a new master bedroom on the first floor as proposed. Additionally, the septic tank will need to be replaced andor relocated as part of the
construction approval. Then we have a note from Joseph and Mary Ellen White and they write on April 3rd, "Under no circumstances shall contractor and subcontractors access a butter's
property without obtaining written permission from the abuter and providing a valid certificate of liability insurance. We request that the contractor be mindful of excessive noise including deliveries and construction hours of
operation per town of Chattam bylaws and they live at five Colton Park in Nem. Um and >> local is >> their local is 16 Shirley Drive. Um and they are in a butter. So
there's there are those. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wish to speak against or has a question? Seeing none, would you like to respond um to that uh letter? >> Yeah, we will. Of course. They want to be as respectful as possible to all
their neighbors. So, they're going to be abiding by all the requirements that >> and we'll put on the usual um uh conditions anyway, most likely. Okay. Very good. Um questions from the board. Steve Dbor, first question.
Um well, I just wanted to verify because it sounds like um the primary reason this application is being made is because of the the nonconformity in the lot size by just over 1,000 ft. I just wanted to verify
that. >> Yes. Yep. It's the lot size is just about a th00and square feet short. It's >> right. So, um, you know, if that was >> if if that wasn't the case, then you'd
have a conforming house on a conforming lot. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And thank you, Steve, Mr. V. >> I have no questions. >> And Paul, >> no questions. >> No questions. >> No questions. >> Questions and no questions. Okay. So, Paul,
>> close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> Dave seconds and votes yes. >> Paul vote yes. >> Jenny votes yes. Yes. >> And yes. So, deliberations. Jenny, want to start us off? >> Sure. >> Yes. Um, so Laya, again, really excellent presentation. Um, your before
and after uh renderings are very helpful. They're well done. Um, I also appreciated the thoughtful review of our criteria and I believe it meets all of our criteria, so I would support it. >> Hey, very good. Dave, anything to add?
>> I'm here. I want to reiterate what Jenny said about your 3D views. Those are great and uh it helps bring things in perspective, but not everybody does. So, thank you for that. >> Yep. You're new a new uh fan favorite
here. So, um Paul, >> yes, I agree with my colleagues and I certainly have uh uh no concern that this will be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. >> Mr. V, >> I agree with all previous. >> Yeah. And as do I. So Paul,
>> I'll move to approve the application as submitted with the conditions that all construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner. That between June 30th and Labor Day, no exterior construction will be allowed. No work shall be
permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. only. >> David seconds. In votes yes, >> Paul votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> As do I. It's unanimous. Congratulations. Okay, we'll see you next time.
All right, two more applications to go and we have 20 Fairway Drive. Sarah, >> application number 26-018 Thomas and Alphants Allison Stamp Car William F. Riley, Esquire, PO Box 707,
Chattam, Mass 02633. Owners of property located at 20 Fairway Drive, also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 15e block 64, lot 2. The applicant proposes to change alter expand a non-conforming accessory structure on a conforming lot via the replacement of
the roof structure. The existing building coverage will remain 2,985 ft where 2,850 ft is the maximum allowed. The lot contains 20,254 ft in the R20 zoning district. A special
permit is required under Mass General Law, chapter 48, section 6, and section 5B of the protective bylaw. >> Welcome, Attorney Riley. >> Good afternoon again. Thank you. Um, so this matter is a little bit unusual.
Uh my clients uh Tom and Allison Sam uh bought a property uh that contained a a zoning violation, but they didn't know it. the uh uh and the
the apparently the original owner of the property uh built a pool house and at the time of construction was told apparently that the uh if you put a roof on it, it would exceed
the building coverage allowed in the zone around that property. So he just put a pergola over the top of it with no roof. Subsequently he installed plexiglass plates
over the underneath the pergola to keep rain out. Uh apparently it didn't work that well because uh the intervening owner between the original builder and
Mr. Mrs. S uh reported to Mr. S that he had to repair it because it was leaking. And so now they're leaking again. Mr. S went to uh a contractor to
put a normal roof on the building and uh learned much to his surprise that the uh the fact that there was a roof on it uh made the coverage exceed the allowable coverage
on the property. Um so the luckily for the SAMS the u our brilliant state legislature has provided a corrective statute that says if there's a zoning violation
that's been in in place uh for a period of over 10 years uh and the town hasn't started any kind of legal action to remove or correct the violation
uh the violation the structure becomes non-conforming rather than non-compliant. Um so I had that discussion with uh Mr. Briggs and uh he consulted with town council
uh with the instruction that we would if we wanted to replace the leaking plexiglass roof uh we had to uh submit a request for a special permit which is how we got here. So if you've been to
the site unless you open the door you can't even see the roof. I mean, I was very surprised. In any event, so uh we'd like to remove the roof that doesn't work that was, you know, put in
place illegally and construct a typical pitch roof uh as you see on the plans here. So, I think it's a reasonable request and uh I don't think it's substantially more
detrimental to the neighborhood. In fact, I think it's, you know, I think it looks better. In any event, Joe, I'd like to run through the criteria. >> Please do. >> So, adequacy of the size of the site in
terms of the size of the proposed use. Uh well, we're not increasing uh the size at all. We're simply replacing one roof form with another. Uh and we think obviously we think the site is adequate for the proposed use.
Compatibility of the size of the proposed structure with neighboring properties. Again, you know, it's a uh a neighborhood of rather large homes. I'm sure you've been up there. Uh and so
this is uh a very minor addition to an existing structure. Extended proposed increase in the non-conforming nature of the structure or use. Uh we're modifying a non-conforming structure, but we're not increasing it in size. So we don't think
there's an increase in the non-conforming coverage, the suitability of the site, including but not limited to impact on neighboring properties, etc. Uh since this site is completely developed
uh and we're just replacing an existing structure uh we think that the uh there's no impact on the neighboring properties or on the natural environment impact of scale sighting and mass on the neighborhood visual character
including views vistas and streetscapes. Again, because of the minor nature of the structure, we don't think uh it's going to have any significant impact on the neighborhood visual character. In fact, we think it's very much in
keeping with the visual character of this particular neighborhood and the applicants believe that the change is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing structure. Uh we think the u this use is compatible
with with the neighborhood uses. Um there's no change in the method of sewage disposal, source of water and drainage and they're all adequate. We believe that we believe there'll be no change in traffic flow and safety or
in noise and litter and numbers 10 and 11 are not applicable in this case. So that' be our presentation. >> Thank you very much. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wish to speak in favor of this application? Please make it known.
Seeing none, we have one very brief um communication from Judith Giorgio from April 8th, 2026. I have no concerns. So that concludes our letters. Does anybody here are on Microsoft Teams
wish to speak against the application or have a specific question? Seeing none. Are there any questions from the board? >> Yes, M. Mr. Nixon, you had a question. >> I do. Uh Mr. Riley, um what's in that
building? >> It's a it's a pool cabana. So you you open the door, there's a place to sit down, change your clothes, put on a bathing suit. Uh there might be a shower in there. I because they're proposing a shower in this one. So I assume there's
already a shower in that one as well. >> Even though it's only steps from the house. >> What's that? Beg pardon? >> Say it's only steps from the house, but Okay. >> It's only steps from the house. >> Yeah, >> that's correct. It is only steps from the house, but you have to walk the entire length of the pool to get there.
No, you could have swam down there and you'd be right where you wanted to be. >> Well, that's true. Could swim there. >> Okay. Uh so, um I guess this question would be to our building commisar uh comrade Briggs.
This isn't a variance because of the statue that Mr. Rally brought up. Is that correct? >> It's not a variance. It's a special permit. J. Briggs, building commissioner, town of Chadam. Um, and there's a photo up there for your enjoyment as well. There is a full
bathroom in there. Um, >> Mhm. It's a special permit. Uh, the way we calculate building coverage today, they are one square foot over building coverage even without the roof on this structure. So, if the board sees fit to issue the
special permit for the increase with this new roof, they could do it. But, I I wasn't comfortable doing it with a building permit. and I spoke to town council and he backed me up on it. So >> So why isn't it a variance? >> They're already over the building
coverage. They're over the existing building coverage >> illegally. Well, okay. I I So we don't we're not >> statute, Dave. There's a statute that says it's >> You weren't recognized by the chair, so please wait. >> No, and that was my question because of
the statute. >> This is statute also. and and a lot of times the statute pertains to like uh dimensional setbacks to the property line. This one happens to be a building coverage issue instead. >> Mhm. Okay. >> But it can be rectified by an issuance of a special permit.
>> Thank you. >> Did uh did the original uh application when they when this was built uh require zoning relief? >> I don't believe so. Well, it did, but they didn't tell you. >> Right. Right.
Well, see, because when they proposed it, there was no roof, >> right? >> And so, because there was no roof, it didn't count as coverage, >> right? But there was no other uh zoning relief that was required. >> Correct. Remember, this was a new subdivision. >> Mhm.
>> So, all the lots were in compliance with current zoning and building permits would only be issued for projects that complied with zoning. So >> yeah, Paul, none of those buildings uh came before us.
>> No, I I understand that. Okay. >> So, Sarah, please. >> So, as uh attorney Riley just mentioned, um it was a subdivision in 2012 2013. This house was built in 2015.
Um, and it didn't require any board of appeals relief because they were under the coverage as what was proposed. Um, including the estressiary structure at the time only had an open pergola and there was no roof structure to it. So the water could
flow through. Um, so >> okay. So um, now now it's going to have a roof. >> Yeah. the just so you know the statute is section seven of chapter 48. It's got the the corrective language in it.
>> Okay. Any other question J? Go ahead. >> Um yeah, Mr. Riley, the um zoning compliance table that's on the site plan. It's showing the ex or maybe this is for Jay Briggs. It's showing the existing building coverage as 147
and what's required is 15 and it's showing what's proposed is 147 but it's over. So why is it under 15? >> I don't know. That would be a question for THAAD. We we know it's over. So that's why we're here.
>> Well, I think um Sarah, can you go ahead and answer that? So, it's not in this case, it's not a 15% coverage that you're looking at because the lot size is over 20,000 square feet. It goes to a specific square footage number, not a percentage number.
>> Oh, okay. Okay. All right. Um, so what Sarah read previously that it was originally open pergola. It wasn't a cabana originally a cabana with no roof. It was an open pergola that was then converted to a cabana with an with no
roof. This is all pre your >> pre you know you say tomato I say tomato. I mean cabana whatever it is I mean it's a place where people went and changed their clothes. >> Well not if it was an open pergola in the beginning >> right had an open pergola. >> Okay Jay go ahead. >> Yes Mr. Briggs
>> they it was a really odd building permit. They permanent it with walls as it was done and the pergola for a roof because of the building coverage issue so they wouldn't exceed the 2850 square feet >> and then after we were gone at some point they put in the plexiglass panels
to protect protect the finishes of the inside of the cabana. >> So it did have walls initially with just no >> I believe so. I Yeah, I believe it was just like this when it was done. >> Yeah, just the way it appears today except no roof.
Well, it's very odd. So, and because it has a pergle at the top, it just looked to me like it was originally just a open per, >> you know. Yeah. What is it with rich people? Some of them are very odd. >> Well, the reason I'm bringing that up is because I don't like it. I I don't like the fact that I know it's not your
current client, but I I if it was originally an open pergola and then someone can just put walls around it and then 10 years later put a roof on it, that's not good. Oh, in the first place it wasn't just an open pergola and then they put walls around it. >> I that's was my question.
>> Right. So they had they had the walls up then they put the pergola on top. >> Right. And that's why I asked the question because I it helps clarify what I didn't like about the pro the possible progression of this. Um thank you.
>> Yes. Go ahead, Mr. V. Um, I don't think I have any questions. Um, I think >> it's okay. >> I think I understand the situation. Uh, and I and I do appreciate the uh the um um history lesson I I guess that this
demonstrates. >> Yeah. >> So, just I can't help but ask, you can't put a glass on and say that's a roof when you put glass. I mean, >> well, >> yeah. rule has always been can rain go through it >> right
>> and if rain can't go through it it's a roof >> right yeah okay >> so that's the way that's way we've always >> of course it makes perfect sense ex and the idea is that the the bottom the floor will somehow let the water run off
>> right so there were for instance um there were some people and it's going to be tough to believe who put up like a second floor deck and then after they get the building permit,
they put something underneath it so the the p the land below won't get wet. >> Right. Right. >> And sometimes those naughty people get caught, but >> not often. >> It's it's the kind of stuff that happens. So this is I have to say this is a little more inventive than most of
them. >> Yeah. Okay. Steve, do you have anything that you'd like to add to this form of questioning? >> Um, no. I don't think I have any questions. Maybe some comments later on. >> Okay, we'll get We'll get to you in a moment. Uh, when we're done with our
questions, have we tortured Mr. Riley enough? >> Think so. >> We can always do with more torturing, Mr. Riley. We won't on this particular occasion. >> I'll I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> Uh, Dave Reelantly
seconds his vote. Yes. >> Okay. >> All votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> Yes. >> As do I. Okay. So, now we're going to go to deliberations and we'll we'll go out to Steve in the ether. Steve. >> Oh, you know, um, this kind of sounds
like this is a case of bath house or perglickery where it started off as one thing and it ended up as something else and it wasn't caught in between. Um, I don't know. I guess what's being
proposed is is very similar, it sounds like, to what's already being there, except it has a a pitched roof instead of a flat roof. So, um, you know, I I I guess if this was caught earlier, um, we could have done
something about it, but it sounds like it's it's it's too late and >> it's already out of the barn. >> Yeah. And always remember, um, could you say that this is substantially detrimental to the neighborhood? >> No, I don't think it's it's substantially detrimental because
there's already this is replacing something that's already been been there for quite some time, it sounds like. So, I don't think it's more detrimental than than what's there. >> Okay. Very good. And Mr. V. >> Yeah. I um
given I guess my understanding is that it you know given that the action of the legislature gave us the ability to grant a special permit in this case and and it has needs to meet the standards for granting a special permit that being the
primarily is it substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and um there's in this case I I can't say that it is I think actually it's an improvement in appearance uh and um with a ancillary
benefit to the owner if it improves the uh um um um roofs the the leakiness of the roof. But I I think this is I guess I'm going to have to um consider that this is the kind of situation that the legislature
uh considered in in passing the changes to the law. So I'll support it. >> Okay. Paul. >> Uh, well, I guess I agree with Mr. V. Um, you know, whether we would have approved it originally, um, given the
amount of lot coverage and so forth that they have up there, the size of the property and the size of the house and so forth, I don't know. But, uh, at this point, uh, it's there and under the current standards, it's not going to be
substantially more detrimental. >> Jenny So um I think it depends on h how you define neighborhood. I think it is more substantially detrimental to the broader Chattam neighborhood um because of what
happened with really abusing the you know the proposal and getting the additional coverage that way. So I don't like that. However, this owner was not and to your point Mr. at the beginning it is now non-conforming not
non-compliant and that's important uh we need to honor I think the what the law says here um and um it is not the original owner if it was the original owner I would really
have a problem with approving it because I think it is more detrimental to the broader um you know activities that go on within Chattam however it isn't It is definitely an improvement. So, it is is not substantially more detrimental in in the context of what we're talking
about here with this project, this property in this neighborhood. Um, the wood shingle roof with a 612 pitch is much improvement from what what we have now, a leaky plexiglass um ceiling. Thank you,
>> Mr. Nixon. Anything further? >> Well, yeah. the uh the barn door was left open and the horse escaped and that's the way it is. I mean, I think we have to accept that and um I do agree
with the new design will be an improvement to the neighborhood as opposed to what's there. So, I will be in favor >> and Steve Dbor >> um you already heard my comments. >> Oh, I you already deliberated. I'm sorry. Yeah, cuz I went to you first.
Okay, very good. Very good. Just I'd rather ask you again than not ask you at all. >> Okay. So, um I agree with my colleagues and um I support the project. So, Paul, >> uh yes. What's the plan in terms of doing this work? >> I think they want to do it as soon as
possible. >> So, are you anticipating that they'll be done before June 30th? >> Um yes, I believe it will be done before June 30th. >> Right. But even if it even if it's not >> is a very minor project
and >> keeping >> the property if you've been there so you know there's a whole fence around it. I think uh that the amount of work and the level of disturbance really would be very very
minor. I I don't think >> I can help you out if I if that's okay. Um, how about if we just have parking, you know, on the owner's property, uh, with permission. Is that fair? Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. >> Okay, let's try to do it that way, Paul. >> That's fine. And no work before 8, no
work after 5, no work on weekends. >> Yeah, just we'll do conditions light. >> All right. I'll move to approve the application as submitted with the condition that all construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner and
that between June 30th and Labor Day uh no uh uh no work well I don't see any reason why we shouldn't put the rest of them on. No no exterior construction will be allowed. No work shall be permitted on the weekends and
construction activity between 8 am and 5 pm only >> they get done before June 30th. Fine. >> I missed that. I >> wait >> between June 1st and July 1st and Labor Day. No work before 8:00. No work after
5:00. No work on weekends. >> So just the last two, Paul, B and C. no work uh on weekends and construction between 8 and 5. Um there's no exterior construction. Um >> right.
>> Uh it's all exterior because they're doing the roof. >> Yeah. My understanding of when we do >> Yeah. >> light the light version, we just strike a 2 A and leave to B and C. >> Okay. Okay. So, we do one, two, B, and C
on as >> I mean it's all exterior is what I meant. Yeah. >> Well, uh I proposed it with A, B, and C. I think that's appropriate, frankly. But if others feel that they want to cut it back to just B and C, that's fine.
>> What is I >> Anybody? >> Well, I frankly don't think we need to condition this at all. >> No. And I don't either. Um I I I can't see it. >> Let's Let's see how many people think we need to condition it at all. Do you, Mr. Vich?
>> It's such a minor project. It It's not going to take a long period of time to do. So, I don't >> Okay. So, you don't And do you, Steve, think this needs any conditions? >> Um, the only one I might consider is work only between 8 and 5.
>> Okay. Um, Paul, do you think it needs any? Well, I'm I'm just thinking uh I mean it's a pretty limited neighborhood, but the neighborhood is very congested and certainly uh there's very little passageway on that street if you have
construction vehicles on the street. >> Um and I from what I hear this should be done pretty quickly. So I don't see a problem with all the conditions, but that's my view. >> Okay. So let's see. Mr. Nixon, you say none. And Jenny, any
>> I agree with Paul. Okay. So, let's do it Paul's way. Go ahead, Paul. Whatever you say, we're going to do it. >> All right. I'll say uh uh I'll approve move to approve the application with all construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neighboring
property with the permission of the property owner that between June 30th and Labor Day, no exterior construction will be allowed. No work shall be permitted on the weekends, and construction activity between 8 a.m. and 5:00 p p.m. only. >> Uh Dave seconds and votes yes. >> All votes yes. Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes.
>> As do I. You. It's unanimous. Yeah. I get very ambivalent about these because I feel that when people don't need to get a special permit or a variant, they don't have any conditions. So that always sticks out of my mind. So it just
does. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So last application 130 sound view a application number 26-024 Mark and Josie Vaklavc care of William G. Lichfield, Esquire, 330 Orleans Road,
North Chattam, Mass 02650. Owners of property located at 130 Sound View Avenue. Also shown in the town of Chadam's assessor's map 5C, block 38, lot S18. The applicant seeks to enlarge extend or change a conforming dwelling in a non-conforming lot via the
construction of an addition. The proposed addition will comply with all bulk and dimensional requirements of the bylaw, but is considered a substantial alteration and under the second except clause of section 6 of Mass General Law Chapter 48 requires the grant of special permit. The existing building coverage
is 173 ft 10.1% and the proposed building coverage is 1431 ft 12% where 15% is the maximum allowed. The law is non-conforming and that it contains 11,7 11,974
square feet where 20,000 square feet is required in the R20 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 section 5 via protected bylaw. >> Welcome attorney Lichfield. >> Thank you very much. Bill Lichfield here in behalf of Mark and Josie Clav
Vlavichek. Mark is here. You can perhaps pick him out from the audience. Uh I'm not quite sure how to follow that. >> Yeah, I knew you were going to have a comment. I could >> the uh >> Yeah, >> the purpose here is largely or a larger
living area and another bedroom, but also a second bath, a bathroom for a family of four that with marriage and grandchildren is going to be a larger family. And I hadn't been aware that you could have an open air toilet.
>> I know. I know. I I thought the same thing. >> So, if we if we aren't successful, you can build a pergola with walls. We won't go down that road. Uh we are here for a very simple and straightforward proposal. We have in South Chadam, the
house that Mark and Josie have owned for almost 10 years. They would like to uh put an addition on the rear. Uh you've been out there. You know that there's plenty of room in the backyard. We're going to meet all setbacks. were well below the coverage. So, I'll go into the
uh criteria at issue. The first of which is adequacy of site. It's an area of nonconforming lots, but we have a site, a lot that's larger than most. 1,200 square ft of coverage, 952 square ft of living area. The site is certainly
adequate for a house that's been there since 1954 and it will remain adequate if you approve the special permit for the additional living area at the rear meets all compon all requirements of the bylaw as the compatibility of size on the
third sheet of the handout. You can see that we have a typical South Chattam lot but with low coverage. Uh the proposed addition complies with all requirements of the bylaw. The gross floor area and living area increase, but there's still
significantly lower than several on smaller lots and will remain compatible. Sole nonconformity that we have at present as lot size and there is no increase in nonconformity. Uh we're not creating any nonconformities. The addition is far
from both the east and west and compliant as the northerly lot line. No environmental issues as the scale citing mass fuse and vistas. The structure has been there for nearly for more than 70 years cited far from the street is
certainly far from massive and without impact on views and vistas and that will remain the case assuming they approve the special permit. The addition will be not visible from the street. uh there's no scale or uh it is rather I'm sorry the bu the structure is in scale in
comparable scale to the neighboring properties it will remain so as to adequacy of water and sewer we are converting one of the addition one of the current bedrooms to a bathroom uh the board of health letter will indicate that they have no concerns so it's a
fairly simple request which complies with all requirements of the bylaw it will provide the family with much needed living space but again meets all requirements. Um the larger primary bedroom and the creation of the second
bath are very important to the petitioners and their family. It's a small change but it's very important to them talking about 225 square ft of coverage. So given the criteria the plans and this location I think you can find the proposed change is not at all
detrimental let alone not substantially more so. be happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you very much. Is there anybody here on Microsoft Teams that wish to speak in favor of the application? If so, make it known. Seeing none, um we
have three correspondences for 130 sound view. First one from Judith Giorgio um April 8th, 2026. She has no concerns regarding the application, no increase in septic flow, no encroachment on the existing
septic system. And then we have um a note um from Anthony Boon. They own the property at 145 Pine Null A. They write in support to make some modest changes to their existing home and allow for
more living space where closer and fully support Mark and Josie in their request which is as we understand it compliant with all the requirements of our zoning bylaw. The small change will certainly have no negative consequences. And um
that concludes his uh letter. I said he lives at 145 Pine Null Avenue in Chadam. Next we have a note from Todd C. Summers 136 Pine Nol. He writes as an immediate
butter. They he saw the plants and it's a small expansion of living quarters. He's happy to write in support for the special permit and there's plenty of room for this addition and it's completely appropriate for the neighborhood. That
concludes our correspondences. Is there anybody that would like to speak against or has a question? No questions from the board. I'll uh I'll just sort of go look for your head shaking uh indications.
Seems like Steve Debor did you have any questions? No, not at all. >> No. Very good. Nor do I. So, Paul, >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> Dave each seconds and votes yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Okay. Very good. Randy votes yes as
well. Deliberations will go back to the ether. Steve. Deliberate. >> Um, no. I think this is a very modest addition. It's going to make their life a little bit easier. It's not detrimental to anyone. So, I think it's a good project. >> Okay. Very good. Mr. Ve,
>> I completely agree. And Mr. >> I also agree. >> Simple. >> Modest change meets our criteria. Um, makes a lot of sense. >> I agree. >> Okay. As do I. So, um, let's see what we're going to do with conditions on this one. Paul,
>> let me ask Mr. Litchfield here. >> Clavic, can you hold off until Labor Day to do this construction? Can you >> just shake your head yes or no? >> Thank you. >> All right. I'll move to approve the application as submitted with the uh 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 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. only. >> Dave V seconds and votes yes. >> All vote yes. >> Jenny votes yes.
>> Yes. >> As do I. It's unanimous. Congratulations. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay. Well, that concludes our applications for today. So, Paul, >> I'll move to adjourn. >> David seconds and vote. >> Yes. Paul votes yes.
>> Jenny votes yes. >> Yes. >> And Steve, you vote yes to adjourn. >> Yes, I do. >> Okay, very good. As do I. So, it is what time? >> 4:22 p.m. >> Good evening, Chadam.