Mhm. >> Hey. Hey. >> [music] >> Welcome everybody to today's town of Chatham Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. The date is the 25th of May. Uh I want to say before we
Oh, we ended June already? Uh well, my mistake. Feels like May. How's that? Some play Anyway, it is June. I have to tell everybody that that we're under the gun at Friar's time goes today. So, if 5:30 rolls around, we're going to
stop the hearing. The Select Board needs the room because they want to argue out with the Select Board from Harwich about money for the school system. Okay, so having said that, we have an important message from the governor of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts who is busy running for re-election, but in the meantime, she sent us a note. Ms. Fenwick will help us with this. >> Thank you. Please note this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly hereafter for scheduled and on-demand viewing [clears throat] on any smartphone or tablet device. If
anyone else is recording the meeting using including the use of AI note-taking apps, please notify the chair. Pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28th, 2025 signing of Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2025 extending certain COVID-19
measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law till June 30th, 2027, this meeting of the Chatham Zoning Board of Appeals is being conducted in person and via remote participation. Every effort will be made to ensure that the
public can adequately access the proceedings as provided for in the order. >> [snorts] >> A reminder that persons who would like to listen to this meeting while in progress may do so by calling the phone number 508-945-4410. Conference ID 178-
718-063 pound sign. Or join the meeting online via Microsoft Teams via the link provided in the agenda posted in the agenda. While this is a live broadcast and simulcast on Chatham TV, which is Xfinity Channel 1072, despite our best
efforts, we may not be able to provide real-time access. We will post a record of this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible. And in accordance with the town policy, the public can speak to any issue hearing or business item on the agenda
during the meeting when you're recognized by the chair. So, just go through a few procedural steps so everyone knows how we operate. We'll take a roll call of all board members. We ask if any citizens or non-board members participating in the
call via the phone only for their name and the last four digits of their phone number for identification purposes. The hearing notice is read by Sarah B. Clark. She is our principal permitting officer. You or your representative presents the
your appeal or application. Anyone in favor of the appeal or application may speak. Two may speak. Five minutes is the time limit on that. The chair may read or summarize all letters received by the board. Anyone against the appeal or application
may speak or ask a question. Five-minute time limit applies there as well. The applicant then may rebutt testimony. Board members may direct questions to anyone present. The board hears any further information.
The board closes the public hearing. The board will then deliberate and then the board will vote on the application. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts requires a super majority, which means that four out of five votes you need to be successful.
And all votes will take be taken by roll call. Voting today will be Dave Veitch, Paul Semple, myself, Dave Nixon, and Lee Harvey. At the end of the meeting,
we will close the meeting via a verbal confirmation and note the time of adjournment. >> Thank you. So, we need a vote to authorize this form meeting. >> David H. Veitch and I approve this form. >> Ed Acton I approve. >> Paul C. Semple I approve this form.
>> David S. Nixon I approve. >> Virginia Fanwick I approve. >> Stephen D. DeBoer and I approve. >> Lee Harvey I approve. >> Okay. First order of business is the minutes. Dave? >> Yeah. So, I will move approval of the minutes as presented the for the minutes from
May 28th, 2026. >> I'll second the motion. >> Okay. We need to vote on that. Vitro says >> I abstain because I was not present. >> Okay. Jenny? >> Uh Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> And I was I vote yes. Who was present
that day? >> Uh we have uh Virginia >> was uh >> Steve >> Steve? >> Okay. >> And Lee and Ed. >> All right. >> Um in that case, I would vote to approve the minutes. >> Oh, very good. Okay. All right. So, um
let's start with application 26-045, please. Sarah. >> Application number 26-045, Timothy and Catherine White. Care of William G. Litchfield, Esquire, 330 Orleans Road, North Chatham, MA 02650.
Owners of property located at 54 Roland Drive, also shown on the town of Chatham Assessors Map 13J, Block 19, Lot AR4. The applicant proposes to change, alter, or expand a nonconforming accessory structure, garage, on a nonconforming lot via the demolition of the existing
garage and the construction of a new garage with habitable space above. Also proposed is the demolition of existing retaining walls and the construction of a new of new retaining walls. The existing garage is nonconforming and that it is located 11 ft from the Coastal Conservancy District. The
proposed garage will be nonconforming and that it will be located 11 ft from the Coastal Conservancy District where a 50-ft setback is required. The existing northerly retaining wall is nonconforming and that it is located 4 ft from the Coastal Conservancy District and the existing southerly retaining
wall is nonconforming and that it is located 13 ft from the Coastal Conservancy District. The proposed northerly retaining wall will be nonconforming and that it will be located 7 ft from the Coastal Conservancy District and the proposed southerly retaining wall will be nonconforming and that it will be
located 31 ft from the Coastal Conservancy District where a 50-ft setback is required. The existing building coverage is 2,191 square feet, 12.5% [clears throat] and the proposed building coverage is 2,360 square feet, 13.5% where 15% is
the maximum allowed. The lot is non-conforming and that it contains 17,475 square feet of buildable upland where 20,000 square feet is required and 20,975 square feet of land area where 40,000 square feet is required in the R40
zoning district. Special permit is required under mass general law chapter 40A section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw. >> Mr. Litchfield. >> Thank you very much. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the board. Bill Litchfield. Here with me today is our engineer, David Clark,
and the builder, proposed builder, Peter Barnard and with him the applicants, Tim and Catherine White and their daughter, Stacy. And that actually is sort of why we're here. The Whites have a
have two other late teenage children. They have they're fortunate in having two sets of grandparents and they'd like to have a little bit more room for some family members. There is a four-bedroom
septic system here and what we're proposing to do is to eliminate one of the bedrooms in the house. It's already been eliminated and to replace the rather, I won't say run-down, but imperfect garage
with a more modern structure, one that is cited a little bit better but which will have living area upstairs and a one-bedroom unit. No kitchen, no cooking facilities or anything like that. There was, as
some of you with eagle eyes noted, an error on the plan because it was labeled kitchenette. At one point we had had discussions with the Whites about their options and I explained that having a second dwelling unit unless it was an
ADU couldn't be done. So, the kitchen, the stove, and so forth. There is no kitchen or stove, but the person who did the plans didn't change the label, so it says kitchen at but there's no kitchen proposed. Recognizing you have time constraints, uh
what is proposed, as I said, is that reconstruction of the garage and also some uh relocation of retaining walls uh which are within the conservancy district, which is why David is here in case they have any questions in that regard. The Whites have owned this
house. They'd like to make it sort of a family uh location. They've already done some improvements for the neighborhood. No disrespect to Mr. Sample, but they purchased the house from an a lawyer, and when an attorney leaves the neighborhood, that's already an improvement as a general rule.
Uh so, they'd like to continue the improvements, and I'll go into the criteria as to adequacy of site. Almost all of the lots in the neighborhood are nonconforming. The house and the garage meet street and sideline requirements, but we're nonconforming as to the coastal conservancy district. We are
compliant as to coverage at 12.5% with 15% as the limit. If you approve the special permit, you can do so based on the finding finding that the site is adequate for replacing the garage with living area above. The garage will be slightly relocated, uh but will still
meet a butter and street setbacks, and will not get any closer to the coastal conservancy district. Coverage at 13.5% remains below the limit, and the relocation of the retaining walls addresses some topographic challenges that we have. As to compatibility of
size, third page of the handout has some of the neighboring properties. We have a mid-size lot, but there are no changes proposed to the house. The footprint of the garage increases by 169 square feet, but it's still well below the 15% limit limit. It remains
compatible uh as to gross floor area and living area. They increase, but again, not excessively. As to the extent of increase in non-conformity, Sarah read the several ways in which we are non-conforming. There is no increase in non-conformity. While we will still be
within the Coastal Conservancy District setback, the rebuilt garage remains 11 ft from the top of the coastal bank. The rebuilt walls will be 3 ft on the north side and 11 and 18 ft on the south side further from the Coastal Conservancy District rather than closer to it. As
[snorts] such, there is no increase in non-conformity and practically no real change. As to suitability of site, the site is suitable for the existing house and garage built well before the current Coastal Conservancy District setbacks. We've been in front of the conservation
I'm sorry, we yes, we have been in front of conservation. We'll be going again. There have been some modest changes not to the garage, but some modest changes in regard to the mitigation which is going to be a part of the proposal when approved by the
Conservation Commission. The chair will read a letter stating that the commission has reviewed the plans and the project can be conditioned to meet both Wetland Protection Act and local bylaw standards. As to scale, sighting, mass, views, and vistas, the [snorts] existing dwelling is a one
and three-quarter story cape with a separate and somewhat oddly sighted garage to without impact on views and vistas. I know that you went out on your site visits, you saw that on the north and the west we or east rather, sort of the forest primeval back there. It's
it's very heavily vegetated and can't be seen. Again, the house is not proposed to be changed. The garage is going to be moved about 10 ft further from the street, not closer to it, but it will remain [snorts] without impact on streetscape. There's no views or vistas involved. As to compatibility of use,
there's no change. [snorts] Although what we are looking for and the basic reason for the change is to have a >> [snorts] >> multi-generational family structure. The with the exception of uh water and sewer that I'll get to, the other criteria are not at issue.
Uh we have town water. We have title five for town bed for four bedrooms. Cheryl read a comment from Judy Giorgio uh suggesting that the basement bedroom has to be eliminated. In the casement opening installed, the bedroom's gone. The casement doorway has already been
been installed by Mr. Bernard, so the health agent has no concerns. I would relate for the senior members in terms of longevity of this board that yes, I did speak to Don Freeman, and no, he has no problems because he lives, as
you know, just down the street. So, the question, given the time constraints under which you're operating, the question is whether the proposed new garage with a slightly larger footprint and living area above, one bedroom with no kitchen or stove, is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood
than the current non-conforming structure structures on a non-conforming lot. The project, as I said, provides additional living space as well as privacy for a family consisting of two sets of grandparents, the parents, and the three late teen children.
Um it's a simple and appropriate design with no increase in non-conformity. The other glitch in the plan is that I didn't ask him to take off the cupola, but uh that may not be an issue in this location. So, in light of the criteria and the plans, particularly in this
location, I think they can find the proposed change is not substantially more detrimental. [clears throat] I'd be happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you very much. Is there anyone here today or on Microsoft Teams who would like to speak in favor of this application? If so, please indicate you'd like to join in
the conversation. Don't see anyone, so I'll read the correspondence. First is from Judith Georgio. She writes on June 23rd, "This property is considered a four-bedroom dwelling including one basement bedroom. This proposed plan to
remove the basement bedroom and relocate it to the new garage/apartment is acceptable at this time. The room in the basement must be refinished to include a 6-ft cased opening into the common area. The property will remain four bedrooms."
Then we have a note. This is from the Conservation Commission in Chatham, so on June 4th, "The applicant submitted a notice of intent. The project was heard by the Conservation Commission on May 13th. Project was continued to June 24th to make revisions requested by the
Commission. Project will then be scheduled for the issuance of an order of conditions when it will be conditioned to meet the performance standards under the Wetlands Protection Act and the town of local wetland bylaw." That is the extent of the correspondence. Is there anyone here
today on Microsoft Teams that wishes to either A, ask a question about this application, or B, speak against it? If so, please indicate now you want to join the conversation. Don't see anybody, so we will have questions from the board. Dave Leech.
>> I have no questions, Dave. >> No questions. >> Oh. >> No questions. >> Ginny. >> I have a couple of questions, Mr. Litchfield. Um and maybe for Mr. Barnard. Uh let's see. On the Yeah, so I did
notice the kitchen at on the um the floor plan. And what is going in that space? I'm looking at the floor plans that um I guess it would be the one that's showing the second floor plan and it's has a what looks like it would have been the
kitchen [clears throat] at and it's just not the room's not labeled. I just was curious to know what it is. I see the kitchen that's labeled on the other page and it looks like based on the windows it correlates with that space. >> Yeah, Peter, I don't know whether you want to come and join me in terms of the
plan. There had been a kitchen proposed kitchen at I think they had a sink and so forth. They may still do a sink. >> Yeah. >> That by itself is on an issue. I think it's basically living space. I think we're talking Peter on this plan. If I could, Mr. Chairman, Peter Barnard or >> Yes. >> I Peter Barnard.
>> Yes, Peter. >> Um Uh where the kitchen at was, there was just going to be a sink there. There was never intentions to put a stove in. >> Mhm. >> So that was it. We we knew we didn't want to do an ADU. We knew that we weren't going to be putting any uh anything to cook with there.
Uh the plan I I'm looking at right now in the living room area doesn't show that. >> Right, the room to the left of it doesn't show what it is and uh all the other rooms are labeled. That's why I was just curious about that. >> one big room where it says living room? >> Oh, okay, the whole
>> Yeah, those are the line down the middle, that's just the dimensions of the room. >> Okay. >> one large living area. >> Okay. Um I know I was saw you at the site visit. The the garage is going to be pushed back >> Yep.
>> and you're adding, you know, some height to it, but it's still going to be subordinate um to the house, the main house. It's quite a bit taller today. We have all these plans of the garage, but I don't see it in the context of the house and that's fine. I just that's why I wanted to ask.
>> Um I I height-wise, I don't know what you mean. So the goal of the height of the elevation of the house relative to the uh garage was to have the living floor of the house, the main floor, the same elevation as the the upstairs at the
garage. >> Okay. >> So, in terms of overall height, they're going to be very similar to each other. >> Okay. >> The main floor of of the garage, well, the garage itself is lower. The living space is the same height as the floor of
the the house, the main floor of the house. >> The elevation, if I could, the elevation of the dwelling is 41.8. The elevation of the proposed garage is 39.4. >> Okay. >> still be more than two two feet two and a half feet below.
>> Okay. Good. Good. All right. Um great. One more question on the site plan, uh I read somewhere that um the timber wall was going to be removed. You're replacing it with retaining walls. What's the material of the new retaining walls?
>> I think for that side of the house we were talking about using timbers again. >> Again. Okay. >> Yeah, I think >> So, you're replacing the old timber wall with the location of the new one and using timber. >> Exactly. >> Okay, thank you. That's all I have. >> conservation may have requirements for,
you know, no preservatives, no this, and we'll obviously adhere to whatever they require in that regard. >> Okay, thank you. >> Steve. Um couple minor issues. I didn't see, or it might be on there and I missed it, but an uh air conditioning unit for the garage? One planned?
>> Our exterior mechanical appliance system is proposed, i.e. generator, condenser, AC condenser. >> An AC condenser for a ductless mini >> I I I >> I'll you you got to an AC condenser for a ductless mini split that will have to be sited not
closer than 25 feet from the lot line. Probab- I would assume behind the garage. Okay. I just want to make sure that's covered. Um Minor issue, there's a deck currently between the house and the garage. Is
that going to remain? Is that cuz that was kind of a unique >> No. >> structure? No. >> It'll be removed. >> Okay, interesting. Okay. Um cuz I didn't see that on here, either. And there's no changes being made to the house as part of this project. >> No, there I mean there are considerable
cosmetic changes as you saw, but no structural changes. Beside from the elimination of the bedroom. >> Yes. All right, thank you very much. >> Steve, Sarah has reminded me that has to be beyond the 50 ft of the conservancy district. You know, the when we're talking about
the mechanicals. So, that has to be >> I I I don't know, Mr. Chairman, whether the board would feel it within its its ambit or purview to >> [clears throat] >> consider that today. If we need to come back for a modification to add it, we
can do so. >> Okay. Come back. I don't think we want to consider it today because we don't know the answer. >> That's fine. >> Um uh just a quick question regarding the small balcony. I I love the the larger balcony in the front of the
garage with all the sliders, but the small balcony on the side of the house, is that an exit or is that just a balcony? Like it's just a small little I mean, it is going to be
closed. >> Back there on the house side, between the proposed garage and the existing house structure, we were just proposing to put a small um landing to come out onto to meet code,
basically, to come out onto the the landing, step down onto grade, then you'd have to walk across the grade to step back up into the house. >> Okay, that's what I thought. Thank you. That's it. >> Okay. Any other questions that popped up? No?
Okay. >> Yes, I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> I'll second the motion vote yes. >> I vote. Each vote yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> Lee? >> I vote yes. >> And I vote yes. Okay. Ed?
Deliberations. >> Uh I think it addresses the need for the family and um I don't have any issues with it. Uh the height is a little bit lower than the main house so it it is subordinate to to the the main property and um
I think it'll be a nice addition, has some nice views and um I think it's a good project and certainly don't think it's substantially detrimental to the neighborhood. >> Paul? >> I agree with that. It's certainly not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. >> Jenny?
>> Not substantially more detrimental and in fact an improvement. I did watch the conservation hearing and I understand you couldn't really even use the garage very well based on the way it was cited and the width of the driveway. So, being able to use the garage for purpose of a garage is a real plus. Also, there were
improvements to the CCD as you noted Mr. Litchfield in your narrative um that the retaining walls which are necessary will be rebuilt and um moved farther away in both locations from the uh coastal bank CCD.
So, uh not substantially more detrimental. I would support it. >> Steve? >> Um I think it's a it's a good project. It [clears throat] benefits the family. It sounds like they have a need and it I don't believe it's detrimental to the neighborhood or any any of its surroundings. >> Lee?
>> I agree with my colleagues. >> Dave Eche? >> I agree as well. >> So, uh that's uh and so let me just ask Bill as far as our standard um conditions, have you discussed that with them and >> Yeah, I I would suspect unless it's just
my opinion. Um I would suspect that the neighbors would probably pleased to see be to have the entire project completed ASAP because there have been there's been construction going on. >> Yeah. >> There were no requests. I mean the the
Whites have spoken to their neighbors. I'm not aware of anyone who would be concerned about summertime construction. So it might be better not to impose it for the sake of the neighborhood. >> Okay. Okay. Do Do you think we need a condition regarding the cooking aspect?
>> I I don't think so. I mean you know, at some point it it it I don't know. At some point it might qualify to become an ADU. And so I'm I'm not I'm and generally I'm not as concerned
about that kind of thing given the housing issues that we have in town. >> All right. Well, and when we go through the plans after the meeting, we'll get out the red pen. I'll put it through there. Just so there's no >> Yeah, sure. >> Okay. Fine. >> So So all right. So I will move approval
of application number 26-045 with the condition all construction activity and vehicles be contained on site or to neighboring property with permission of property owner. And but also with timing I guess between
June 30th and Labor Day no work should be permitted on weekends or construction activity between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. only. >> Okay. >> I would I would suggest one more condition. That would be that there be
no illumination in the cupola. No lighting. >> Oh, Paul. >> So I would add that and I would vote yes if that's added. >> Mhm. >> Jenny? >> How do about the cupola lighting?
>> Yeah, the conditions and you can vote yes, no, or in between. >> Yeah, I know I think the conditions as as read were were fine. >> And and the one about the lit cupola? >> I don't know. I I I I like the cupola. I like it I like
the ability to have it lit, but I could go either way. >> I'm not I'm I just maybe I misspoke. I'm not talking about eliminating the the cupola. I'm talking about no illumination. >> Right, no light in the cupola. Um I mean I so some folks like to have it that way
and and I would be okay with not restricting that if they wanted to to have that. It's very private in the back. I don't think that we have the issue of like a really tight neighborhood, which is often why we don't like the illuminated cupolas, but um
there's very dense no one behind them and really no one in front of them. It's the you know, the water. So, I I I I don't require that. >> Well, I have an illuminated cupola in my house, so I sort of partial to them, so they don't
bother me. >> How about the rest of it? >> I'm fine [clears throat] with the rest. >> Lee? >> I vote yes. >> No on the cupola or yes? >> Uh it doesn't matter to me either way. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Well,
I live next to a gentleman who turns his light on and he likes to leave it on months at a time. And it's really annoying. So, I would support what Paul said. >> I I and I and I I have a I live in a similar situation
and I I think Paul's condition that he suggested was a a wise one and I will I will vote for that. >> Okay. All right. So, So, I have I do I moved approval with with those conditions and with adding the condition
>> So, we'll vote on that. >> the cupola should not be illuminated interior illumination. >> So, that's a yes? >> That's and okay. >> I'll second the motion and vote yes. >> Yeah. >> Genie votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> I vote yes. That's a unanimous decision. Thank you, Mr. Litchfield and thank you,
White family. Congratulations. Okay. >> At my funeral service, make sure there's no freaking cupola that shows up, all right? >> Think of a little cupola on your casket. >> [laughter] >> That's a All right.
>> [clears throat] >> Okay, yes. So, we're going to switch the menu up a little bit. We're going to application 26-046 and 4047 and 048. I think um
I think I'll have you read them all at one time. Can we do that? Okay. >> You can. It'll be three separate votes and three >> Oh, yeah, definitely. >> Okay. >> Yeah, definitely. >> Okay. Application number 26-046, Chatham Max Holdings, care of William F.
Riley, Esquire, P.O. Box 707, Chatham, MA 02633. Owner of property located at 104 Crowell Road, also shown in the town of Chatham's [clears throat] Assessors Map 13F, Block 25, Lot 23. The applicant proposes to construct a single-family dwelling in a GB3 zone,
which requires the grant of a special permit. The proposed lot coverage is 3,171 sq ft, 19.3%, where 60% is the maximum allowed. The lot is conforming with 16,465 sq ft, where 10,000 10,000 sq ft is
required in the GB3 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law Chapter 40A Section 9 and Sections 3C, 4C, 26, and 8D2B of the Protective Bylaw. Application number 26-047,
Chatham Max Holdings care of William G William F. Riley, Esquire, P.O. Box 707, Chatham, MA 02633. Owner of property located at 114 Crow Road, also shown on the Town of Chatham's Assessors Map 13F, Block 25,
Block 24. The applicant proposes to construct a single-family dwelling in a GB3 zone, which requires the grant of a special permit. The proposed lot coverage is 9,459 square feet, 46.1%, where 60% is the maximum allowed.
The lot is conforming with 17,700 17,562 square feet, where 10,000 square feet is required in the GB3 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law Chapter 40A Section 9 and Sections 3C, 4C, 26, and 8D2B of the
Protective Bylaw. And under application number 26-048, Chatham Max Holdings care of William F. Riley, Esquire, P.O. Box 707, Chatham, MA 02633. Owner of property located at 124 Crow Road. Also shown on the Town of
Chatham's Assessors Map 13F, Block 25, Lot 8. The applicant proposes to construct a single-family dwelling in a GB3 zone, which requires the grant of a special permit. The proposed lot coverage is 3,524 square feet, 19.2%, where 60% is the
maximum allowed. The lot is conforming with 18,393 square feet, where 10,000 square feet is required in the in the GB3 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law Chapter 40A Section 9 and Sections 3C, 4C, 26, and
8D2B of the Protective Bylaw. >> Mr. Riley. So, we're we're still going to do them one at a time, is that correct? >> Sure. >> Okay. All right. So, this is a situation where >> [clears throat] >> uh this property was formerly the location
uh where Roy Meserve had his accounting office and Robin Turner had his insurance office. Uh after the insurance company left, a stockbroker moved in. Uh and then
Roy went to his eternal reward and the uh the stockbroker moved to Florida. So, the family tried uh for over a year to re-let the property uh and they got they couldn't find
anybody. They had no interest in people re-leasing the building. So, they decided to sell the property. Uh Mr. Rodnick and a partner of his uh decided to purchase the building. Their goal at that time uh
was to create workforce housing. Unfortunately, uh the Chatham zoning bylaw uh im- imposes so many conditions uh for that kind of housing that it's uh
not feasible uh to construct even on a lot this size. So, the the uh so, they decided to subdivide the property and put three single-family homes there.
The design of those homes have has already been submitted to the HPDC and all those designs have been approved by the HPDC. Uh the planning board uh did the subdivision. So, the the lots, each of the lots uh
individually complies with all requirements of the current zoning by-law. And all the buildings proposed buildings to be located will also comply in all respects with the Chatham zoning by-law.
So, the the um on lot 23 uh you know, we believe the site going through the criteria site's adequate in terms of size of the proposed use. Uh the lot is
16,465 sq ft where 10,000 is the minimum. Uh and the in this zone we don't deal with building coverage, we deal with site coverage. Uh site coverage allowed here is 60%.
Uh and our coverage so, site coverage includes driveways as well as buildings. Uh so, our coverage is is 19.3% of the site. The uh for what it if fellows were interested,
the building coverage is actually 15.1% of the lot. The uh compatibility of the proposed size with neighboring properties. So, the proposed building has a gross
floor area of 5,692 sq ft of which 3,709 sq ft are above ground. The uh and we we have a an attached sheet that shows uh the
gross floor areas of other structures in the neighborhood. I think you know, we're very much compatible in size with all those structures. Uh question three, extent of proposed increase in non-conforming nature of the structure or use.
Although we require a special permit, uh the building and the lot uh are all uh 100% conforming with the current zoning bylaw. Suitability of the site including but not limited to impact on neighboring properties surrounding
natural environment including slopes, vegetation, wetlands, groundwater, water bodies, and stormwater runoff. You've been to the site. The site is very, very uh level. Uh and so we're not concerned about uh runoff or
uh wetlands or water bodies in the neighborhood. So we believe that the site is suitable for the construction involved. Impact of scale, siting, and mass uh on neighborhood visual character including views, vistas, and streetscapes. Uh
as I indicated at the outset, we have uh this the design of this building because it's in a GB3 zone has to be submitted to the HPDC, the historic business district uh commission, and they have approved this design. Uh
we believe that it is compatible uh with other structures in the neighborhood. And we think that the uh the views and vistas aren't affected. Streetscape is improved if you consider
what the previous structure was in this location. >> [snorts] >> And the design is you know, it's shingle design with uh traditional New England high-pitched roof. We believe it does uh
fit very much into the uh nei- uh neighborhood. Compatibility of the proposed use with neighboring uses. Now, there's correspondence from a neighbor uh who lives in the condominium over the Creative Arts Center
uh that lamenting the change of the property from commercial to residential. Uh and I think that is a misunderstanding
of this particular GB3 zone. If you started uh at Main Street and walked along Crowell Road uh the very first building on the left is a single-family home that was approved by this board about
2 months ago. Uh across the street from that it used to be a pharmacy, now it's a bike shop with an apartment over. Uh the building next door to that on the right is in a is in a series of apartment buildings.
Uh on the left, it's the Montshire Museum, which is commercial spaces uh with residential spaces behind. Um then you have uh McCarthy ZeBrat Design and a
single-family home that was uh has been there for many years. Then you have Pandemonium. Uh and then a funeral home then a single-family home then you have the Kendric Harvest
Subdivision. Uh and if you go down, you know, it So, then you have a single-family home, then you have Branches, the restaurant, and Eastwood Companies behind it. Uh
you have Finns, you have Bobby Eldridge's house. Uh and next to you know, and before Bobby Elder's house, you have two buildings, commercial use buildings, that have been for sale for at least 3 years,
indicating the lack of interest in commercial spaces in this particular neighborhood. And then after after Fin's, you have Neil Cole's up Thomas Street's office, and then you have two single family homes.
And you know, once you leave the the uh then if you go back on the other side of the street after the apartments, you have uh Hydrangea Lane, which has three single family homes that were again approved by this
board. Then you have the dentist's office. Then you have this space. And you have the Drama Guild, the Creative Arts Center. She failed to mention my office building, which is the next building. And Chatham Boat Company.
Uh, then you have you know, the Anchorage and and some of our affordable housing. So, what you really have is like a village street, so you can walk up and down. You want to go to lunch, you go to lunch. You're on the bus route.
So, it's a mix of business and commercial, and it always has been. Uh, the uh you know, I was before you some time ago dealing with a property at 400 Main Street, where
all the businesses in the neighborhood were up in arms about having that become a residential property, and uh this board agreed with the neighbors, and and uh would not approve a single family residence in the middle of that commercial zone.
This is a completely different situation, and I believe that uh you know, it's a mixed neighborhood. It's a village kind of thing cuz you can walk around. Uh and so I believe it's a completely
appropriate use uh for this property and I hope you agree. The uh So, we're compatible with neighboring uses we believe. Uh we're on the public sewer system
uh and water system and we don't think there's going to be any impact on uh traffic flow and safety or noise and litter. That would be our presentation. >> Is there anyone here today or on Microsoft Teams that would like to
speak in favor of this application? If so, please indicate you want to join the conversation. Don't see anybody. Read the correspondence. First, we have a note from Judith Giorgio. She's the health agent for the town of Chatham. June 23rd, I have no concerns
regarding this proposal. A three-bedroom dwelling is permitted on the 16,000 square foot lot in accordance with the Chatham water and sewer regulations. No more than three bedrooms are allowed. Now, we have a note from the Historic Business District
Commission on June 4th. The on the May 12th, 2026, the HBDC met and rendered the following decision. The commission voted 5-0-0 approving the new construction and associated site improvements at 104 Crow Road.
That was signed by Chantel Kilkenny for the commission. Then have a note. It's a letter from Elizabeth Bray, B R A Y, 154 Crow Road, Unit C. I urge you not to grant the special permit for building houses
2646 and so forth all three of these that are coming in front of us today is an abutter at 154 Crowell Road Eunice C. I object to this change. Crowell Road has become a thriving center for businesses and non-profit organizations that contribute significantly
to Chatham's economy, culture, and community life. Existing organizations and businesses such as Wheelhouse, Pain d'Avignon, Chatham Drama Guild, Creative Center, Branches, Three Fins have helped create a vibrant successful commercial
corridor. Maintaining the commercial designation will preserve opportunities for new businesses and community organizations to locate and grow in the area. Once commercial property is lost to residential development, it's extremely difficult to replace. Please keep this lot zoned for
commercial use and support its continued role as an important business and community district. Thank you for your consideration. And that is the extent of the correspondence. So also was a bill from the that was paid.
Okay, is there anyone here today on our Microsoft Teams who wishes to speak of their A against or B has a specific question? The gentleman in the back. >> Uh Brian Phillips, 374 Orleans Road. Uh first off, I think these houses are way too big for these lots. Uh the second, I
think they're totally inappropriate for this area. This is a commercial area. Um I mean like we said, we got the bike shop, we got some workforce housing, there's that lot, there's the you know the creative art center. Um you know we got boat yards. Um so
it's it's totally inappropriate spot. Um they're just going to be summer homes, you know, they're just really not going to contribute too much to the community. We have a lot of summer homes already. Um and I think it sets a really bad precedent for this area cuz now you're letting the market force kind of do whatever it's going to do. And then now
you have, you know, a boat the boat yard's in jeopardy of being bought up and developed into more houses, which we don't need. We need restaurants, we need boat yards, we need, you know, things for people to do in businesses. So, I hope you guys vote against this cuz this is a big mistake. Thank you. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else here today or on Microsoft Teams that wishes
to speak? >> [clears throat] >> Don't see anybody. Okay, we're going to have questions from the board. Mr. Riley has asked that um if you have any concerns to please bring it up in your question area as opposed to waiting until
deliberations. He doesn't like to be surprised, I guess. Uh Paul. >> Uh well, let me uh let me start with my overall uh question. A lot of the issues that you outlined with respect to the
uh well, the the lots here and uh Crow Road in this whole area uh seem to me to uh clearly uh support the concept of developing some affordable or attainable housing
on this kind of a lot. Uh it's on the bus route. It's a mixed neighborhood. There's walking to a lot of locations. Did Did your client give consideration to that idea? >> Uh yes.
Uh they did and the the um I don't know if you've ever actually taken a look at the affordable housing sections of our zoning bylaw. Uh they're completely onerous
and appear to be designed to make sure that whoever's doing that housing uh can't possibly make any money. And so, that's the reason why uh after this was created at the urging of you know, people who really aren't in
favor of development uh or having low-income housing in Chatham there hasn't been a single a development trying to take advantage of that section of the bylaw. And so, they did look at it.
Uh they also looked at it because uh it's in an SB zone a GB zone, so dormitories are allowed. And so, that was one of the things that was the very first thing they considered. The difficulty is that our bylaw requires
I think 3,000 sq ft of area for every bed. And so, what happens is uh you can't get the scale you need for the number of beds. Uh I think there was maybe uh we did the calculation was like
um 34 beds, Ronnie? >> 28. >> [snorts] >> 28 beds, which unfortunately uh given the rent you can charge to workforce housing uh is not enough to uh even take care of the cost of the
land itself, let alone the cost of construction. I mean, so that um on behalf of Mr. Rudnick we I represented him in Harwich developing the old Stone Horse property uh where they had
>> 180 beds. >> Yeah, two buildings, 90 beds in each building. And that is the kind of scale you need so that it makes economic sense to do that development. And until Chatham revises its bylaw to
allow for that kind of construction or that scale construction you know, there just isn't going to be any housing. There he'll be built in Harwich and they'll drive to Shadow, I guess. I don't know, but that's you know, that's the difficulty we face.
But we did explore uh cuz that was the initial goal. So, we did explore it. >> We We met with the building inspector. We tried to see any way >> please identify yourself? >> I'm Excuse me, I'm sorry. I'm Ron Ruddick. >> Thank you. >> Um [snorts] we really want to build workforce
housing. That's what I want to do, okay? And we bought this property to do workforce housing. That's the biggest need in this town right now is to supply all our stores, all our restaurants, all the little little guys, okay, with help. Be open 32 weeks a year
and close it down. But we just can't do it. There's There's no place in the bylaw that we can do. And I I sat with Jay, I sat with my attorneys, we just couldn't do it. So, and I'm not a big house builder, you know, you guys know how what I build. I build mostly commercial.
But the issue is that uh I wish I could build workforce housing. But I'm left with this with and we could have made four lots out of this property, you can make it 10,000 square foot lots. Our lots are bigger than what Billy Marsh did next door to us and across as we all 16 or 17,000 square
foot lots and we left it with just three lots instead of four. We actually bought a piece of the land next door to the um >> From the Drama Guild. >> Drama Guild, they needed some money to repay the building and we bought a piece of property and for that to add it to our property.
Um I don't know what else I can say cuz you know, it's this is the best use we can do with it right now. >> Mhm. Well, I appreciate that. Uh I'm One thing I'm trying to get through my mind here is that uh
we've had a lot of uh applications for uh residential use in GB zones for various particular kinds of projects and usually they're they're uh uh easier to get through some of the zoning
aspect of things because uh you can have a larger coverage and you can deal with the uh easier requirements with respect to uh to some of the uh issues that you deal with. But
um the I don't know that it's necessarily work for us housing that would be appropriate, but overall we're trying to come to a solution which is appropriate for the town's overall plan in terms of
uh housing and development in general. And I'm looking at the I look at the Stepping Stones project which has uh I think only 2 acres I saw of land. They're looking at putting um 12 to 14 units in there.
I'm wondering whether it's possible to come up with a proposal that would financially work for you perhaps with town assistance that would [snorts] put uh a smaller number of units We we met with you at at this location.
That's That's my question. >> Uh so my first response is that uh the town uh is taking their own land, so there's no out-of-pocket costs attributable to uh that parcel and then
the density is uh greater than is allowed uh under the zoning bylaw. So um And what What was the purchase price? >> 1.3.
>> Yeah, so the purchase price here was a million three. And you know, for the for the number of units you could build it just it didn't make economic sense, unfortunately. But [clears throat] it it was thoroughly explored.
And you know, the the property was available. I mean, theoretically, the town could have bought it. But you know, I don't know if I don't know if the town would have paid a million three for a piece of property where the density uh would be difficult.
But >> Okay, thank you. >> Jenny. >> Um yeah, I had kind of had some similar questions to Paul's, I guess. Um So, the GB3 is 10,000 sq ft lot. So, and
you're building residential homes there. So, to build a residential home in a normal you you would need to be in an R20, which would require 20,000 sq ft. And you're proposing three houses under 20,000 sq ft. Would would it be um kind
of a option? I I'm happy to hear Mr. Rudnick say that he actually explored the workforce housing option. Instead of three homes at 165, 175, 184, would would two homes work in your
>> Oh, could you speak more directly into the microphone, Jenny, please? >> Yeah. >> I'm old and hard of hearing. Um let me let me answer the question. So, Mr. Phillips has a valid concern. >> Mhm. >> In his statement, oh, they're just summer homes. Well, actually, we don't
think they are just summer homes. But if we just build two, and we build them to what would be sort of the maximum size on an R20 lot, they would be summer homes. These these properties at least have a chance
of of being used for local families to live in. And so that's kind of our goal. >> Um okay, thank you. >> Steve. >> Um well, I share some similar thoughts
as the the previous two speakers, but um um the driveway I assuming since these houses all have Kroll Road addresses, that's just going to be a shared driveway for the three houses? >> Well, it's it's actually constructed as a road, but yeah.
Yes, that's correct. >> Okay. Um >> In other words, it's it's wider it's wider than a standard driveway, so there are two lanes. >> Right. But it's not going to be a dedicated road. >> No.
>> to have a name, they >> No, no, cuz the addresses are all Kroll Road. >> Right, right. Okay. Um all right, then >> a requirement of the planning board, so >> Okay. All right, thank you. >> Lee. >> So, um I'll start off with a positive note. Um
this [clears throat] is definitely one case where it was very valuable to go out and walk the lot and see the stakes. Um Mr. Eldridge Sr. met us was happy to be there and um he showed us exactly how large that piece of property actually
is, which helped me because when I would drive by, all I would see was the dirt area, the sandy area and I thought, "Oh my gosh, three houses on that, it's going to be ridiculous." But the lot is a lot bigger than it seems from the
road, which I think is helpful. Um I my my first gut too was just like Paul's, like, "Oh man, it would be great if we could have some smaller houses there that people could really afford." I mean, I don't know what the price tags on those are going to be, but if it's anything like
some of the other houses that are being built, say on Barcliff or even on Kroll Road, the one most recently that went up, it's going to be expensive. So, um >> We we can tell you that our pricing is different than Eastwood company's
pricing. >> Good to know. Um I don't have any questions per se, but those were my concerns. >> Dave. >> Yeah. Um you know, I I um had a little time on my hands the other day, so I worked up a sheet of my own and so some comparative
stuff. I'll pass this around. Sorry I didn't get to this in in Bill, you can have a copy if you want. Um and I apologize I just noticed my copy or cut off some numbers, so some of the addresses don't appear as what they actually are.
Um I I took a look because I had you know, my first look at it was well, I mean I've I've known about this in the proposal and I've known that that Mr. sought or or wanted to do workforce
housing and or dormitories uh and had discussions with the town and um you know, and I and and so this what's on this list is essentially to my knowledge
uh the properties on Kroll Road, the ones that I know about at least that have obtained um special permits for single-family dwellings from this board. Uh and so I did that because I
my first look was wow, they jeez, more more kind of somewhat large houses, but when I look at the numbers here on on footprints and um gross floor area and um uh lot areas and things, I it it all
they appear to be very much in in in concert with the other previously approved um single-family dwellings on the on the I in that area. Um I and I share I I
along with others, I share the concerns about this is another place that could have been a could be or could be a great opportunity for workforce housing, but uh you know, I think this the 3,000 square foot um land area necessary for is it per bed or
bedroom? Chair, do you know what >> It's per bed. >> Per bed. And and I understand that makes it difficult or perhaps impossible for to do. So here they have come to us with something that the bylaw does allow us to do.
And um I'm sorry to say that you know, we're we I think we probably in many respects need to make other changes to the bylaw to help encourage and make workforce
housing a a greater possibility, but um my understanding I think of if we had they gone ahead um here in this case, it would have required a variance from us. Um so I I want to I mean, I think we
I'm sorry that it that it looks to be another another opportunity that won't be workforce housing. I don't know, but I don't think that what's being proposed here is is um is really significantly different than a lot of what we've approved in the
area uh and including Hydrangea Lane um which we did uh you know, the old doctor's office there and these properties are very this proposal very much in keeping with those. Um [snorts]
so um you know, I I think really there's a lot there's work that needs to be done at different levels of the bylaw and that's not really our job necessarily. It's our job to apply to what we have. So, once I think >> You could make your voice heard, of
course. >> And Oh. Are you done, Dave? >> Well, if Ron wants to add something, I would add it. >> I just to move over back to the workforce housing. The We we had 400 people in between Howard
to Chatham dealing with all the stores of the restaurants. And it's still not enough. We Our phones ring all day long trying to have people J-1s, HB2s, college kids to have a job place to
sleep. The town of Chatham is very, very expensive. So, housing. And you know, it's a I'm I'm going off track. >> No, we get We got a time constraint today. >> I'm sorry. >> Um in speaking with the town, or did you
Did you ever consider a 40B project? Or would you consider 40B projects? >> No. >> Given watching what the other 40Bs are going through here. Yeah. Okay. >> Well, it's um I don't have any really specific
questions. I think you've explained why you couldn't go this road or the other road or whatnot. Um I certainly feel the same way Paul does, that I want to see a different plan with maybe more houses,
but smaller. >> How about one that's bigger than the other lots that are already approved by the town? >> No, I understand. But >> But, Dave, >> I'm just saying. >> There could be one more house. >> Mhm. >> And it would be that much smaller.
>> I mean, when I look at these, I mean, you're talking about multi-million dollar homes. >> Not necessarily. Although construction costs would would def you know >> Yeah. >> determine that. But the the uh uh
You have to remember that I mean, the cost of the land was a million three. So even if you even if you divide that by four, you're still paying a $300,000 for a vacant lot. So
you know, with construction costs you know, it's just They they felt Ron and his partner felt that less density would be uh something that
is more compatible in this neighborhood than you know, packing them in. It's all driven by the zoning bylaw and and the fact that the zoning bylaw has not had a significant rewrite really since Margo Fein left town 1985 or
whatever that was. You know, and even then you know, the condition is for hotel rooms. Oh, you need 3,200 3,500 square feet of area for every hotel room. There isn't a single hotel in this town
that qualifies uh for an additional bedroom because of that. And and so this So, it's not only this section of the bylaw that has a changed. No section of the bylaw has changed. And society has changed, needs have
changed. But the bylaw doesn't change. And so I think this is a reasonable use of the property. It's certainly not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than what was there before, an empty
parking lot and and a an office building that couldn't rent. So, >> Okay. All right, deliberations. Which uh let me first uh move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. I don't think we've done that. >> Oh, yeah. >> Okay.
>> I'll second the motion. >> So, yeah. >> I'll second the motion and vote yes. >> Vito votes yes. >> Genie votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> I vote yes. >> Deliberations, Steve. >> Um All right. Well, I guess my sentiments
probably apply to all three lots even though there's only one before us currently, but um you know, this is the demise of more commercial space in our town and we're we're we're trying
to um we're trying to attract people to move here, um but we're losing places for them to work. If you walk down Main Street right now, every store has got a help wanted sign in it.
At some point, if all the commercial property goes away, there's going to be a lot of employees looking for employers because there's not going to be any place to >> Yeah, and they need workforce housing, which this isn't part of the problem. >> I understand that. I understand that. So, you know, if there was an an
alternative considered, maybe a fourth house, a fourth smaller house, you you mentioned that the three houses um were probably going to be reachable uh for for people to live there full-time, but two houses would not be and they would probably be summer
houses. If there were four houses they might be even a little bit more reachable. >> I know but you're not designing the system. You have to vote on this. Is this proposal this is deliberations. We're not in an argument, okay? >> So, you know, my thought I think would be
um if you would maybe consider an an an alternative use for this property. I probably wouldn't support this as it is right now. >> Lee. >> Um well, I think these are very
attractive houses. I just wish that they were um a little a little smaller um but but you know, the lot is big. Um this particular house, I think it's the smallest of them all. Um
I you know, they're they're attractive. They would not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. I just wish they could be something else. >> David. >> Well, I I I think I think I tried to
indicate how I how I felt about it. I I I'm you know, I share the concerns about not having I mean about the overall lack of affordable housing etc. etc.
Um but I think in my view this this proposal um these proposals, the three of them I I can't I don't find them to be substantially more detrimental to the
neighborhood. Uh I I I think they are in keeping with with I and none of our decisions set a precedent now that but I I think that these are in keeping with the development of some of the development we've seen
take place along that section of Crow Road. Um yeah, so I don't know what I want to do. I mean, you know, I I didn't feel that that that the kind of housing is proposed behind the Monadnock Theater property was appropriate or for that location.
But, you know, single-family dwellings of which these are smaller than some of those, I think, in in this location I I I conceive would would be a fit. Um and so, for those reasons, um and I just think it's more it's
consistent with some of the some of our past um decisions that we've made in this area. So, I could support them. >> And >> Um I I think the site you know, screams uh you know, a 40B
development, but I understand why the applicant wouldn't go that route given if he's watched any of the 40B friendly 40B hearings in town. It's just uh uh would be um a suicide. Um
I I I don't feel the three houses is unreasonable. I would prefer to see four houses, but three houses is certainly not substantial to the neighborhood. >> Paul
>> Well, I uh I have a lot of respect for Mr. Redknap and his ability to uh make a decision with respect to workforce housing. He's got a lot of experience. He's got a lot more knowledge about it than I do. Um
And uh so, uh and I'm sure that the project that he undertakes will be a good project. Um I am I'm mindful of the fact that uh part of our criteria is that uh we have to find that the
use involved will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the bylaw. and um I'm wondering if that's the best use uh given that it's in a in a business zone. I and we've had a lot of people say
uh business is not uh thriving. Uh they don't want more business uh locations. I guess I would feel a little bit more comfortable in going ahead with this um if we had some input from uh the town
uh officials who deal with affordable housing like Carolyn McCollum someone along that line who could give us a reading as to whether there are other alternatives that uh um that we're not aware of yet in terms
of funding uh that might provide for the ability to use the property uh for affordable or attainable housing uh including uh maybe ownership straight out rather than a lease arrangement so that that's available. So as I say
something like Stepping Stones. Um Stepping Stones is about 2 acres. Uh this is about 1 acre or so. Uh you know, maybe a smaller project that will work. Um but I understand that Mr. Rudnick has a lot of experience in this business and
uh uh we obviously can't force him to do something but um I think I would feel better if I had a little bit more input from the town with respect to the issues involved. >> Jenny. >> Yeah, I want to just uh piggyback on
what Paul just said. You know, the special permit is a use permit. The criteria is different. Um at issue is the future of Kroll Road. I do align with the lady that wrote the letter. Um
I think this is a this is a GB3. It's not a residential R20. Um and yet all these properties are single-family residential homes. I don't like that. I think it is substantially more detrimental because it's not commercial.
I know there's no such thing as the precedent and Dave Veach's list is um is very helpful. And actually, one of the things that I noticed is that let's see, Kendrick Harvest, three Kendrick Harvest, six Kendrick, those
were 2026 properties and developments. The three Hydrangea Lane, where I think were 2018. Um all before the composition of most of us on the board, but more importantly, I think times change. And I think that
what we are seeing today, what everyone has expressed, is some concern for just more residential homes of a large size at a high price point. Um And so for me, this fact that it's GB3 with
three more residential homes is is substantially more detrimental. >> You know, um we're talking about the whole project, and yet each of these applications is for a single home.
It isn't for three or two, it's one. So uh >> [snorts] >> I think it was clever, Mr. Riley and Mr. Rodnick, to do it this way, as opposed to having a project that is
three, four, five, you know, whatever it might be. >> [gasps] >> So in our decision process, when you look at it as one home, which is what they're asking for. It is very difficult
to turn it down. Hard to say it's more detrimental, but uh the points when you add them together, maybe they are. So,
it puts this board in a very difficult spot. Very difficult spot. And uh I don't know what the solution is. Um
I'm not I'm not convinced homes of this nature are what should go there. I'm more convinced of the what, you know, what you were talking about, Paul, when when you were talking about, you know,
you know, too bad it isn't a 40B, well, it isn't. But, uh it was purchased to make a profit. And great, that's good. But, there's different kind of profits.
And our responsibility is to the town, to the neighborhood. And I just can't see that
putting a And I have no idea about the specific price point, but let's just say it's a couple of million bucks or whatever it might be. Is that the right thing for this neighborhood? I don't think so. I I I just don't.
So, um What would you like us to do, Glenn? >> I can move uh >> We have a straw vote. >> Eastwood Holmes, two lots over built. >> Excuse me. Excuse me. >> Um >> [clears throat] >> Uh which is your first straw straw vote,
Mr. Riley? Is that what you said? Okay. Dave? >> I would be in favor. >> Ed? >> I'm not voting. >> I know, but it's a straw vote, so I want everybody to join in. >> My vote doesn't count, but uh I would be
in favor. >> Uh my vote does not count, but I would be in favor. >> Paul? >> I guess my position would be I would prefer to have the applicant uh continue to allow us to get additional input from
uh town officials uh and I mentioned housing people such as Carolyn Cullen uh to give us that uh perspective and then go forward uh with it from that viewpoint.
Um if uh if there is no alternative uh that's available, then um I might very well be in a position to say uh that I would approve it. But um
with some conditions, I mean we or we we have some talk about uh trees and so forth, all of which are are >> [snorts] >> important to this this lot and I'm sure you intend to maintain. But um those are uh
those are my thoughts. Uh I would prefer to have a little bit more time to consider this if possible. >> So, is that a yes or no vote? >> Yes, it was a >> Yes yes or no vote. >> [laughter]
>> In other words, what I'm saying is that I I could approve it if I had more information, but I'm I'm reluctant to approve it without additional information. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I'm reluctant to approve it. So, I would be a no.
>> Steve. >> Um I would rather probably see some alternatives and and maybe a little more effort into um something other than single-family homes. >> So, is that a yes or no? >> It would be a no as this is presented.
>> I'm I'm leaning towards a no as well. >> Yeah, and I think I would lean towards no, also. >> There's just trouble. I should have asked for a continuance so we can consult with town staff. >> Mr. Riley, would you like to continue
all three or would you like to present the other two applications? >> No, let's just >> Why don't we just do one at a time? >> Well, they take the vote one at a time. >> Yeah, we have to do that. >> Can I talk to my client for a minute? I assume we have to take three votes, but yes, we'd ask for
>> That is correct. >> Yeah, we'd ask for continuance for all three. >> So, as of right now, we have I don't know how much time it will take to get the input that Hall is looking for. Um as of right now, I have six applications on July 23rd.
Some of them are We have six on that or I have currently three, four. Three on August 13th. The 9th is completely booked. >> I would think August 13th would be a much better date.
>> [snorts] >> Okay. >> That's fine. >> All right. >> So, I will um move um approve to grant the request for continuance to um for um applications 26-046,
26047, 26048 um to be continued to August 13th, is that it? To August 13th, 2026. >> Okay, I think we have to do them individually, Dave.
>> Okay, okay, so we'll start with >> Okay, so first, so that would be with 26-046 continued to uh August 13th. >> Okay. >> I'll second the motion and vote yes. >> Okay. >> Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> And I vote yes. Okay.
>> Mutual yes. >> All right. >> Now, uh and next I would move grant to the request for continuance for 26-047 to August 13th. >> I'll second the motion and vote yes.
>> Mutual yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> And I vote yes. And lastly >> And finally, uh application number 26-048 request to grant a request for continuance to um August 13th. >> I'll second the motion and vote yes.
>> Genie, vote yes. >> I vote yes. >> I vote yes. >> Beatrice, yes. >> Thank you, gentlemen. >> Thank you. >> Uh folks in the control booth, I think we'll take 5-minute break, please.
>> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> We did. We'll go fast. Quick. >> [laughter] >> And welcome back everybody. And um I tried to pretend it was me, but it's still June, isn't it? Okay. Well, no one figured out it was me. So
So, please read. Oh boy. Let's start with 26-041 and 042. And 043. >> No, let's just take that out. >> Oh yeah. Okay. Let's do >> [laughter]
>> one at a time. 26-041. >> Application number 26-041. Queen Anne Chatham LLC care of James M. Norcross, Esquire, P.O. Box 707, Chatham, MA 02633. Owner of property located at 70 Queen Anne Road. Also shown on the town of
Chatham's Assessor's Map 13E, Block 15, Lot 14. The applicant proposes to change, alter, or expand a non-conforming structure on a conforming lot via the construction of dormers on the Inn. The existing structure is non-conforming and it is located 20.7 ft from the road where a
40-ft setback is required and 23.5 ft from the southeast Julia Butler where a 25-ft setback is required. The proposed dormers will not create any new non-conformities or intensify any existing non-conformities. The lot contains 62,512
sq ft in the R-40 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law Chapter 48, Section 6 and Section 5B of the Protective Bylaw. >> Good afternoon. >> Mr. Norcross, welcome. >> Thank you. Jamie Norcross representing the Hajar family. In the audience today is Chuck Hajar in the blue and his son
Richard next to him. Online participating remotely is Derek Rubinoff, the architect for the project, and Scott Ferrini, the engineer. Um in terms of how to proceed, I can go through I guess the project and then we'll go into the special permit piece and then
>> Correct. >> We'll describe everything to start and then we can go through that. >> Yeah, you can give sort of an overview but then zero in on the uh the first one. >> Okay, sure. >> Yeah. >> So, um some background the Hajar family purchased the Queen Anne Inn this past November.
Um as you've seen from your on-site, the buildings are in need of significant work as there's been a lot of deferred maintenance in the past. The Hajars have a great deal of experience in renovating and operating historic inns properties. They currently have several properties in Edgartown as well as several in Newport and have
proven proven to be good stewards of these historic properties which takes a certain person willing to uh take on the upgrades required with res- a historic property and operating it like an inn. Uh the family saw this inn as a chance to restore what is an iconic property in Chatham and to make significant
renovations they believe will provide a better facility for guests and for the town. So, just a little bit of history. Uh the main building, uh which is the subject of the special permit, dates back to 1840 when uh it was a wedding present for the daughter of a ship captain named
Norman House. Uh it originally was the first parish house for the first Congregational Church as Captain House's daughter married the minister. Found that interesting. In 1874, it began operating as an inn, so about 150 years ago it's been
operation operational as an inn. Uh the property consists of three buildings. There is a main inn that had currently has 29 guest rooms, a 50-seat restaurant and a manager's quarters in the basement. There is a separate guest house located behind the main building that currently houses three guest rooms and a separate guest house that you see
there in the back corner that currently houses two guest rooms. There is also an existing pool that you see in the back uh behind the main building um on the property. So, in terms of exterior changes, um as part of this proposal, there are not
extensive changes to the exterior of the building in terms of structural modifications. The proposals to modify the existing front dormer of the main building, uh the side facing Queen Anne Road, construct a new side dormer on the south wing, and enlarge the existing rear dormer. These changes are not creating new guest
rooms on the second floor, but are providing some additional headroom for guest rooms that currently have quite a low ceiling height. Um the Hajjar's will also be renovating the exterior with new siding, trim, and windows. Uh these changes were reviewed quite favorably by the Historical Commission, whose only request was to
consider uh natural materials and wood composite wood composite on the front facade and to replace the existing chimneys with faux chimneys, uh and the Hajjar's agreed to those requests, and we received unanimous unanimous approval from the Historical commission. Um
So with that, since we're focusing on the special permit, Derek, could you just uh provide a brief overview of the um dormer changes, please? >> Hey, Derek Rubino for architecture. Um and uh with me is my colleague uh Nat Beck Nat to go.
Um but uh what you're looking at here in the front uh at the bottom of the screen, uh the original part of the house uh that I think goes back a couple hundred years is uh is at the center there and you can see there on the bottom left are the three existing
Well, it's really one uh sort of set of of of three smaller dormers linked together. Um um as uh was mentioned, the the ceiling heights in in there is really low and those those dormers are in in poor shape and
falling apart. So um our proposal is to replace the dormers in kind except have them be uh just a a little bit taller so we get a code-compliant headroom into that space. And and so I don't think uh
you would notice any any real change from the outside except you'll have dormers that look like they're not falling apart. They'll they'll be in the character uh architecturally of the building as it is right now. And then um the uh
Let's see. Yeah, right behind that area that we were looking at in the front, this is now the back that you're looking at. And you can see on the bottom left there are two that's really kind of two dormers uh almost next to each other and it as one gable goes into another there at the
And um they're both very awkward. They they're they're independent of each other, um and what we'd like to do again, having uh headroom issues in that area that that where it's awkwardly low and doesn't meet building code, we just like
to not only just replace those dormers, but just unite them together as with the replacement. So, um the middle image shows how they're being demolished and the and the bottom right image shows the proposed replacement of the the two smaller dormers with one
slightly larger total uh united dormer. That's in an L-shape with a with a low-slope roof. And uh then uh the at the south end, this is a side facade, uh there's really an attempt uh there's
really excuse me a an opportunity to have this existing portion of uh hotel room here uh have a really fantastic view toward toward the water here. So, um right now there's this kind of
funny little mini dormer with a a vent on a roof vent, uh which we would like to replace with a dormer similar in architectural character to the dormer in the center of the front that we were just discussing. Uh so, uh
this is um this will be somewhat visible from the road, but there are trees blocking part of the view, so um it's not going to be uh any kind of uh real noticeable change for people as they drive by or walk by the building.
And like I said, uh our attempt here is to to make it architecturally in character with the existing front dormer. Uh this one instead of having three three little gables, this one has two and the connecting element is a little longer. This is just what looks better
proportionally given that the overall dormer length is a little shorter than the one that we're rebuilding in the front. >> Great. Thank you very much, Derek. Um going through the criteria for the special permit. Number one, adequacy of
the size of the site in terms of size for the proposed use. Uh we believe the size of the site is adequate. While we're non-conforming as to several setbacks, uh the building has been in existence and used as an inn for about 150 years. The proposed dormer changes are not
increasing the height of nor changing the footprint of the building and are being proposed to modify what are existing guest rooms as opposed to adding new guest rooms on the second floor. Uh compatibility of the size of the proposed structure and neighboring properties. Uh obviously, the main inn building is a very large structure um
for a Chatham, but while it is located in a residential zoning district, there are a number of larger non- uh residential structures in close proximity. The Unitarian Church across the street, the Village Market, and CVS as three examples. Uh in extent of the proposed increase in non-conforming nature of the structure or use, uh there
is no proposed increase in the non-conforming nature of the structure. Suitability of the site relative to impact on neighboring properties and natural environment. Uh no negative impact from the dormer addition uh on neighboring properties or the environment. Impact of scale, setting, and mass. Uh I'd suggest the proposed
dormers will not have a negative impact on neighborhood visual characters. Uh as Derek mentioned, they're designed to be compatible with the existing historic structure and are rather modest in size size given the overall scale of the building. Uh compatibility of the proposed use with neighboring uses. Uh
this is a residential zoning district now, and it is a commercial use, um but as I mentioned, there are a number of res- non-residential uses in the immediate neighborhood. And given the 150 years of use, I think uh one can safely determine that it has been and remains compatible.
Uh number seven, methods of sewage disposal, source of water, and drainage. Uh the inn is connected to the town water and sewer. Uh part of the proposal, which was reviewed by the Conservation Commission, is to install improved drainage systems on site uh really don't exist now which will better
contain runoff from the parking lot. No impact on traffic flow and safety from the dormers. No issues with noise and litter. We have adequate utilities and public services and numbers 11 and 12 are not applicable. So that we're happy to answer any questions relative to the special permit. Thank you.
>> Okay. Is there anyone here today that would like on Microsoft Teams who would like to speak in favor of this application? If so, indicate you'd like to join the conversation. Gentlemen in the back. >> Brian Phillips, 374 Orleans Road. I went to the historical meeting in
South East. These guys seem to be doing a pretty good job on this. Um So, you know, overall I support it. But then I do have two questions. >> You want to go to Right for Wait for question time. Okay.
Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Okay, I'll read the correspondence. Planning Board, Town of Chatham. June 25th. The town planner was in
attendance. Okay. There was a meeting on March 11th, 2026. The Planning Board will review a future site plan review application once submitted utilizing the Planning Board site plan review criteria set forth and so forth.
The Planning Board review process which also includes a request for comment will include the ZBA decisions from the special permit review for the project as described by the hearing. Um this particular application the application the applicant proposes to
change alter, or expand a non-conforming hotel restaurant via a conforming lot via the removal of the restaurant. No, so I got the wrong one. Sorry, I got to go to 041. Yeah. The applicant proposes to change, alter,
or expand a non-conforming structure on a conforming lot via the construction of the dormers. The existing structure is non-conforming and that is located 20.7 ft so forth so forth. The proposed dormers will not create any new non-conformities or intensify any existing non-conformities. The lot
contains so many square feet and all that kind of stuff. Uh the special permit applications for changes in use and existing non-conformities are not in issue for planning, but site changes so and so forth refer to that. The proposed project is also requesting waivers
relating to parking space and all that uh which would be granted by the planning board. Planning board will conduct a more thorough review of the project once the site plan review or site plan approval amendment/change or use application has been submitted. Thank you for your consideration.
Then we have a note. This is from on June 23rd from Christine Bassett and she's writing for the historic commission. Please find the approved motion below the approved motion below with extra
conditions. They found the building to be historically significant but did not impose a demolition delay because the applicant agreed to the below conditions. A motion was made by Mr. Lair and seconded by Ms. Hamilton finding that the proposed changes will not materially diminish the historic
significance of the main building and therefore no demolition delay is imposed provided that the applicant agrees to replace the existing front facade of the building with natural wood shingles and in addition that the applicant would replace the existing two chimneys in the
center of the main structure with faux faux chimneys that match the form and character of existing. Ms. Barr offered an amendment to the motion to include the doors around being wood, seconded by several people. Uh let's see, the voting went
seven in favor, none against, none abstained. Then we have a note from Joe Giorgio, June 27th. I have no concerns regarding the dormers on the property.
Then we have a conservation commission memo, June 4th. Applicant submitted a notice of intent on April 28th, 2026. The project was heard by the conservation commission on May 13th and May 27th. Project was scheduled for July 8th. The project will
then be reviewed and an issue for an an issue an order of conditions when it will be conditioned to meet the performance standards of the wetlands protection of the town of Chatham local wetland. And that's the extent of the correspondence. Now, comments,
questions. >> Um all right, Brian Phillips, 374 Orleans Road. Um I guess my first one uh is I know we got the cedar shingles on the front. Still seeing if you would consider uh using more wood instead of the the plastic composite and cedar shingles on
the back, just a request. And then the other thing as I would think would you know, I think would be kind of neat is um to keep uh the fireplaces or redo them. Cuz um I didn't win the select board uh seat this year, but I'm going to win it next year, and I'm going to crack down on short-term rentals. And it's going to make your hotel much more
valuable and possibly in need for uh winter rentals. So, I just think it'd be cool for people to stay here in the winter. We got a lot of cool things, Christmas stroll, stuff like that where people might like to have uh you know, a fireplace. Thank you. >> Okay. Is there anyone else either here
or on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak either against this application or has a specific question. If so, please indicate you'd like to join the conversation. Mhm, don't see anybody. Okay. Questions, Lee. >> I don't have any questions.
>> Ed. >> I have no questions. >> Ed. >> I have no questions. >> Paul, no questions. Penny. >> We're just talking about the dormers here, not the fireplace. >> that is correct. >> We'll pick the fireplace back up next time. >> Okay. >> Um, I uh
the the the dormer, the height of the dormer, it's staying in the ridge in the roof line. It's not increasing the ridge at all. It's 11 in taller of a window. Is that right? >> Correct. It's staying below the existing ridge. >> Yeah. And the increase though to the dormer, which is what's proposed, is 11
in larger. >> Jerry, could you answer that question, please? >> Uh, yes. It's approximately 11 in. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Um that's all I have for this one. >> Lee. >> I have no further questions. >> Okay.
>> I'll move to uh close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> I'll second the motion and vote yes. >> Dietrich yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> yes. Okay, deliberations, Dave. >> I would um well, this part is uh is very easy to
support. Uh I mean, nice work. It look it's going to look great. It's really an an improvement of the dormers in the back and and uh and on the side. Uh and when they're finished the front, you'll hardly notice any difference whatsoever.
So, uh uh there's no substantial detriment here and I will support it. >> Ed. >> I agree with Dave. >> Paul. >> I also agree. >> Penny. >> Uh I want to say thank you for stepping in to help save the inn. I want to start with that. Um very important historic
property in the town. Uh, I think that the uh proposed dormer change is perfectly fine, so I would support it. >> Well. I already about Steve. >> [laughter] >> Um, no, I think this is fine. I don't I don't believe it's detrimental to the
building or to the neighborhood or or anything around it, so I think it's good project. >> Lee. >> I think it's an improvement, so I will support it. >> I do it, too. Okay. Vote. So, I will move approval of um uh
application number 26-041 uh with um our uh standard conditions um being that all construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of property owner. Between June 30th and Labor Day, no
exterior construction will be allowed. No work will shall be permitted on the weekends. Construction activity between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. only. >> I'll second the motion and vote yes. >> Beach votes yes. >> Ginny votes yes. >> I vote yes.
>> yes. That's the unanimous decision. Thank you, Ginny. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Sarah, we go on to 042, please. >> Did you want to do 42 and 43 together? >> that's a good idea. Yes, I do. Timmy, is that all right with you if we do them together? >> Yeah. Sure.
>> Yeah. Okay. >> Application number 26-042, Queen Anne Chatham LLC, care of James M. Norcross, Esquire, P.O. Box 707, Chatham, MA 02633. Owner of property located at 70 Queen Anne Road, also shown on the town of
Chatham's Assessor's Map 13E, Block 15, Lot 14. The applicant seeks dimensional variances from the buildable upland area requirements for five additional rental units and two additional staff / managers apartments. Dimensional variances required under Mass General
Law chapter 48 section 10 and section 8D2C of the protective bylaw. Under application number 26-43, the applicant proposes to change, alter, or expand a non-conforming hotel restaurant on a conforming lot via the removal of the restaurant to allow for
the renovation of the inn to create five additional rental units and renovation of guest house number one to allow for two additional staff / manager apartments. The existing inn is non-conforming and it is located 20.7 ft from the road where a 40-ft setback is
required, 23.5 ft from the southeasterly abutter where a 25-ft setback is required. Guest house number one is non-conforming and that is located 14.2 ft from the southwesterly abutter where a 25-ft setback is required. The structure contains 34 rental units
plus staff / manager apartment on a lot containing 57,848 sq ft of buildable upland where 112,000 sq ft is required. The proposed five rental units and two manager / staff apartments require an additional 35,000
sq ft of buildable upland area. The building coverage will remain non-conforming at 8,891 sq ft, 15.4% where 10% is the maximum allowed. The lot contains 65,512 sq ft in the R40 zoning district. A
special permits required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of protective bylaw. >> Good afternoon again, Jamie Norcross on behalf of the Hajar family. Uh since we're in a time of crunch, we can just take the same vote again if you'd like. >> [laughter]
>> Not so lucky, I know. Okay, so um the unlike the exterior, there are um some significant changes happening on the interior of the building. Um the applicant uh will be installing a new sprinkler system, excuse me, a sprinkler system for the building where none currently
exist, which is uh, significant safety measure for guests, especially in this type of building. Uh, they will also be doing a number of upgrades to improve accessibility for the interior of the building and to better comply with accessibility requirements, including widening existing guest rooms where
feasible, uh, to improve clearances and upgrading the hotel common spaces on the first floor so as to meet the accessibility code. So, um, my client had to go to the architectural access board to present a lot of these changes and received approvals, uh, for the work that they're doing to
really bring the property into compliance with, um, the requirements of the AAB, including some exterior changes with ramps and whatnot up to the main uh, entrance to the inn. So, all that is a real great improvement to the property, I think.
Um, all existing guest rooms will also be renovated, updated as the condition of these rooms are, uh, similar to the exterior, are also in need of significant improvement. Um, from a zoning perspective, the Hajjar proposed to remove the existing restaurant use from the inn. Um,
currently there is a 50-seat restaurant that's part of the property along with the inn use of the building. Uh, that space is proposed to be renovated to incorporate two new guest rooms on the main floor of the inn. Uh, this is an important change for the property as it creates two truly accessible guest rooms
at the property where none currently exist. Uh, they will retain a much smaller kitchen and dining area that will be used for inn guests only for breakfast service and a common area. So, again, there'll be a small kitchen and an area there for a continental breakfast, the common area, but no one outside the inn would
be dining. It's just for inn guests. Um, in the basement area, the applicant proposes renovating existing office and common area space into three new guest rooms. As mentioned, the proposed dormers, whoop, we don't need to talk about the dormers cuz we're okay there. So, um, moving on to the guest house located
behind the main building, uh, uh that structure currently contains three guest rooms on the main floor and an unfinished basement. Uh the proposal is to convert the existing unfinished basement into employee housing, which was obviously a topic earlier, uh with a manager's quarters and living accommodation for
other employees. Uh the intent and goal for my client is to allow for the employees running the inn to be able to live and work on site, removing the need to find housing for these folks, which again and as we talked to you talked about earlier is everyone knows is a real challenge in our area, as well as removing the need
for them to have transportation to get to and from work. So, they'd be living on site and working on site. Um In terms of zoning aspects, as you heard in the legal ad, this property has a number of pre-existing nonconformities with respect to setbacks, building coverage, and building height. Uh we are
not expanding on any of these nonconformities. Uh we are also pre-existing nonconforming with respect to the number of guest rooms allowed per square foot lot lot area required by our bylaw. Unfortunately, the size of our lot cannot get any larger, and so we are
increasing that existing nonconformity. Um In terms of proceeding, it probably makes more sense to go through the variance first. >> Sure. >> Mr. Chairman. >> Correct. >> So, as we've mentioned, um this project requires variance relief
from the zoning board due to the proposed addition of five new guest rooms within the main inn building and the proposed manager and employee housing when the within the basement area of the rear guest house. Under section seven of your zoning bylaw, uh 3,000 sq ft of buildable upland is required for every guest room, and I
believe it's 10,000 sq ft of buildable upland for a staff apartment. Um we obviously fall short of that upland requirement. We currently are short and we remain short uh with the additional guest rooms. Therefore, under the current interpretation of the zoning bylaw as I understand it, such a change requires
approval in the form of a variance. So, as you've heard before, there it's a three-part criteria for a variance. The first, owing to circumstances relating to soil conditions, shape, or topography of such land, structure, or building. A literal enforcement of the provisions of
the zoning bylaw would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. And third, that desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially derogating from the intent
or purpose of the zoning bylaw. So, running through that criteria in that order. Number one, unique conditions. I'd suggest in this instance there are unique factors impacting both the lot and the building. With respect to the lot, the shape is unique as it narrows significantly significantly, excuse me, on the Oyster
Pond Furlong side. The lot also sits in the corner of Queen Anne Road and Oyster Pond Furlong, both of which are public roads. Given that the structure has been in existence since 1840, it's quite likely that the lot size was reduced and altered over the years when road takings were done to establish the layouts for
these roads. The exterior of the building it is somewhat unique in terms of it does significantly narrow on the east side of the property and under the current zoning bylaw interpretation, no exterior additions would be allowed without receiving a variance.
Perhaps not specifically relating to shape, the building itself I would suggest is quite unique. It's both an inn and a restaurant located within a residential zoning district. The restaurant use is also pre-existing non-conforming, a 50-seat restaurant, and it's a use that the owners do not wish to continue at this property.
Therefore, they're faced with a situation where they have a structure with an expansive kitchen and dining area and very few options available to them in terms of repurposing the space in a fashion that makes sense for the inn. I'd suggest the best and most effective course is what's proposed, conversion of
this area into additional guest rooms. Uh number two, a little literal enforcement of the bylaw would create a substantial hardship, financial or otherwise. Uh with respect to the proposed guest room, this proposal allows them to repurpose the restaurant and kitchen space into two new handicap accessible
guest rooms. These rooms are important as it provides necessary accommodation for handicap guests and allows them to better comply with the accessibility requirements of the Commonwealth. Uh renovating renovating existing guest rooms so as to comply with accessibility requirements is a significant challenge
given the size and dimensions of these rooms that likely require taking down load-bearing walls and other extensive work. The inability to use the restaurant space for additional guest rooms leaves the applicant with a situation where they have they will have a large section of the building that provides no benefit to guests of the inn,
uh which is a significant hardship to them. Lastly, um there is a financial component. Uh taking aside the additional rooms, the renovations being undertaken by the Hajjar's will be significant and costly. It's a very old building in need of quite a bit of work,
and uh the work necessary to bring it back to what everyone wants to see is quite expensive. Um along with renovating the rooms uh and areas that have fallen into disrepair, they are also undertaking improvements, as I mentioned, such as the sprinkler system, well which, while
not required, is an improvement that the applicant believes is extremely important for the safety of their guests. The ability to create five additional guest rooms and allows the Hajjar's to offset some of these uh significant costs. Uh with respect to the employee housing,
uh little enforcement of the bylaw will result in the applicant being forced to find alternative housing for their employees, which results in a hardship uh for really both them and their employees. It's also a hardship as it makes finding employees more difficult as job options are often more attractive to many
candidates if housing is provided by the employer. A lot of their employees will be J-1 employees and college students. And for them, if employee if a common living accommodations are offered, excuse me, it's really becomes a much more
attractive positions because accommodations are offered by a lot of the other hotel inns, larger hotel inns in the area. So, it makes it difficult to compete for employees. Number three, the variance granted will not substantially harm the public good or
derogate from the purpose of the bylaw. So, we're dealing with the section of the bylaw that I don't know exactly when it was adopted, but it it created the requirement for certain upland certain amount of upland per square feet for each room, 3,000 square feet.
So, it's hard to envision when that section of the bylaw was enacted that voters intended that a business such as the Queen Anne Inn could not add an additional room or expand in any fashion without receiving a variance from the zoning Board of Appeals. Nor was it
likely the voters foresaw the issues with employee housing that have become such a difficult solution for many businesses in town, of which I know you are very familiar. If the goal of the minimum upland square footage requirement is to limit density, then I do not believe this proposal is harming the purpose of the bylaw. There
is no exterior changes needed to create these additional rooms, they're all interior, and is within the existing building, and is important to factor in into the equation that the Hajjar's are removing existing restaurant use. So, while I will be increasing the number of guest rooms, overall, they are greatly reducing the impact and use of
the property that was brought on by a 50-seat restaurant. So, again, it's not a situation where they're just adding more rooms to everything that's there now. It's a big change by taking away the restaurant. And while there are five guest rooms removing a 50-seat restaurant, I would
suggest results in an impact that's much less to the property overall. And then finally, I don't I don't think in any form or fashion this proposal harms the public good as it providing an updated facility for guests in Chatham while reinvigorating what has become a structure largely in disrepair.
So, just quickly uh to conclude, I think um the Hazars, I think the um town was fortunate to find that they came forward as buyers for this property. I think they're going to be very good stewards for this and really bring it back to life for a iconic structure that's fallen into a state of
poor condition. And again, I I know you've had a somewhat recent application with a similar request, but I think there are some distinctions here that are important to note. Most noteworthy, again, we're removing a restaurant, a 50-seat restaurant. It's not a situation where it's an existing building, existing restaurant. We're just adding
more rooms. We're taking something very significant away in order to put in those rooms. So, I think that should be a factor for your consideration. Uh so, with that, be happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you. Is there anyone here today or on Microsoft Teams who would like to speak in favor of this application? If so,
please indicate you'd like to speak. Don't see anyone. I'll read the correspondence. >> Yes. >> This is for 043. >> So, because we read both of them, the only letter that it the the Board of
Health letter is the same, the Conservation letter is the same in both files. Um Planning doesn't comment on variance applications. So, it's theirs is only for the special permit application. And it just says that they need site plan approval. >> Okay.
>> But, did these are the Conservation and Health do need to be read. >> Okay. Good. Thank you. Okay, on June 25th, this is a Planning Board. The town planner was in attendance and goes to this goes back to the uh March 11th, 2026
meeting. And that specific in here about 043 is the applicant proposes to change alter and all that sort of thing. Um Existing in is non-conforming and that's so and so many feet and all that.
Structures contain 34 rental units plus staff manager and all that. On 57,848 square feet of buildable upland where 112,000 square feet is required. The proposed five rental units and two staff men
require an additional 35,000 square feet of buildable upland. Building coverage will remain non-conforming at 8,891 square feet and that's 15.4% where 10% is the max allowed.
So, just I'll re do this again. What is required today is 112,000 square feet. They've got 50,000 57,000
and the proposed addition adds another 35,000 to that. So, if you add all that up, it's essentially 89,000 square feet more. Do you agree, Mr. Allcroft?
>> That we are 89,000 square feet shy of the requirement. Yeah, so do you do that. Yep. >> Okay. And uh I should mention um as far as spaces for automobiles, >> Mhm.
>> there's 31 now. >> There's uh 26 now. I believe there'd be 31. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> And needed 54. >> I Well, I had it at 49. Um I would point out the existing with the restaurant use requires 59.
>> Mhm. >> Uh so, there is actually there is no >> these are the asks that you're involved in. >> Yes. >> Yeah. It's 89,000 square feet and essentially 23 more spaces of parking.
>> 23? >> That came from Sarah. >> Um the dwelling units, each dwelling unit requires two spaces. So, if you have three staff quarters or three staff apartments, it would be six additional spaces. >> Well, I can tell you from from a
practical application, folks staying there are not going to have cars. That's why they're staying there, so they have a place to live without a car. So, that's how employee housing hopefully would work in a >> Okay. So, on to the correspondence due with you on June Health Agent writes on the 23rd of June.
Proposed applications for the Queen Anne Inn appeared to increase the sewer flow associated with the property. As such, approval from the sewer commission will be required. In addition, the proposed renovations to the kitchen and dining areas will require review and approval by the Health Division. Detailed kitchen
floor plans and related construction documents must be submitted as part of that review. Furthermore, any modifications to the pool enclosures will require approval from the Health Division to ensure compliance with the applicable provisions of the state
sanitary code governing swimming pools. Note from the Conservation Commission on June 4th. Applicant has submitted a notice of intent on April 28th. Project was heard on the 13th of May and May 27th, project
was scheduled for July 8th. Project will then be reviewed and an issue hopefully and order conditions going to be conditioned to meet the performance standards of the Wetlands Protection Act and the town of Chatham local wetland bylaw chapter 272. And that essentially
is the correspondence. Is there anyone here today or on Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak against this application or has a specific question? Gentleman in the back. >> Brian Phillips, 374 Orleans Road. So, I guess my first question is if we could
keep the fireplaces, maybe keep them real cuz it's very old school New England, it's cool. You know, people from out of town, they come here and like, "Oh, this fireplace is cool." And then the second one is if we could use, you know, more cedar shingles and more wood, you know, instead of the plastic composite. Um
And this is a much more difficult uh application than than I originally thought. Um cuz the restaurant, you know, tavern is is also like really cool old school New England. What they're saying kind of does make sense in some reason. So, um this is all
you guys. Good luck. Thanks. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh anyone else wish to speak? Microsoft Teams? No? Okay. Uh Questions from the board. >> Uh Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. If I just one comment on the planning board to
explain that. We are aware that we require site plan review and meeting with town staff. Originally it was suggested to come here first since we are seeking it the dreaded variance. So, uh that we would go to zoning prior to the planning board. >> Okay. All right.
So, questions from the board. Let's start with Dave. >> Uh >> [snorts] >> I No, I mean, I get my under- I think my understanding is clear so the the variance is um is needed because
they're seeking to have more rooms without the required additional upland. And that applies to both the uh guest rooms, rental rooms, and to the employees' quarters. That's correct. >> Correct.
>> Um I I don't think I have any other questions regarding this issue now. >> Okay, Ed. I guess my question is uh when the applicant bought the property >> Mhm. >> um there was a certain number of units.
Um there wasn't anything before the board at that time or anything that had uh been suggested to the applicant that there was uh a way to get more units without a variance or
um >> No, there was a >> Yeah, they were aware that zoning approval was going to be required for >> Right. >> uh any additional units at that time. >> Yep. >> Okay. No no more questions. >> Paul. >> I have no questions.
>> Jenny. >> I have a few for you, Jamie. Um let's see. Can I just start I want to start with a the historic I did look at that um hearing and at the beginning of your um update, I think you said that the owners
had agreed to the to put real wood cedar shingles across the front. >> Correct. >> And wooden um surround real wood surround around the door. >> Right. >> Um and then the chimneys, can you just refresh my memory was was agreed to that
they would be replacing those, not removing those? >> Correct. They'd be replacing them with they're not operational, but they would >> Not operational. >> Yep, but the uh the look would remain the same or similar. >> Okay. There was discussion about the railing. The the um accessible railing
did what was that just a composite like a solid composite, not a plastic? Was that? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> That's correct. >> And then the other was um there was discussion about shutters. Do Did that land anywhere? Do you remember? Mrs. Tennyson brought that up. I didn't I don't
>> recall. >> Okay. I don't think there was any discussion >> listed in I reviewed their decision again. I didn't go back and watch the hearing and it wasn't listed. >> bring it up because at the beginning I think you only mentioned the the woods cedar shingles and I just wanted to make kind of >> Yeah, no. Whatever they agreed to. I
know Chuck was present at the hearing remotely and then hopped on and said he would agree to the request that they made. So >> Okay. All right. So one of the questions I have is I want to go back to have you restate your reasons for the criteria in a second. But one of
my questions is um what have really been the problems with being 54,000 square feet short which you are today for 150 years of operating this as an inn? Like any real problems that we've
had being so short already? >> None that we're aware of. And that doesn't include the square footage number doesn't include the fact that there's was is also a 50 seat restaurant. So >> Right. Right. So I just wanted to see if there if there was any awareness of any
problems being that short which then could arguably lead to you know more problems being additionally short. But no problems that you're aware of. Um and then um the reconfigurations that you're proposing. So right now 34 rental rooms
today two of which are ADA at your proposing the to the two ADA today. >> 34 currently. We're proposing a total of 39 two ADA units on the first floor and then the three basement units. >> Okay. And then the Um,
staff you have one staff apartment today and adding two more. Okay. Which, um, which I think that, uh, the town really needs. Can you, um, go back to your criteria? Just repeat for me number one. You were talking
about the shape being owing to circumstances of the shape. I just want to hear you say that again and the structure. >> Oh, the structure. Well, I mean, the the structure itself, um, it's not your traditional uh, rectangle or, um, square. It is a quite a bit, uh, more
narrower on the believe it's the east side of the property. Uh, it narrows a bit as it goes up Queen Anne Road as you can get a flavor for here. And then, um, I guess not so much shape, but I I discuss the fact of the existence of the
structure and and the current uses and within a residential zoning district make it quite unique when you have, um, guest rooms and an inn within a residential zoning district, neither of which are conforming and you can remove a restaurant, but you can't put any more guest rooms back without a variance.
>> Okay, so I was wondering if, um, the part not affecting generally the zoning district in which it's located, it is, I mean, the way I was kind of reading that is that, you know, it's been in existence for 150 years operating within no zoning
initially and then changes to zoning and not impacting the operation of that you that building for throughout all those years and all those changes. That's what the way I was interpreting. Is that not >> No, I would say that's correct. Yeah, I mean, it has been, um, 150 years and I'm not sure how long the restaurant's been
there. Uh, the inn's been there for 150 years, but the residential zoning came in long after the inn was in existence and that's now its zoning district, but it's been operational with no issues and certainly compatible despite the fact that it's in a residential zoning district. >> Well, and you bring up a good point about the kitchen. So, it didn't
originally have a kitchen and now you're going back to what originally it was with no kitchen. >> Correct. It's going to have a small kitchen just but >> No real cooking though. I'm >> Right. The 50-seat restaurant is going away. >> Right. Okay. And then um Can you just go through criteria three?
>> Sure. >> Desirable relief, just explain again why. >> Substantially uh will not substantially harm the public good or derogate from the bylaw. Is that the criteria, Jay? >> Yeah. >> Sure. So, I
I was suggesting relative to the public good. Again, I don't think there's any suggestion this is going to be a derogate from the public good. I think it's really a benefit for the public in all forms and fashions. And it's really the best use of the property going forward and and a use that's actually going to despite additional rooms is
going to have less of an impact in the current use on the property. Um as it relates to the purpose of the bylaw, again, I'm not sure why the town decided to put a upland square footage requirement per unit into the bylaw.
Perhaps it was to avoid new 3,000 square foot per unit requirement into the bylaw. Perhaps it was to limit new inns or hotels coming in or to exclude them, but um again, if it was to limit density, then I think despite the fact we're
adding guest rooms, we are limiting density by by removing a a restaurant which has cars coming and going. It has additional restaurant employees, which would be far more significant uh from a a density impact or an impact on the neighborhood than what we're proposing
today. >> Okay. Last question. The parking. Uh currently, I understand that um you know, there's insufficient parking and and at times or I think on a regular basis, the current or the previous owner would acquire
um parking from across the street. >> Mhm. Is that the proposal for addressing the parking? >> It's a It's a at least a partial solution. Um, the Hajars have spoken with the owner across the street and he's willing to continue that relationship moving forward um, to allow
for parking of some vehicles on his property. >> Like in a year by year basis or a more contractual basis? >> It hasn't made its way to a contractual basis. Um, I'm not sure he's a contract type of guy. >> [laughter] >> The neighbor, but >> Well, the park the parking
>> More of a handshake, but he did it for many years with uh, the Weinkaufs um, to allow some some parking across the street. >> Okay. The parking does concern me a little bit because um, I mean, what's Can you just explain again what you think you're gaining by
removing the restaurant from a parking perspective? >> Well, that's a 50-seat restaurant require going by the bylaw, four seats per per uh, table. So, you got basically 12 and 1/2 parking spots that you're supposed to have under the bylaw for a
restaurant. But, it's not just people parking and leaving their car there and they're going to go walk downtown cuz they're staying at the inn like guests would. They're parking, they're coming and going. They're coming in, they're going to a bar for drink for a drink and whatnot. So, there's a lot more uh, traffic so to speak in addition to
the parking. And I think also when you have guests, you can educate your guests about where your parking. You can assist them with their parking. Uh, a restaurant, people are showing up with a reservation or not and it's uh, there's sort of a lack of control there. So again, I think our
overall parking numbers, it's still not conforming, but it's actually decreasing uh, under the requirement because of the restaurant use being removed. And I think in inn parking, especially in Chatham in this location, people are going to park and they're going to walk downtown. They're going to go to the beach. So, I don't think it has the same
in and out feature as you would with a restaurant use. >> Okay, Uh, one more comment on the park or question about the parking. Um would there be or has there been discussion or consideration to uh creating in addition to uh
the gentleman across the street on a contractual basis, but some type of valet situation should you find you needed that in the future um where the parking for whatever reason across the street was not available or was more limited than what you were
expecting. Um so then it would be locating park a parking somewhere else in town. >> Mhm. >> Lock down by the owners uh to in some contractual way and then providing a valet service you know if needed during the peak of the
>> My client indicates he'd be certainly willing to engage in valet services. >> for parking addressing parking. Is there no additional room on the property at all uh for to to add parking? >> Oklahoma Chuck. >> Yeah.
You just got to announce you Chuck Gazar, 20 Indian Spring Road, Milton, Mass. Parking is a concern of ours and I know that Jamie keeps mentioning it's going to actually go down by getting rid of the restaurant and one other thing I I want to say is this for a restaurant of that size is
also six or seven employees that go along with it. So it's not just the per table, but it's also employees. But we'd be we feel first of all we'd be able to do something with the I spoke with him this afternoon, the gentleman across the street. It's a huge lot that he has across the street and it's basically
empty. So if we do have a need, we've well we've I'm sure we'd be able to work something out with him. If not, we would definitely welcome the having a valet and and working it out that way. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> That's that's all I have. Thank you. >> Steve, um
you you mentioned that what you're you're you're proposing in a new manager and staff quarters Where are Where are they housed now? >> Currently, no one is staying on site. The manager lives in Chatham and drives to work. I believe there are six or
seven other employees and um they do not have vehicles. >> So, there is no management quarters there now or >> No one's staying for the season right now. Yep. The The inn was closed after that when the Hajjar's purchased it and then it was closed until a few weeks ago and they've opened up
about 25 rooms for the season. >> Okay. So, those those the staff um quarters or or offices are new to the to the inn. >> There's an existing in the basement that was used by prior owners. It's just for their this season they're not having to
stay there now. >> now. Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Lee. >> I think I'm okay for right now. No questions. >> Okay. >> Hey. I just one other question I want to ask and Sarah, you may know the answer to that. I think it's too close to
So, you may may or may not know the answer to this, but I I'm thinking that that that was the Harrison St. Pierre decision that uh changed how the town dealt with requests like this that
formerly the town would might look at something like this under as a special permit allowed by special permit and but that that that decision kicked it over so that now a commercial use in a residential zone
such as this uh in by adding something like this and and extending the non-conformity now needs a variance. Is that Is that correct, Mike? >> That is correct. Prior to the decision of the Harrison St. Pierre case in 2011,
um any commercial expansions were done by special permit. Uh we were told we were doing it wrong. Um so now commercial expansion, if there's an intensification of a non-conformity, require both the grant of a variance as
well as a special permit. So it's not just one application, it's twofold. >> Yeah. Okay, great. Thanks. And Jamie, uh the clock on the wall tells me we're out of time. >> Okay. >> I had hoped to at least have uh the members
give just how they're feeling about this that and the other thing, but we have to stop. >> Okay. >> So um I would suggest you request a continuation to >> July 9th, our next available our next meeting.
>> Next meeting. >> Okay. Um uh I would uh ask for a continuance to your next meeting, please. >> Yeah. And to those here unfortunately, uh the select board needs this room, which means
we're out. And so it's very unfortunate, but that's the way it is. We don't have a choice. >> [snorts] >> So I apologize that you'll have to come back. >> So I will um move to grant the request of for the continuance for um
26-042 and 26 Should I do these separately, Sarah? Okay, do for 26-042 to July 9th. >> I'll second the motion and vote yes. >> Beach votes yes. >> Genny votes yes. >> I vote yes.
>> And I vote yes. That's unanimous. Thank you, uh everybody for today. >> And so now I will I will move to re uh to grant the request to uh continue application number 26-043 to July 9th. >> Okay. I'll second second the motion and
vote yes. >> Genny votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> And I vote yes. Visual votes yes. >> Okay. Uh Dave, how about uh Uh I will uh move to adjourn. >> I second the motion. I vote yes. >> Visual votes yes. >> Ed votes yes.
>> Jenny votes yes. >> I vote yes. Oh, sorry. Sorry. >> And I vote yes. Okay. Uh thank you all. Happy uh July 4th. >> It's 5:23 p.m. >> Thank you, gentlemen.