Welcome. Today is May 21st, 2026. This is the Chadam Zoning Board of Appeals meeting and we start off with a message from the
Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Please note this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly hereafter for scheduled or demand or on demand viewing or on any smartphone or tablet device. If anyone else is
recording the meeting, 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 extending certain
COVID 19 measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law general law chapter 30A subse subsection 20 until June 30th 2027. This meeting of the Cadam Zoning Board of Appeals is
being conducted in person and via remote participation. Every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequ ad adequately access the proceedings as provided for in the order. A reminder that persons who would like to listen to this meeting
while in progress may do so by calling the number 1508-9454410 conference ID 359262418 pound sign or join the meeting online via Microsoft teams through the link in the posted agenda. While this is a live
broadcast and simal cast on Chattam TV Xfinity channel 1072, despite our best efforts, we may not be able to provide real time access. We will post a a record of this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible. In accordance with the town policy, the
public can speak to any issue or hearing or business item on the agenda during the meeting when recognized by the chair. >> Thank you, Steve. Uh to authorize this form of meeting, we need a roll call. All members starting with Mr. Vich.
>> Yes. Uh David H. Vich and and I approve this meeting format. >> Uh Ed Actton and I approve. >> Paul C sample. I approve this format. >> David S. Nixon. I approve. >> Steven D. Debor. I approve. >> Lee HVY. I approve. I would ask that any citizens,
non-board members participating in the call via the phone, please give us your name and the last four digits of your phone number for ID purposes. Her means uh conducted in the following manner. The hearing notice is read by the lady to my right. This is Sarah B. Clark.
She's the PO for the town of Chattam. That's principal permitting officer. We would then have a presentation by the applicant or the applicant's attorney, whoever it might be. Following that, I would ask for anybody
who wishes to speak in favor of the appeal to do so. That would either be here in person or on Microsoft Teams. I would then read any and all letters that have we had received whether pro or con.
We would then have anyone who wishes to speak that has a question or wishes to speak against the application to do so. Could be rebuttal. After that, we then
have questions from the board members. Following that, we would close the public hearing and go into deliberation where we would discuss amongst ourselves how we feel about it. We will then take a vote. Hopefully
that would be taken by a roll call as we just had. To be successful and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, you need to get four positive votes. There's five votes. And today's voter Sarah will be
>> will be sorry David Nixon, David Beach, Paul Simple um when Miss Fenwick if Miss Fenwick arrives uh Virginia Fenwick and our alternate voting will be Lee Huby. Um,
if we get through our first application or the minutes prior to Virginia arriving, Steve will be the voter. >> Okay, any questions? >> First business is we have some minutes.
>> We do have we do have some minutes. Uh, we have the minutes of uh meeting held on March 26, 2026. I was not actually present for that meetings, but I'll move to approve those minutes. Uh, but we'll not vote.
>> Yeah, David seconds and votes. Yes. >> Okay, we need a vote on that. Paul, >> as I say, I'm not going to vote because I was not here. >> Okay, who was here? Sarah, >> uh, Paul's abstension is fine. >> Okay.
Um, >> but Ed could vote if you'd like. >> Okay, I'll vote yes on that. I think I was here that day. I'm a little confused. Okay, very good. How about April 29th? Paul, >> we need the rest of the board to vote.
>> Want to vote on that? >> Um, Steve will vote to approve the minutes for March 26th. and Lee >> Lee Hubby votes to approve. >> There we go. >> All right. I'll move on to >> That's a unanimous vote. Incidentally,
>> I'll move on to the minutes of meeting held on April 9, 2026. I'll move to approve those minutes as published. >> Yeah, David seconds and votes in favor. >> And Paul votes in favor. >> I vote yes.
>> I was absent. Uh, I will vote to approve the minutes from April 9th, 2026. >> All right. Is that enough people? How about Ed? >> Okay. Well, there you go. I guess the four is it. All right. Thank you. So, Sarah, let's go to
application, please. 26-028. >> Application number 26-028. James Soil and Deborah Park and Soal Family Trust 1717540 164th Avenue Northeast Woodenville Washington 98072
owner of property located at 7 Blackduck Landing also shown on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 12B block 1 lot 19. The applicant proposes to install an exterior mechanical system appliance generator 29.7 ft from Cedar Street where a 40ft setback is required. The
property contains 13,133 ft in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law Chapter 48 section 9 and section 8D2B of the protective bylaw. >> Mr. Lichfield. >> Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Bill Litchfield here on
behalf of Jim and Deborah Solal. Jim is seated more or less in the middle of the room. We are here for the installation of a generator. But I first want to explain how it is that it came to be where it is. It was not simply a
courtesy to allow you to visualize it. Um it was in fact a result of uh a change in our bylaw. If you look at the third and fourth or second, third and fourth pages of the handout, uh there is
an application filed by the uh generator installer and um it was filed with the town as you can see now it's poor copy but received by the town on August 27th of last year. If you look at the third page, uh that
is what was provided to the installer. said the setback had to be 25 ft. It is. It's more than 25 ft. And Sarah read it's 29.8 ft. However, there are perhaps six people in the United States who know
that a zoning bylaw change can be retroactive to the date of its first advertising. Uh several of those six are in this room. Uh but a normal person wouldn't know that. Uh the attorney general's
office approved the bylaw change on August 29th, 2 days after this application. So Jim and Deborah and their installer put the generator where the bylaw said it could have been put, except that
at the annual town meeting of May 2025, we changed our bylaw. That change, however, doesn't preclude the generator being located in the somewhat innocuous place where it is shown right there. But it does require a
special permit from this board. It's not a special permit based on substantial detriment. It's a standard special permit, rather a finding that the use will not be detrimental to the neighborhood and that the use is involved with the general purpose and
intent of the bylaw. Well, by virtue of the towns having changed its bylaw to allow special permits for generator, I think the latter is self-evident. So, I'll go into the criteria as to adequacy of the site in terms of the size for the
proposed use. We've got a 13,000 square foot lot, somewhat smaller than is now required in the current zoning district, but when Claraara and Harry Burus built that house a long time ago, we didn't have zoning. Uh the site is certainly adequate as to suitability both the site
uh the lot itself and the the location. I think you can be fine to be suitable for the generator as an accessory residential use. As you know the bylaw was revised last year for situations exactly like this in which a generator
could with some difficulty be located elsewhere. But both logic and the gas line suggest that this is the appropriate place for it. no impact on traffic flow and safety. As to neighborhood visual character, it is at present minimal. But the reason we have
not yet planted the planned vegetative screen is because we wanted to make sure we had finally all of our ducks in in a row. And there will be vegetative screening there. But uh there's broad
neighborhood support for the placement of the generator and no negative comments whatsoever about neighborhood visual character and that is without the vegetative the planned vegetative screening being done. No issues of u sewage disposal or utilities as to noise
and litter. There's no litter involved. There will be minimal weekly testing. Some generators run for five minutes, some run for 15 once a week. that's not going to bother anybody where it's located and when it is running uh
because we have a power failure I think we have all have larger problems than the noise that will be generated by the generator as to compatibility as an accessory residential use it's certainly compatible and several neighborhood properties have generators there's no
impact the natural environment so as you know the special permit again requires a finding that the use will not be detrimental to the established the future character of the neighborhood. The neighbors have written strongly in support of them. There are four or five letters that the chair will read and
also the use involved will be in harmony the general purpose and intent of the bylaw. You know the purpose and intent of the bylaw uh and one of you know protection of persons, protection of public you safety and things like that and given the record of our electric utilities uh generators are fairly
reasonable responses. So I think on the facts and the circumstances you can find that uh the the requirements of the uh special permit have been met. Be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Is there anyone here today or on Microsoft
Teams that would like to speak in favor of this application? If so, indicate you'd like to join the conversation. >> Don't see anyone. So I'll read the correspondents. The first is from Richard and Kathleen Mner.
They write, "On May 14th, during the blizzard of 2026, a young daughter was babysitting for her parents' two dogs who were over 2,000 miles away. Because of this generator, both the daughter and the dogs were safe and warm, and the heated house was
undamaged. As owners of the property, a 30 Black Dog Landing, our property overlooks this property and we are sending this in support of their special permit application for a generator on their property. This generator is of no significance to us or fellow black dog
landing neighbors, but as shown above will provide essential support during electrical power outages, which often happen in Chattam. We hope the board of appeals will uphold the special permit. Then we have a U email. This is dated
May 13th. It is from Howard W. Mun M Uhm. I'm the owner of 230 Cedar the property across Cedar Street from the Scogles house which is the subject of the pending application. I fully support the so-called addition of a generator on
their property. The placement almost 30 ft from the set of street setback seems completely appropriate. It will not be detrimental to our neighborhood. I'm in favor of their proposal. From past experiences, I believe the special permit process is met for installations just like this one. As a nearby land
owner, I respectfully urge the board to vote in support of this request. Thank you. Then we have a note from Vincent and Joanne Longo Sylvester. They write on May 13th for writing in full support. Our property at 16 Black
Dog Landing, six across the street. We have known this family for more than 20 years and their outstanding and highly responsible residents. We're very fortunate to have them as neighbors and friends. The chosen location of the generator is suitable, appropriate, and fitting. We have considered the matter carefully and seen no negative efforts
for our street, our home, or our neighbors as associated with this necessary project. Given the often severe and unpredictable nature of the weather experienced on the Cape over the past several years, this is a prudent and needed addition to the property. As a result, we extend our unconditional
support. And then we have a letter. This is from George and Mildred Cybert, 49 Black Dog Landing. Actually, it's probably Sebrit. Um May 11th, we want to express our support
after this past winter's outages. We're happy our neighbors will now have the peace of mind to be able to remain safely at home. We live on Black Dog Landing and pass their house daily. The location of their generator does not in any way impact us but is in keeping with the locations of similar generators in
the neighborhood. We are in favor of their proposal. Is there anyone here today or microsoft teams that wishes to speak against this or has a specific question? If so, please indicate you'd like to join the conversation now. Seeing no one questions from the board.
Mr. V, >> I have no questions. No questions. >> No questions. >> No questions. >> Uh, no questions. >> No questions. >> Nor do I. >> I will move to close the hearing and move into deliberations.
>> Uh, yes. Dave each sec seconds and votes in favor. >> All votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> Jenny votes yes. I vote yes. >> That's unanimous. So deliberations. Ed. Um,
it it seems more than reasonable to me. It seems like they got caught up in a little bit of a zoning change and uh the site seems appropriate to me and the fact that they're going to screen it is
even uh better. So, new issues and it certainly to my opinion meets u you know the performance standard for a special permit. >> Paul,
>> yes, I agree. It certainly does not uh detrimental to the established or future character of the neighborhood and it will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the bylaw. >> Kenny, >> so I agree with my colleagues. I also wanted to add Mr. Lichfield, I apologize
for missing the beginning of your um your narrative, but I did have the opportunity when I visited the site to talk to Mr. Soal, if I'm pronouncing that correctly, directly. And so I feel like I do have the full background on what you were sharing at the beginning. Um and so I agree with my colleagues. I
think that it is um it meets the criteria, especially with the revised bylaw, and um it makes sense where it's located, not detrimental to the neighborhood. Um, so I I would support it. >> David, >> uh, well, I think that I probably would
have chosen a different location for the generator. Um, it is visible from Cedar Street and whether or not it's going to be uh has some vegetation in front of it is is I guess um going to rectify some of
that, but in the winter time is going to be probably very visible. Um, I think it would have been better off maybe in the backyard behind the fence. Wouldn't have been that difficult to install it there. Um, there's also an air conditioning unit there that's not overly attractive.
So, I think it could have been done better. Um, but, you know, generators are a necessity, so it is what it is. >> Lee, >> I agree with my colleagues. Um, I I I
think it's fine. um screening will definitely help a lot. >> Dave each. >> Yes. And I agree with all previous and and would also point out that frequently um the sighting of generator is is um at
least in an ideal senses based on the location of the gas line and uh its proximity to the electrical panel. So that can uh often determine attempts of placement.
Yeah, and I I fully agree that this uh makes sense. >> I will move to approve the application as submitted. >> And David seconds and votes yes. >> Paul vote yes. >> Jenny votes yes. I vote yes. >> And I vote yes. That's a unanimous vote.
Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. Okay, >> Sarah. Our next application is 26-029, please. >> Oh, okay. I'm reading the old one. We have a change right? So this one will be
application number 25-065 the Lime Hill 22 trust care of James Morcross Esquire PO Box 707 Chattam Mass 02633 owner of property located at 202 Lime Hill Road also shown in the town of
Chadam's assessor's map 12E block 4 lot B6 the applicant seeks to create an unpaved footpath and construct an elevated stairway and an elevated walkway with attached kayak racks under section 4 A3A of the protective bylaw. The lot
contains 31,100 ft in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General law chapter 48 section 9 and section 8D2B of the protective bylaw. This was continued from August 28th, November 6, 2025, and
January 8th, February 12th, and April 9th, 2026. >> Jamie, >> thank you. Good afternoon. Jamie Norcross representing Kenheiser. uh owner of the property. As you just heard in the legal ad, we've been uh lingering on the agenda for quite a while. So, we
appreciate your patience. Um good news is we're ready to move forward today. Uh with me is Mark Burgess uh who uh designed the elevated walkway and the stairs along with Bill Ri presented I think it was back in January and February uh to the board for this
proposal. It's been um several months now. So, I just briefly was going to go through an overview of the property and the project to uh reorient reorientate the board to uh the application. Um Sarah, if you don't mind pulling up the subdivision plan that I sent over,
please. Great. Thank you very much. Uh so, 202 Lime Hill Road is a very uniquely shaped lot. Uh it is lot seven on that plan. And so the bulk of the property, the upland is uh the parcel that abuts the
uh roadway at the top. And then uh you see in yellow there is a 5- foot wide piece that then goes to a uh parcel at the bottom that's 100 ft wide that abuts uh Oyster Pond. Uh, another unique uh,
factor for this property is that it's um, subject to an easement for the benefit of I believe it's five or six properties on uh, Lime Hill Road. And so when this was developed by the Buckley family back in the 1960s um, and and so this portion of Lime Hill
Road that we're talking about, as you go down Lime Hill Road, there's a point where you can go left going toward the Heiser property. You can go straight going toward Christopher Harding Lane. And so this particular part of Lime Hill Road uh for the subdivision is everything past that lefthand turn. And
so those parcels when the Buckleys conveyed them out uh they uh retained ownership of lot 7, which was the family home for um 50 odd years uh uh subsequent to the subdivision. They granted those five or six lots um an
easement right to uh it's a 5 foot wide walking easement down the right hand side of the property. As you see the as it gets past lot 7, it's that part in yellow. They can walk down. And then they were also granted an easement in the 50- foot wide section of uh the portion of the property that abuts
Oyster Pond that's labeled as Reserve Beach. And so each of those lots were granted within the reserve beach area um an easement for bathing and uh mooring of boats. Uh it was the 1960s, so things were a little bit different in terms of
how specific they were. So that was as specific as the language was back then. Uh the left hand side, the private beach area, so the 50 ft on the left, um that is for uh 202 Mr. Heiser's property. That's for his exclusive use. There's no easement rights within that portion uh
of the property. Um and then Sarah, if you could uh please pull up um the site plan. And so the project and it's a little harder to see the reserve beach and the um private beach area as labeled in subdivision plan. I think that was
helpful. So uh what you see here the project is on the right hand side and I think this is an older version because it doesn't have the >> be the elevated stairs. >> All right. Perfect. Thank you. So, the proposal is
to uh construct what's labeled on the right hand side in the area of the 5 foot wide easement. It's a proposed 3x8 landing and stairs. And if you've been out to the property, which I'm sure you have, uh you can see currently there's a footpath that goes down. It's not it's
clear where it is. It's not maintained or anything other than perhaps some of the um uh grass is is cut down, but there's a footpath that leads down into the salt marsh. And so the proposal would be to install the landing and stairs over that area, which would make
access easier going down there for what can be a little bit steep and unsteady. And then um the applicant proposes to create a three- foot wide um what's labeled as manage access access path, excuse me, going from right to left. And
so then that would meander along the um uh easement parcel over to the beginning of the elevated walkway on the uh Mr. Heiser's 50-ft portion of the property that he has exclusive use on. and then that will go down to Oyster Pond. Uh on
the site now, you'll see there is a foot path that's right along the fence line which abuts 206 um Lime Hill Road. And at the request of the owner of 206, um the proposal is to relocate that footpath further away from his property
line so that he doesn't have as much impact with uh folks walking along that area. So the foot path would be relocated away from his property line. And then um my client has retained Blue Flax Design who is going to do an
extensive uh mitigation uh restoration plan in that area that Sarah pulled up now removing a lot of the invasives that are in that portion of the property and replanting. So it's going to be healthier uh native u plantings that it's also going to provide effective
screening uh at the request at the owner of 206 Live Hill Road. Um, in reviewing the the meeting from several months ago, I know there were some questions and concerns raised and uh a request to look
at uh moving the uh elevated walkway into the easement area or the reserve beach area. And we've I've spoken at length with Mr. Heiser about that. And it's not a location he's willing to construct the um elevated walkway. And
primary reason is it's impossible for him to manage it if it's in the easement area. Any property uh and house that has a right to use the easement area would then have a right to use the elevated walkway. And that includes owners, guests, whoever is visiting can use that
walkway. And it's impossible for him uh practically speaking to manage that. And it's one thing if it's Mr. and Mrs. Smith who own up the street who are using it. But then if they decide they're going to do vacation rentals and you have weekly renters who are able to use the walkway and so that leads into a
management concern and that also uh leads into a liability concern. So if someone were hurt using that walkway, they would look to Mr. Heiser presumably or potentially for liability and um not being able to manage or control it. he
has no way of using of knowing who's using it, who they are, what property they're from. And so, it's important to him to be able to have it on his property where he is able to manage who uses it. And I don't want to paint it as a situation where he's trying to be a bad neighbor and say, "Nobody else can
use it." He said, "If somebody comes to me and says, "Can I use that?" He's probably likely to say they can. But again, he can manage it that way. If it's in the easement area, anybody can use it that has easement rights, including renters, tenants, visitors, and guests. and he has no ability to manage who's using the walkway if it's
within the easement area. Another concern was seemed to be environmental. Uh I would note that the conservation commission since the last meeting has issued an order of conditions allowing the project to go forward. Uh they felt that it met the requirements of the wetlands
protection act and the local uh wetlands bylaw. And so we have that approval from the conservation commission. The only change they required from the last plan that you saw is that the um elevated walkway is going to be seasonal as opposed to a permanent structure. Um
questions were raised saying, "Well, you're removing some use of the salt marsh, but not the entire use because the property can use it, but not the easement holders." And that's correct. I mean, we're not 100% removing use of the salt marsh potentially by the easement
holders. But regardless, Mr. Heiser and his family and guests using this is a benefit to the environment, it represents a positive uh outcome for this. And while a location might result in what is viewed as a less
environmental impact, the fact is it's still an improvement to the environment, what we're proposing if it's within his exclusive use area and is certainly not detrimental uh to the environment as seen by the conservation commission. uh briefly uh run through some of the uh
I guess more relevant criteria if I may. Um suitability of the site for the proposed use. I would say the site is suitable. Uh the elevated stairways will create um safe access for everyone walking down
the path and the elevated walkway will create as I mentioned environmental benefit as less damage is caused the underlying vegetation and provide safer access for my client and his family. Uh number four impact on neighborhood visual character including views and vistas. Um as I mentioned as part of the
project the applicant is undertaking extensive mitigation and buffer plantings. Um, I was out there again this morning and I think at least from the street side, um, this is greatly greatly shielded from view from anyone really uh, out there. From the water
side, obviously it's visible if you're going down Oyster River, but there are um, several abudding properties that have these structures already. So, I don't think it's going to be um, it's not going to be incompatible with the neighboring properties to have this type of structure out there. And if you've
been out there and you've seen the neighboring structures, it's one of the I think it's a situation where it almost looks larger on paper than it's going to look when you see it on the ground and you see those neighboring structures that have these elevated walkways and they don't look big and they're not cumbersome and I I certainly don't think they overwhelm or negatively impact from
the uh streetscape as seen from the river. Number eight, compatibility of the proposed use with surrounding land uses. Uh accessory use a residential home and I would say it's compatible with the sur surrounding land uses and certainly compatible with the neighboring
properties that have a similar structure already. Uh number nine, impact on the natural environment. Again, I think it's a positive addition. Again, there might be a different location that's more positive, but it doesn't mean that this is not positive, and it certainly doesn't mean that it's detrimental in
any way to the environment. uh or to the neighborhood. And as I mentioned, the conservation commission has approved this after an extensive review under their regulations, the wetlands protections regulations to find that it can be uh or was approved and um doesn't
represent uh a negative impact on the environment. So, uh, lastly, just in in summary, I would say, is there a location that might be preferred? Perhaps, but that doesn't mean this location is detrimental, which is the standard that
this board is to look at. Is it detrimental to the neighborhood? I suggest to you it's not detrimental in any way. It's it's a positive. It's a positive the environment. Um, it's a positive for my client's use of his property. and he's looked at other
options and there's just a lot of issues that come along with other options that really aren't feasible for him. So I think based on your criteria and looking at it as a standard of substantially detrimental, I think we certainly qualify and meet the criteria of the
bylaw. Thank you. >> Thank you. Lrand fromage speaks >> and your name sir >> Bill Riley. >> Thank you. >> And the reason why you know there's never been an elevated walkway or
catwalk that's been denied either by conservation or zoning. And the reason for that is that waterfront property owners are going to access the water in front of their property.
And when there's a salt marsh, if they walk through the salt marsh, they destroy the salt marsh. And we all know that salt marsh is important ecological benefit that a lot of cadam uh
you know enjoys. So I think that when we have a project that is universally amongst environmental folks approved
that the conservation commission's decision should be supported by the zoning board. Thank you. Would that be your presentation? >> Yes, it is. Okay.
Is there anyone here today that would like to speak in favor of this or on Microsoft Teams? Uh if so, please let us know if you wish to join the conversation. Don't see anyone. So, I'll read the correspondence.
First, we have on May 4th a letter from the Conservation Commission here in the town of Chadam. The applicant submitted a notice of intent on July 7th, 2025. The project was heard by the conservation commission on September
10th, 2025, October 8th, 2025, December 17th, 2025, January 14th, 2026, April 22nd, 2026. The project was then conditioned to meet
the performance standards under the wetlands protection act and the town of local wetland bylaw chapter 272 and regulations promulgated thereafter. Then we have a letter. This is dated April 8th
and this is from the South Coastal Harbor Plan Committee. During the July 30th meeting of the South Coastal Harbor Plan Committee, the proposed plan for a new cat work at the
shoreline of 202 Lime Hill Road was presented by the consultant Mark Burgess. The following list sums up the committee's thoughts on the proposal. First, first, there is an overgrown, highly vegetated footpath proposed to be
reestablished through the highly vegetated bank locatedward of the salt marsh and shoreline. The 50-foot structure starts at the end of the currently overgrown path and extends over the salt marsh and beyond the mean
high water mark to go to the end of the marsh. This structure will therefore need a chapter 91 license. Once a chapter 91 license is required, public access over, under, or around the structure is required. This led to
stairs being placed right in the salt marsh. The stairs then negate the effort to protect the salt marsh as they appear to entice people to walk in the salt marsh. Number two, the proposed catwalk
will be private and will not be accessible to those that utilize the abuing neighborhood easement and therefore will not help alleviate the majority of foot traffic in the vicinity to protect the marsh. Number three, the
purpose of this new catwalk is to launch kayaks, which can easily be done by driving less than a mile till the Oyster Pond furlong town landing. Number four, the committee also believes that with the documented rising sea levels, more
needs to be done to help protect our coastal marsh and waterfront ecosystems from overdevelopment. Our marsh front ecosystem acts as a buffer to sea level rise by being a quote unquote shock absorber to the rising tides and
therefore we feel limiting activity on our waterfront marsh ecosystems is critical. Five finally the committee believes more needs to be done to preserve the character of Chattam's pristine harbors and estuaries. New
docks were prohibited over 10 years ago to stop new man-made structures along the waterfront. A proliferation of catwalks followed the dock prohibition. Some of these new catwalks are now being illegally used as docks with boats tied
to them. These catwalks contain hauling bridal lines to haul their boats into their catwalk at high tide, which is not the intention approve use of catwalks and is a way of skirting the
dock prohibition regulations. Based on the above mentioned items, the South Coastal Harbor Committee is not in favor of a permitted catwalk at this site. The committee has sent a similar letter to the conservation commission requesting that if the catwalk is permitted, detailed conditions on the
use of the catwalk should be included in the order of conditions. We recommend conditions to only allow for launch of personal non-motorized watercraft. No boat hall lines or tie-ups to the catwalk and no storage of any watercraft
within the salt marsh. signed. Tom King, chair, South Coastal Harbor Plan Committee, Town of Cadam. That is the extent of the correspondence. Is there anyone here on Microsoft Teams
that wishes to speak against this plan or has a specific question? If so, please indicate you'd like to join the conversation. Don't see anyone. So, gentlemen, would you like to rebut
the letter I just read? >> Uh, yes, we would. Uh, Mr. Burgess is going to go through some of the specifics of the letter. >> Yes. Thank you. For the record, Mark Burgess, Shorefront Consulting. I'm the designer for this project. Um, Mr. Nixon
and I have probably worked together for the last 20 years on several catwalk projects. Um, three of which are on the Oyster Creek. They all are about 30 to 40 feet long with the exception of one that is well over 100 almost 180 feet
long. Um I forget the name of the road, but it's to the west. So there's several of these walkways that have been installed. Um this this walkway is exactly the same principle and purpose as all of the other walkways that have always been approved by the zoning
board. Um in specifics to this letter, well the principle is what Jamie said. It is much better to properly design and use a structure to gain access over the salt marsh than to walk through it and trample it, drag kayaks and things like
that. Um, this particular area has a has a has a safety concern because there's holes in the marsh and people have stepped in there and twisted their ankle. Doesn't happen a lot, but there's little sink holes in this particular portion of the marsh.
In uh specifically for uh Mr. Nixon's letter. I don't need to pick it apart. There's some speculation in here. >> I didn't write the letter. It was Mr. King. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry, David. >> Thank you. >> Mr. King's letter. My apologies. >> It's all right. Um, this is exactly the
same letter that they wrote and submitted to the commission in um August of 2025. It incorrectly references a 50-foot structure and it incorrectly references the stairs in the salt marsh. Um the
stairs in the salt marsh were initially for chapter 91 because that's where they want to put the stairs in at meanh high water which is halfway through the marsh. So I have to start by putting them there. I sent the plan to uh D waterways and I got approval to run the
the public access chapter 91 public access up and around the beginning of the walkway. That is common. You have to ask for it. So that's why there are no stairs in the marsh. Now the structure has also been shortened to 40 ft. What I
believe um Mr. King failed to do was review any of the uh post revisions of the project and simply resubmitted his letter. It is word for word the same letter. So he failed to review the most current proposal and therefore this
letter is irrelevant to the current proposal before you. That would be my response to it. >> Thank you. Okay, we'll have questions from the board. We'll start with Paul.
Let let me start with the I've looked at the uh plans once again. Um, in looking at what I think is the most current uh site plan,
um, it looks to me as if the proposed uh, walkway and access down to uh, the beach is uh, between uh, on the plan A and B and C or
A and B um down to what's called the reserve beach, private beach. Is that correct? >> No. Down at uh down by the down by the water. BB A. Yes.
Right. Okay. Right down there. Um what I'm having a little trouble with is uh as I read our uh regulation, we talk in terms of cut catwalks shall not extend beyond the most
seawward point of the salt or freshwater marsh etc. or beyond the mean high water mark. Is the mean high water in this situation the blue line?
Yes. Uh, the catwalks are allowed to extend to the end of the salt marsh and they must have a ladder at the end. >> But are they able to extend beyond the main high water mark? >> They do. Yes, they all do. >> So, how does that reconcile with the
regulations? >> That's how it's always been interpreted, uh, Paul, is that it it's sort of an eitheror in terms of it can go to the end of the salt marsh. I understand what you're talking about with that provision of mean high water. >> Paul Paul, in the other words, it's
supposed to stop at mean high water or the end of the marsh if it extends past mean high water. That's the way it's always been interpreted. >> Okay. So, um you can do it as long as you're going to where I'm still having a little trouble
understanding the the language there. shall not extend beyond the seawward point of the salt or fresh meadow marsh beyond mean high water or beyond the point where a horizontal plane
two foot above the natural high water mark of a freshwater body intersects the land form. How? >> Well, I don't have the bylaw in front of me, but >> I do. >> I know you do, and that's a wonderful thing. But the the the point is you go
out to the end of the marsh, even if it's out past mean water. The idea is to protect the marsh. That's the whole goal of the of the elevated walkway. >> Okay. I'm just trying to figure out how it's consistent with the language of our bylaw,
>> what you're suggesting. How is it consistent with the language of the bywall when the bylaw says >> that's the way it's it's always been interpreted. There's been no change in the bylaw and every single catwalk the bylaw has been interpreted this way.
Every single catwalk extends past me and high water out to the end of the marsh. >> Mhm. >> Sarah >> in this instance because I do review these when they go to conservation. Um
this particular catwalk ends at meanh high water and the edge of the salt marsh. Those lines happen to coincide at the end of this where the ladder comes down right where um B is shown. >> So the ladder the ladder comes down at
the end. Now the isn't the ladder to the right? Yeah. Right there. >> That's where the ladder is. Uh now >> high water. Yeah. And so is the ladder in water? >> The ladder would extend down only low
enough so that you can step off of it onto the ground below. It doesn't penetrate into the ground. >> Okay. But I mean if the if it's high tide, is it into water? Are you stepping into water? >> Yes. >> All right. Um, and would the um would the use of the
ladder be done by uh anyone other than kayakers? >> Depends on why you want to access over the marsh to get to the beach. If you want to walk on the beach, you would walk over the catwalk and down the and down there without a without a kayak and you could stroll along the beach if you want or >> Okay.
>> So, there's there's several uh uses. >> I remember uh Mr. Burns uh when he spoke to us concerning uh his use of the area and uh and the convenience of having uh
access there was in part because uh you would be loading or unloading uh people from a boat um to give them access uh onto the catwalk if if that were given permission.
um so that they were not uh necessarily going into the water when they got on or off the boat. Is that one of the uses that would be made here? >> That's not that's not what these are for. If um if people use the catwalk as a dock, similar to a dock, that is a
violation of the order of conditions. >> Okay. Uh so a restriction on the use of it uh would be consistent if we said it was not to be used by a motorized boat. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> Absolutely.
>> That's and that's consistent with every catwalk that I've gotten approved. Um, I noticed in your in your uh uh testimony with the conservation commission that you initially had proposed that these be this be a
permanent um structure as opposed to a temporary. And uh you felt that permanent was more appropriate uh from a environmental standpoint because using a temporary uh
structure that required removal tended to lead to more damage to the area because of the need to go in and out of there with maintenance crews and so forth. >> Correct. Agreed. Um the commission had us change it to a seasonal but only for the decking. So the pilings and the
framing will stay in. the decking is removed seasonally for uh sunlight to transmit underneath in the offrowing season. So, it's kind of a hybrid. You get you get the permanence of no disturbance to the salt marsh substrate ever again, but you get the seasonal uh
increase of light in the offse. >> So, so you don't think that there would be disturbance to the substrate based on taking the decking on and off? >> No, in the fall and >> in the fall and in the spring. Yeah, the decking sections aren't very heavy. They
should be able to pick up go out to the end of the walkway, pick it up, walk back, pick up the second one, walk back, pick up the third one, walk back. >> Okay. >> Probably not even step foot in the marsh at all. >> I have no other questions. >> Thank you, >> Jenny.
>> Okay. I want to follow up a little more on the seasonal aspect as well. Um, I did watch the conservation hearing. I heard you say that that is an element. So, um, so you're you did say there is disturbance to put in the piling. So, you acknowledge there's the disturbance
that one time, but disturbance nonetheless. And then the seasonal would just be the decking and agree with I want to just reiterate what Paul asked. No expected disturbance twice a year to take them off, put them back. You you
are that you you're familiar with that practice. And >> if if I had to do it myself, I would walk out there on the decking, remove it or replace it from the catwalk. >> And typically that's how it's done. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Can you define seasonal? I don't
think I heard that in the conservation hearing. I might have missed that, but um like is it a date to date? Is there an enforcement process associated with that? >> Yeah, I believe I don't have the order in front of me either, but I believe it's November to April.
>> Okay. So, >> so that would be a routine cycle. What about enforcement? Like, is this this just on the homeowner to make sure that they do that? Is that how >> I think there's plenty of people that are going to watch this that will enforce it for them? >> Well, it's a I mean, if they weren't if
uh it's I don't think they do routine inspections, but Well, they might actually. I don't know that, but it's uh it would be considered a violation if they don't remove it when they're supposed to before the season. >> It's like every special permit that's issued. Okay. Um,
so am I understanding that the are this I'm a little confused, Jamie. I apologize. I know you've gone through this several times. Are the stairs staying as they are right now? They're not being rebuilt. They're not >> the existing inground steps. >> There are no inground steps currently.
>> Okay. They were proposed steps. They were proposed in ground steps but that uh requires grading in the conservancy district which is not allowed. >> Okay. So that's been removed from the proposal. >> Right. Instead it's going to be a uh if you um you have to go up a little bit but you can see it's a stair um stair
elevated stairs going down the landing in place of at grade steps >> through through that vegetated path needs to be >> No. So it's um Sarah if you don't mind pulling the plan down a little bit. Oh >> Mark she's Mark. Mark.
>> Absolutely. >> Right there, Mark. Right there. >> It's the stairs that you see the proposed 358 landing and stairs are what are being proposed in lie of the accrade steps. So, as you walk down the Heiser property, >> okay,
>> there's a little bit of a slope down as you get to the top of the salt marsh. >> And so those steps, there' be a landing and stairs there. And then going horizontally would be a foot path. No structure, but just a foot path to then get over to the start of the walkway.
>> And that foot path is just um that foot path is just above the salt marsh, right? That is in the green right there. Okay. Yes. Land of the salt marsh. >> Okay. So, I'm sorry. So, the stairs were proposed last time. >> I'm sorry, what? >> The stairs were proposed last time.
>> Lot. >> Yes. >> There's a lot of variations on plans, but I think those were part of the last proposal. >> Yeah. So stairs and then not through the salt marsh but just above the salt marsh. Right there. >> Correct. >> And then there. And then 40 ft starts at
that point of the catwalk. >> Yes. >> 40 ft. Okay. >> All right. Um so, uh can I can I ask you about the kayak racks? Did we just is that being proposed still or was that taken off the table? The only change between revision three and revision four was to make the
decking seasonal. So the last plan you saw had the right had every the last plan that you saw for the first zoning meeting was the same ex with the exception that the decking is now seasonal. That's the only change. >> Okay. All right. So you are proposing um
kayak racks are >> Yes. >> Yes. Are you um proposing or or expecting there to be non-motorized watercraft that could be tied up to there? >> Nothing. Nothing should be tied up to the to the
>> the kayak racks bolt to the side. They can remain and that prevents people from storing the kayaks on lawn vegetation or the salt marsh. We know that happens quite often. So, these are a convenient place to store the kayaks. If I own the if I own the property, the
kayaks are out of there when the decking goes out. No one's kayaking. >> Well, I was I was referring to the letter that was written by um >> the Yes, Mr. King. And there were some things in there that they were
suggesting. Would you be okay with uh boat hall lines or tie-ups to the catwalk being prohibited? >> Those are standard conditions, I believe. >> Yeah, the answer is yes. >> Okay. And then storage of watercraft within the salt marsh would be prohibited. >> Always prohibited. Yes.
>> All right. Um and then only launching personal non-motorized watercraft. >> Absolutely. >> All right. Just want to confirm that. >> Um >> okay, that's those are the questions I had. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Sarah has found the wordage on seasonal.
The catwalk shall be seasonal and shall be removed each year no later than November 1st and shall not be replaced before May 1st. >> May 1st. >> Thank you. Sarah Steve,
can you um just I was a little unclear. Can you just restate um what changes, if any, there are for the people who currently have access to the easement? Is is all of that going to stay the same? The people that have the
ability to access this will still have that ability. >> The easement area, the only change would be the landing and stairs to which they have the ability to walk down uh over the existing footpath, >> which will make it safer for them, >> right? So, they're going to have the same access as they do now.
>> Yes, that doesn't change. >> Um, and it's actually being enhanced by the addition of the stairs, >> I believe. So, yes. >> Um, how how tall is that ladder at at the end?
>> About um >> 3 feet, four feet, 10 feet. >> Let's say this was the decking. You need enough probably like this and then down to the down just above the ground. >> So maybe four feet. >> What the total length of it?
>> Yeah. Of the ladder. >> I can scale it on the plan, but >> oh approximately >> four probably closer to >> eight feet. It goes down to >> all right >> minus three. >> Mean high water mean low water.
>> And that's you can fold that up or something and in clement weather or is semi semi-permanmanent >> nailed right to the end of the >> so it's okay so it's semi-permanent but it's removable in the seasonal way >> well the the only thing that the
commission wanted us to remove was the decking the ladder doesn't affect anything shading or anything like that >> okay >> and they're they're put on sturdily I would I would say um and so it's designed to to stay there >> okay
and the part that's seasonal is from that lad matter um to approximately where the kayak rack is. Is that true? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Four sections. >> All right. >> Mhm. >> Thank you. >> Welcome. >> Um so I uh had similar questions
regarding the elevated stairway if the easement users were still going to be able to use it or were going to be able to use it. And I think that's um a huge improvement for them. Um regarding the ladder, what what is the ladder made out of it? Is it metal? Is it wood?
>> The ones that I've seen on the Well, on the older catwalks, they're wooden, but nowadays it's easier to just to buy an aluminum one and and clamp it and brace it. Okay. >> The frame. >> Um, is there any thought of making it flip up?
>> I guess the if the applicant wanted to, he could, but it's not required. But >> the answer is no. Uh and the reason why we we had we used to have situations where we had uh steps coming off like a revetment
that were uh angled out and would be in an area where there was surf and so conservation commission always wanted those to be able to be removed so they wouldn't be damaged in a storm event.
this. They're actually bolted right to the last set of risers support frames. So, uh there's no angle out. They just bolted right to the end. So, no, they wouldn't be flipping up.
>> So, sometimes ladders get um slippery or barnacles and you don't really want to be climbing up and down those. So, that's why I'm just saying if you can get it out of the water, it might save that. Uh, I think that's a I think it's a maintenance item.
>> Like most nautical things. >> Yeah. Um, uh, I think I think that's I think that's it. Thank you. >> You're welcome, >> Dave. Um,
yeah. Um, let's see. So Jamie, um I just want to clarify because you were um u mentioning that about the sub substantial detriment standard um in terms of placement and things, but
this is the the section 8 approval and my understanding is that the substantial detriment is is not is not the standard necessarily that we use the section 8. were using the um um
future established future character and and Paul can probably quote me. >> No, you're correct. I misspoke when I >> Okay, I just just checked. We just want to check. >> Yep. >> Um and the um Oh, and you and you've answered I'm sorry the you've answered
about talking about some of these questions. this the letter from the South Coast management thing was a little bit of a surprise to me and they and and so the suggested conditions that they were it it seemed to be making to
the consom to include in their order of conditions. What you've said is that I'm being led to believe that what you've said is those are pretty much standard as part of their orders of conditions when they approve these catwalks. That's correct. Mhm.
>> So >> my understanding, yes, >> it isn't that we necessarily have to impose those ourselves that that's already part of the order of conditions that >> no objection if they do >> that has been applied or been granted.
>> Right. They should be part of the order of conditions obviously if if I should say obviously but if zoning board felt necessary to include those we have no objection to that. It's a use that we don't intend. >> Okay. Okay. Okay. Um and the um and it
seems to me, you know, looking at the the new pathway from the foot of the stairs, the access stairs going over to it seems to me that that would be whereas it it's currently now up higher
on the on the hill, the pathway, >> that it seems to me that that pathway being delineated there is um would be a positive uh with respect to offering better protection for the salt marsh for
any longshore uh access people fishing or fowling or navigating or whatever. Um that they would be inclined to use that path. It may not be I don't know. I'm trying to think. It's above mean high water, so I
don't know how that comports with the colonial access laws, but u >> I I can speak to that. >> Sure. >> That actual path is just is right on the other side of the fence. And that's still Mr. Dogard's property. >> So, it's not that path is not within the
area that they're allowing. >> He's talking about the new path. >> I'm talking about the new path. The new path, >> right? No, I think what um as Mark mentioned earlier, the chapter 91 says instead of putting stairs down between mean high and mean low, we agree that the access for a fish valley and navigation would be above
>> above around the end. >> Right. >> Yeah. Okay. And I and and what just for my ownation, what triggers a need for a chapter 91 license is going into Mark >> any structure that extends beyond or seawward of the main high water line
>> of mean high water. Okay. Yeah. So, your public access is up and around right here. >> Right. That's that I can re I sort of can read from the plan. So, it's it isn't like a set of stairs on either side. It's going up and walking around the end of it. >> Correct. In certain circumstances, we can get rid of the stairs if the access
is close enough. >> Yeah. Okay. >> And D agreed to that. >> Yeah. Okay. Um All right. I think that's all I have. Right. Thanks, Ed. Um my my one question was also regarding
the um the new path between the the the structures currently. It's you're walking up above through the through the lawn area and the re the reason it's being moved down is really to appease the neighbor and not having people walk
across his yard. >> Correct. He didn't want a little bit of a buffer there. Yeah. created >> and you know I would prefer it up in that area but I understand perhaps the situation going on and the I guess the fact that you're doing mitigation and uh
to Dave's point having that path down closer to the water for people fishing or shell fishing or whatever might might be actually beneficial. So that that pretty much covered my question. Thank you. >> Great. You're welcome. Anything
else? Ed Paul, >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> Uh, David seconds and votes yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. I vote yes. >> And I vote yes. Deliberations. Uh,
Steve, why don't you go first? >> Okay. Okay. Well, I'm glad I guess I'm glad to see that um you know, the negotiation process went. It's finally finally done with the consom and that they've sort of given their blessing to
your plan. Um you know, I kind of I guess I think of them as sort of the subject matter experts on on, you know, when when something goes across the marsh or or into the wetland. So, um I think that as long as they're okay with it, um and you know, the the neighbors
are are the the people who still have access to that area will remain, I think it's I think it's fine, >> Lee. >> Um well, I I think it's fine, too. Um I have to say I don't I really don't want
to see more catwalks. Um, I think it's it's it's kind of the new thing to do. And I get it. People want to access their water, but I I'd like to I'd like to see um fewer um but I think that um
this is this is going to be okay. Um I especially like the seasonal uh removal of the decking only. I think that's really smart. Um, and I also like the fact that now there's some stairs for the other people to get down there safely. Um, and and
use their boats and kayaks and whatever from that area. So, as much as I don't want to see more catwalks, I um probably will approve this. >> Thank you, >> Dave Beach. Yeah, I think um um you know hearing
reading some objections and hearing some objections and various problems and things I overall I I I I do feel that as as Lee does with the creation of the access stairs on the bank there that that's a definite improvement uh for
safety and and access. Um the new pathway uh I think at the bottom of the hill there is is an improvement um for everyone. Um the creation of the catwalk and um is
as I'm in agreement with what the way Jamie has presented it. I I mean this may not be there may be some other locations, but I think he gave an good explanation for why the owner would not consider wanting to put this where he can't have any control over it. Um, and
I if it's there, there's nothing that that prevents him from being able to on a case-byase basis grant uh the use of that to his neighbors, the ones that have the the easement. And and so that could very
easily happen. So it can happen. It can be not just a one property. It can be o under one owner, but it's that owner's option to be able to allow some um community use of it.
And so to the degree that that does happen, I we would like we want to encourage that. Um and on on and overall I I think just think that there's there's benefits all the way around and whatever you know having another catwalk
which you we've been reminded we haven't we haven't denied any catwalks in the time I've been here either for the 15 years I've been here. So, um I I just don't think that that the objections that have been raised are really um um
the arguments are not good enough for me to to say no with this. I I really think that this is something that um would meet meets the criteria that we need to be reviewing it under. So Ed, >> I you know I would prefer to see the the
the the catwalk at the end of the stairs. I think um you know then that sort of allows a more public use to it, but understand the liability issues and this is sort of a you know work around
that. So, um I don't think it's ideal, but uh if I were voting it, it would it would um meet my standards, I guess. And thank you, >> Paul. >> Well, when I uh when I looked at this
the last last hearing, I came down with the idea that perhaps we should leave this issue to the Conservation Commission. Um, and I looked at uh I looked at the conservation commission hearing uh to see uh what their view was. Uh
before I think on their on their straw vote prior to that meeting they had split 33 on whether to support this proposal. Um and um I think they sort of reluctantly
ended up saying that they would agree to uh the proposal that's being made. Um the input from the South Coastal Harbor Plan Committee uh throws a little bit of a monkey wrench into that and that they're taking
a sort of broader view of uh catwalks in general and the way the conservation commission approves them. Um and uh their their view I think is
conditioned in part by what they've seen as a lot of abuse of catwalks uh in the sense that the regulations are not enforced against uh non-motorized boats. Um and they were citing a series of
things that are a little bit to the west of where this is located and saying that uh there are issues there that they wish they did not have and which seem to be ignoring um what our conservation rules with respect to
the use and and really when we listen to at least when I was listening to Mr. Burns talking about his use of uh their boat uh at the path uh on this location.
He seemed to be saying to me that uh one of the things that was nice about uh catwalks or things of this nature is that they can pull their boat up to it and drop off passengers or pick up passengers.
um and that that's uh uh a safer way to do it. Um even though uh with respect to the regulations at least uh that would be prohibited. So it seems to me that what we can do if we do this uh uh approval is to
condition it to uh some of the conditions that were proposed by the uh South Chattam Harbor Plan Committee. Uh but overall we're sort of balancing the question of whether um
this particular applicant should be simply using the same stairs and access that all of his neighbors would use um as opposed to putting in a private uh catwalk that would enable him to avoid
doing that. Um to the extent that we have in the past approved catwalks for individuals u I think that probably this is consistent with that but um it's not consistent with the concept of what the
south coastal uh harbor plan committee is is suggesting should be done overall in the town with respect to catwalks. Um, so, uh, I've been on the edge on this one and frankly, um,
I would be inclined not to approve it to be consistent with the, uh, overall approach by South Coastal to the concept of additional catwalks on Oyster Pond.
the uh the restrictions uh hopefully would be followed if we impose the restrictions on this. But uh it's a uh it's a difficult problem to uh acknowledge u
the issues of of uh liability and and uh handling the uh maintenance and control and so forth. It seems to me applies to the stairs as well as to the uh
catwalk because you've got the same kind of access by all the other neighbors and their guests on the stairs that you have on the catwalk and that uh that those could be uh provided for by agreement or
by restrictions on use uh in some other way. So as you can see there are a number of ideas that are sort of bouncing around in my head that I'm trying to come to reconciliation on. And uh I think that uh my inclination is to
say that uh I think that the additional uh catwalk would have a negative effect on the environmental aspect of this properties and the properties at that location.
Um as I remember the uh testimony that was provided by Mr. Burgess at the uh uh conservation commission uh when he was arguing for the fact that it should be a permanent installation and not a temporary installation.
It was in part that uh he felt that overall um having uh uh there was more damaging caused by having uh a crew come in twice a year and remove
uh the temporary uh stuff in order to uh comply with what was the conservation commission's overall concept that they don't like to approve any permanent installation. Um and uh that really depends on whether
how well that's done, how carefully it's done. So maybe we can put a condition on with respect to that. I'm not sure. But, uh, I guess my overall impl is used now and is going to be used by all the other neighbors. And that
doesn't seem to me to be consistent with our concept of what we're trying to do here in town with respect to catwalks. So I think my overall my conclusion would be not to approve uh the application as submitted. >> Jenny,
>> so I I I too understand the desire to want a s a catwalk. Um, but I don't know that I agree that the catwalk, the argument that the catwalk prevents people from trapesing through the salt marsh is really a good argument here
because the catwalk is only serving one household. So, it's it's helping in that regard, but the stairs that are being built are taking people right to the salt marsh. So, it's I I I think there's an inongruence there with what's being proposed. I appreciate the stairs being
offered to be built there, but it's taking people right to the salt marsh and that's their access. And then there's this really extensive catwalk that's being built for one household to prevent to to help support the salt
marsh from being um you know, further damaged. But it's really not it's not a solution that's really solving the you know the the protection of the salt marsh is really paramount for me too. Um I I appreciate Mr. Burgess's comment
about you know precedent and Jamie you and and Mr. Mr. Riley saying, you know, there's a lot of precedent for catwalks in town, but um really in the zoning world, there's no such thing as precedent because uh every those other catwalks, maybe they do, maybe they
don't include the salt marsh. The salt marsh is so precious. So I I don't know that that is a is a blanket precedent that is applicable here. Um also, I would add that conservation did approve it, but it was a reluctant approval. I
watched it too. It was a 4-1 uh vote, but you know, a really long pause for that fourth vote uh as I as I uh watched it as I recall. Um and so I um I am leaning as Paul is to
the to the uh the tilt being more about the preservation broadly. I'm really really struggling with with criteria nine that is the impact on the natural environment and um
>> so I um if if it if it was approved I I would I would definitely want to impose the or ask for the conditions one two and three that we that we talked about before. Well, at the end of the day,
it's it's trying to control the actions of people that might or might not respect the salt marsh as it is or what it should be. um other people's property,
but I feel it's worth a try. I really do. I I I don't want to leave it the way it is. It's just going to get worse over time.
Um so this is an effort. Granted, it's to the benefit of a private party and but I heard what you said Jamie about his reluctance and it's absolutely true to just open it up and say, "Hey, you
know, do what you want." So, um I guess you could say that what I'm essentially saying is something some effort is better than none. It might not be great, but it is
an effort to make the situation better than I think it's going to be over time, which is just get worse and worse. Paul, >> would you like us to vote? Jamie vote. >> Thank you.
>> All right. I'll move to approve the application as submitted with uh conditions that only the launching of personal nonmotorized watercraft shall be permitted. That boat haul up lines or tie-ups to
the catwalk shall be prohibited. That storage of any watercraft within the salt marsh shall be prohibited. that all construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the
permission of the property owner. Um, and I don't think we need to add that there's no storage of watercraft within the salt marsh because that's a condition of correct the uh ordinance. >> Correct.
Um, I believe that's all of the conditions that I would suggest if we're going to approve it. >> All right. >> Uh, Dave, how do you vote? >> Uh, I will second and vote uh in the affirmative. >> Paul,
>> uh, I'm going to vote no. >> Lee, >> I vote yes. >> Jenny, >> I vote no. and I vote yes. Uh, you needed four yes votes. You got three. >> Thank you very much.
>> Thank you, gentlemen. Okay, >> sir. Are we going to continue down the old list or are we going to jump back and put two? >> Next one is 30. >> Okay. So, two is going to go five. >> Yes.
>> All right. Okay. So uh 26-03 please sir application number 26-030 Terry B. Wells and Janet L. Wells Care of Capen Islands Engineering Inc. 800 Felmouth Road, sweet 301, MASHP, Mass
02649. Owner of property located at 87 Plum Daffy Lane, also showed on the town of Chadam's assessor's map 9A, block 5A, lot D15. The applicant seeks to construct a landing and beach access stairs under section 4A3A of protective
bylaw. The lot contains 45,355t in the R20 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 4A section 9 and section 8D2B of the protective bylaw. Good evening. For the record, Raul
Lisardi with Cape Islands Engineering representing the applicant and property owners for this application. Um so as described this application is for obtaining approval for the construction of a seasonal stairs over an existing
stone revetment to access the beach. Um the be the reason behind this application is that past storms last year um began to cause erosion along the coastal bank. Although more than um 200
ft of this shoreline is protected with a stone revetment, there is a portion on the southern part of the property that is not um covered with stones or any other man-made structure. It was actually a natural land form that was a
coastal bank. Um over that coastal bank there was a a laid out on the ground footpath with um rollout um boardwalk and then that led to an old timber stairs that led to the beach um for the
homeowners. The erosion that um happened last year um took away around um some two or five feet depending on where we measured of the existing bank. And with that erosion, the walkway along the top
of the bank um was washed away and the stairs that led to the beach were washed away. All of that um structure that was mangled on the shoreline was removed from the site. Um and now what the applicant wants to do is a two-part
project is stabilizing the shoreline but also reestablishing access to the beach. But instead of um rebuilding in the old location of the former stairs which were located roughly less than 20 feet from the property line and traversing along
the two top top of the bank to that location, we are we're having the applicant agree to install the stairs in a portion that is over the revetment. um that removes some of the foot traffic um
over a section of natural um bank and prevents the construction of the stairs over natural bank. At the same time, this allows us to propose a soft solution to stabilize the bank and provides some plantings that will grow
um a good root math to hold the the soils in place. So, in a way, this is beneficial both environmentally, but also for the homeowners to have actually less foot traffic um and access the beach sooner.
Um, another component to this project is that the stairs are going to be seasonal. Um so the intention is that during the offseason and the offseason as in the past application uh K um conservation commission has a particular date that they want these units from
being deem not dissembled but just unhinged from the platform and removed from the beach and then a time when they can actually go back. So that's the project that that we have um before you. Um the location of the new um platform
to for the seasonal stairs is roughly 44 feet from the property line on the south. Um and they will be removed and hauled in the upland um area of the site. Um then dur during the season they'll just um arrange to have it back
on on the platform and reaching out to the beach. Um the stairs overall are 15t measured at the angle of the stairs. Um and it's going roughly from um elevation nine at the top of the reetment to like
elevation um four or three at the beach. This application has also been filed with the conservation commission through a notice of intent application. Um and we had our first hearing with conservation. We have an upcoming second hearing with them. Um so that's the
project before you. Um if there's any questions um I'll try to answer. Thank you. >> Thank you. Is there anyone here today that would like to speak in favor of this application either here today or on Microsoft Teams? If so, please show your
hand or indicate you'd like to speak. Don't see anyone. I'll read the correspondence. First, it's from Conservation Commission on May 4th. They write, "The applicant submitted a notice of
intent on March 24, 2026. The project was heard by the conservation commission on April 8th, 2026. The project was continued to May 13, 2026 for revisions in order to be conditioned to meet the performance standards under the wetlands
protection act and chapter 272 of the town's run list. Then we have a note from Steven Low. Stephen and Gail Low are at 86 Plum Daffy Lane and they
write on May 8th, we support this application and that is the extent of the correspondence. Is there anyone here today or on Microsoft Microsoft Teams that wishes to speak against this
application or has a specific question? Don't see anybody. Uh, questions from the board. Start with Lee, please. >> No questions at this time. >> Dave Beach. >> I have no questions. Dave, >> Ed,
>> I actually I was able to meet the owner out there today when I was I was looking at it and he was able to go through the project with me and was able to answer all my questions. So, I'm I'm good. >> Were there any questions you'd like to share with us? uh or they were all secret.
>> Well, uh from what I saw and what I learned, it it it it um it makes perfect sense to me what they're doing out there and is going to be an improvement over what was there before it was eroded away. Um
basically, um there was a existing path that now that went beyond the seaw wall which got eroded away. Now they by putting in this set of stairs which they can pull up and put down they'll be able to put it over the seaw wall so there
won't be any issues and the path is getting much shorter where you're putting the uh the rolls the coconut rolls or um the path will not have to go over that so it won't cause any erosion over there. So, it it
the owner was very knowledgeable about the project and uh did a good job presenting it to me. >> Paul, I have no questions. Jenny >> Ro, we'll have a couple of questions for you. Um are so these are aluminum
stairs. Are they required to be seasonal? Like you couldn't leave those out all all. Isn't that a requirement with aluminum stairs over a revetment? >> So, we could have proposed a permanent structure. Um, but from the onset and based on my past experience with several
town conservation commission, it is best to have seasonal stairs to avoid them being damaged during the winter storms. During the winter storms, homeowners are typically not at the sights and these fixed structures, permanent permanent
structures, um, will just take the blunt of of any storm. So for I guess for the environment safety, but also for the finance that the property owners are going to be investing into this, it's better for them to protect
the stairs by being able to remove it. We and they understand that there there is labor that they need to um engage in removing them and resetting them. But on the long haul, it's a better project because the stairs are still protected
by being um dismantled. And even though there is this seasonal time period, um there could be storms uh within the time that the stairs are in place. And by being seasonal, the homeowner has the ability of engaging someone to detach
them should there be a hurricane come in in August, September, and protect the structure. Um, and then reset them afterwards. >> Okay. Yeah, I I I like that because I don't not really uh crazy about them,
you know, going over that a really attractive stone revetment. usually wouldn't you see them built into the revetment, you know, for when they're originally done. But but I understand that wouldn't be possible at this point. So I I I like the fact that they would be removed and and would encourage that
to happen. Um, another question I have is so where where the stairs were um lost the that the uh little walkway, the wooden walkway, and then so when we were there, we didn't see any stairs remaining like we weren't totally sure
that what we were looking at. So, are they all gone there? They're completely gone. >> Right. So, in the application, we submitted um some photographs of what it looked when the damage was observed by the homeowner. >> Um so, they they removed the damage. The
debris is was removed and disposed of. Okay. >> Before any filing was done with either conservation or with this board. So, the remnants are not visible. Um but, um he has photographic evidence from what was there. And also is it it's common right
to have the end of a revetment have what they call is that called beach scour so so it's very common to see that now your restoration plan will mitigate that or eliminate that. >> So right typically um a stone revetment has a return.
>> Yeah. um not just stone reventments, any other man-made structure such as bulkheads, seaw walls and stuff, there is a return that kind of protects that that transition between a hard surface and a natural surface. Um once the scour happened, the erosion happened, we can
see that there's evidence that there's no return on this revetment. If we allow this scar or this erosion to continue, it will continue to scour behind the revetment and compromise the reetment. What this soft solution is going to do now that we have the ability to install
something, the soft solution becomes kind of like the anchoring between a hard surface and the rest of the natural bank >> which will actually help protect the revetment long term. That's the plan. Okay. Um
>> Okay, that's all I had. Thank you, >> Steve. Well, I was going to ask that that very same question about what your plan was for mitigation or restoration. So can you just sort of describe other than uh the the revetment what what other measures are going to be taken
there in that area? >> So Ray um not that I'm a specialist on plants but um there's a lot of invasives that are going to be um removed from this coastal bank. Um for an area that's much bigger than what we're discussing
here um there's going to be planting of native species. Um so in terms of additional benefits that this overall project is um is improvement in habitat um um the both habitat for for the animals and birds and so forth but also
enhancing the vegetation. We're going to add some diversity to the vegetation that has been identified which I'm not going to go into specifics because I don't know them but but yes there's a greater environmental benefit by this project. the elimination of the foot
traffic over that southern 40 something feet portion of the bank. Um that also provides this benefit of the typical foot traffic loosening the soils but also foot traffic prevents vegetation from growing. But now by removing all
that that 44 foot southern section of the property will be vegetated um and will be maintained um with this subsolution that allows plants to go through. So environmentally there's more benefits than there are benefits for the homeowners to access the beach.
>> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Okay. I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> Uh David seconds and votes yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. I vote yes. >> Okay. And I vote yes.
>> Dave, >> I like it. Oh, I um it's short answer. No, I I mean when I went out and looked at it and and and looked at the plan, I said, "This makes a lot of sense and it's very much an improvement um in in
the situation and also overall and and you know um because I mean I think having stop stopping where they'd like to stop and and putting the steps down over the revetment makes a lot a great deal of
sense. Um and uh having it removable uh as he's pointed out has um some real advantages uh both in in the offseason but also if there are going to be any storm events when the stairs are in place easier to take those out. Um so I
it meets all of our criteria and u I'm happy to support it. Ed >> um yeah I I think it makes a lot of sense to me. What's interesting about uh this property is the seaw wall ends, you know, quite a ways from the property
line and you know there's a saying you never want to own the property at the end of a seaw wall because you get all that scouring. Um, and now adding the soft solution, I'm hoping that that your engineering all works and that uh keeps
that area stable and it hopefully it doesn't just force erosion further down uh the property. Um, but it makes total sense to me putting the stairs where it is. Um my only slight concern is now
we're hardening a you know a larger portion is being hardened with a soft solution. Um but I'm I'm expecting that soft solution will will do its job and certainly better than extending the seaw wall a hard solution. So I I think it's
a good project to meet. I think it meets our our criteria. Paul >> I agree. I think it's a good solution and uh hopefully it will work. I'm uh I have some skepticism with respect to some of these soft solutions because
I've seen >> down in the uh South Chattam area by the Motel and uh going towards Red River that soft solution has been tried on two or three different occasions and uh it hasn't worked on any of them. So uh uh
although it's it's it's holding a bit now, but I think this is as good a solution as you're going to get and and it's an improvement over what's there now. Certainly. Uh so I would I will approve it. >> Jenny, >> yeah, I agree with my colleagues. I um I
thought that the on the property the existing wooden in ground steps that were there were really nice very and very nicely done. And so it makes sense to put this temporary solution um at the end of that and um and it's towards the end of the of the property. So I I I
think it makes sense. Also, conservation did, as I recall, really found your soft solution uh presentation to be very um exciting and acceptable to them. So I I liked hearing that as well. So, um yeah,
I think it's um a good solution to much better than trying to redo that corner, which I think is just very feudal and um uh really not not a good solution. So, I'm glad you're not proposing that and I I would support it,
>> Steve. >> Yeah, I feel the same as I think everybody else has said that I think this is probably a better solution than the way it was. And it sounds like you have a good restoration plan for um the the portion of the property that was
damaged. So, um I think overall it's a good project. Good luck, >> Lee. >> Yeah, I I agree with my colleagues, too. Um it's good plan. Um, but I just wanted to maybe state the obvious here in that um, this is very different from what we
just dealt with in that um, it I mean it's access to the beach, but it's one homeowner and it's not through a salt marsh. So it it makes sense to do this. >> Yeah, it certainly does. Uh, you know, is it wishful thinking? Don't know.
We'll find out. But it's worth a try. It's worth a try. Paul, >> I will move to approve the application as submitted with the condition that all construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner. That between June 30th
and Labor Day, no exterior construction shall be allowed, no work shall be permitted on the weekends, and construction activity between 8 am and 5:00 pm only. >> Uh Dave seconds and uh votes yes. >> Paul votes yes. Jenny votes yes. I vote yes.
>> And I vote yes. That's a unanimous decision. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Sarah 26-031 please. >> Application number 26-031 and defusesco care of William G.
Lichfield, Esquire, 330 Orleans Road, North Chattam, Mass 02650. Owner of property located at 88 Pond View Avenue. Also shown on the town of Chattam's assessor's map 11D, Block 6, Law 18. The applicant proposes to change, alter, or expand a
non-conforming dwelling in a non on a non-conforming lot via the removal of a deck and the construction of additions and a covered porch. The existing dwelling is non-conforming and it is located 11.4 4 ft from the southerntherly leuter where a 15t setback is required. The proposed
covered porch will be non-conforming in that in that it will be located 12.9 ft from the southerntherly butter where a 15t setback is required. The existing building coverage is 1,832 ft 10% and the proposed building coverage is 284 ft 11.4% where 15% is
the maximum allowed. The law is non-conforming and that it contains 18,228 square feet where 20,000 square feet is required in the R20 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of protected bylaw.
>> Mr. Lichfield. >> Good afternoon. Bel Litchfield here in behalf of Ann DeFusco and her husband Bill are on the 123rd aisle down. uh with them today is an extraordinarily dedicated neighbor who has come to
listen to a lot of important discussion, but she's here in behalf of her neighbors. Um Ann and Bill have owned this house for eight, nine years, something like that, and are in the process of uh retiring and are looking
for more full-time use. Actually, retirement wasn't contemplated before 3:00 this afternoon, but over the course of the afternoon, they're now in that direction. Uh they and their uh two grandchildren so far uh need some additional space, primarily a mudroom,
an entryway, which is part of the proposal. Uh it's a 71 square ft addition uh which is within the side uh not within the sideline setback. Uh but they also would like to put on the
architectural feature of a front porch which does not impinge on the street setback but because of the existing location of the house itself the southerntherly end when you're facing
the house the left hand side of the of the front porch is within the sideline setback. Uh so I'll go straight into the criteria. I think you've had a long afternoon as to adequacy of sight on the third page and for that matter the
compatibility of size. Um on the third page of the handout most of the lots of the neighborhood are non-conforming. Uh our coverage is at the lower end. Our gross floor area and living area in the middle of neighboring properties. I think you can find the
site to be adequate for the 71 square foot conforming expansion of the house for the med mudroom and also for construction of the front porch coverage remains well below the limit and the porch is further away from the sideline than is the existing house. As the
compatibility of size again we have a small increase of 71 square feet of gross floor area and living area coverage increases but is again far below the maximum. It remains consistent with the neighborhood gross floor area and living area increase, but they're
still significantly lower than several others and certainly compatible as to the extent of increase in nonconformity. Our two existing lot nonconformities, as Sarah read in the hearing notice, are lot size and sideline nonconformities. We're meeting the street setback, but
the porch again like the house itself is within the sideline setback uh but further from the lot line as the as is the existing house. As such there is no increase in nonconformity and perhaps it's an important fact to to
raise the butter on the southerntherly side uh is completely in support of this proposal. We didn't ask to generate a letter because we thought it was a fairly simple proposal. But I can represent to you that the abutter on that side of the house where the porch
is encroaching is in support as the suitability of sight. There are no environmental issues here. Scale sighting mass fuse and vistas. The existing structure is a simple cape although it's been modified over the years. The sighting will of course remain unchanged. It will be a far from
massive house. The front porch will have a minimal but I think positive impact on streetscape. There are no views or vistas involved as the compatibility view. It's p purely residential adequacy of water and sewer. We have town water
right now. We have a title five for four bedrooms. Pawn View Avenue was scheduled by the town of Chadam to be sewered, let's see, to be completed between September of 2015 and May of 2017.
Yes, that's 10 years ago and it hasn't happened yet, but it is uh it is happening very soon. Uh sewers will be on Pawn View Avenue before another 10 years go by. Uh and I didn't make those dates up, by the way. Those are the
official dates from 2012. Uh no impact on traffic flow and safety noise letter or utilities. So the question as you know is whether the proposed addition of a of 71 square ft of living area for an entryway and constructing of a front
porch is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. I think you can find that it is not. The project provides additional small but important space for the DeFusco family uh with most of the additional and conforming coverage stemming from the front porch.
It's a simple and appropriate design as shown there. Uh the affected a butter again to the south supports it. The north side, the opposite side is heavily vegetated. There is one letter uh raising some issues with to which I'd be happy to respond if you'd like me to,
but that's up to the board. I think in light of the criteria and the plans, you can find the proposed change changes are not substantially detrimental to the neighborhood. Be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Is there anyone here today on Microsoft Teams that
wishes to speak in favor of this proposal? Seeing none, one's hesitating. Yes. Okay. >> To come up here. Are you the patient neighbor? >> I am. >> Okay.
>> Just state your name, please. >> Uh Melinda Richards. I'm a resident of 79 Palm View A. My family's owned that house since 1971. And I really appreciate the design that they came up with because it doesn't alter the character of our street as
much as some of the other buildings have been doing. So, I'm fully in support. I saw the plans. I think they're beautiful. >> Thank you. Uh, is there anyone else who wishes to join the conversation? Seeing no one, I'll read the
correspondence. First is from Judith Giorgio, Town of Cadam, Board of Health. She arrives on May 20th. I have no concerns about the renovations in addition to this existing five-bedroom dwelling.
Then we have a letter on May 8th. James Austinine, A G O S T I N E, writes, "My name is James. I own the property at 70 Pawn View. I am writing to you regarding
this. I am not in the butter to the property in question. I have served for 10 years on the planning commission in my hometown of Connecticut. And although I'm not directly affected by this appeal, I feel there are rules in place for reason. The fact that this property application would be nonconforming in
three instances concerns me. When I view the property online and in person, it appears the addition to the home on the north side is the one 10 11.4 ft from the northerly neighbor. If the owner is going through the expense of the proposed additions, why not remove the
addition and conform in this regard? It seems to me the design can be made that would not violate any rules even if it may not be optimal. A hardship case with one violation would be one thing, but it seems to be excessive in my opinion. I
believe that approving this application would make for a very slippery slope. Well, this just my comment. Uh this seems to be a confusing letter. If I, you know, we're talking about variances, hardships, and all that. Uh, Mr.
Lichfield, would you like to respond to this? I >> I think, Mr. Chairman, given the length of this afternoon's hearing, uh, I'll I'll simply respect the chair's comments, unless you'd like me to respond. >> No, no, thank you. No, that's it. Fine. Okay, that's the end of the correspondence. U, is there anyone here
today or on Microsoft Teams? Uh, sorry, ma'am. That would like to speak against this application or has a specific question? And I don't see anybody. So, does anybody have any questions at all? Any
questions from anybody? No. Okay. Paul, >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> David seconds and vote yes. >> All vote yes. >> Jenny votes yes. I vote yes. >> I vote yes. Ed deliberations. Um certainly not detrimental to the
neighborhood. I I think it's a very nice project and um if I was voting it would be easy for me to vote yes. >> Oh, I agree with Ed. Jenny. >> Yeah, I I think Mr. Lichfield laid it out very well in his um proposed and his
narrative. Um I think it's modest but a really meaningful proposal and I would support it. >> Steve, >> yeah, I I would support this. It looks like the what's causing the uh the setback issue is a chimney that was probably there since
um the house was built. So I I I don't think that that really comes into play and the majority of the work is being done on the opposite side of the house where there isn't an issue. So I think this is a nice project. The neighbors seem to think so as well. Um I have no issues. >> Lee,
>> yeah, I think it meets our criteria. I think it's a great reorganization of space and a front porch is always a good addition. >> Dave, >> yes, I agree. And and I just um when I read the letter in in opposition, I it seemed there was some confusion on the
part of the letter writer. Uh so um no, I'm very much in favor of this. It's meets all of our criteria. >> Paul, how about conditions? Uh I guess uh would you expect the standard conditions given? >> That would be acceptable.
>> All right. I'll move to approve the application as submitted with the conditions that all construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner. That between June 30th and Labor Day, no exterior construction shall be
allowed. No work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. only. And Dave V seconds and and votes yes. >> All votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. I vote yes. >> I vote yes. That's unanimous. Thank you, Mr. >> Thank you very much.
>> Okay. On to Oh, we're back to 26-029. >> Application number 26-029. Leonard A. Formato Jr. and Susan I formato car care of James M. Norcross
Esquire PO Box 707 Chadam Mass 02633 owners are property located at 191 Shore Road also shown in the town of Chadam's assessor's map 16E block 17 lot 4. The applicant proposes to install an exterior mechanical system appliance generator 18.1 ft from the sellerly
butter and 20.8 ft from the Westerly butter where a 25 ft setback is required. The property contains 7,472 square feet in the R40 zoning district. A special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 9 and section 8D2B of the protective bylaw.
>> Good afternoon Jamie Norcross on behalf of Leonard and Susan Formato. Um this application is for the installation of a new generator uh similar to your first application uh this afternoon. It's using the new or somewhat new the 2025 zoning bylaw amendment that allows a
generator within the uh a butter setback uh through special permit from the zoning board of appeals. Um so the location is on the site plan that you see on the screen highlighted in yellow. Um and so it's going to be located behind the existing house as seen from
Shore Road and behind the existing uh bunk house as seen from Bay Lane. Um and we are uh 8.1 feet from the abuter to the south and 20 almost 21 feet from the utter to the west. So moving along to
the uh relevant criteria. Uh number one, adequacy of this site in terms of size. Um the lot is small. I' I'd suggest that the bylaw change was really tailor made for a property like this where it's difficult for a generator to meet the butter setback. Um and the location of
the generator is such that it'll be blocked from view by both the street and the abuing properties due to the existing structure and um on the site you saw there's a pretty significant vegetative buffer along the west side uh of the lot. Um suitability of the
proposed uh excuse me just to back up on that real quick. Um on the third page of the handout I just uh submitted I attached the um assessor's uh GIS mapping. And so you'll see we are uh 191
which is outlined in yellow. And so the uh 8 foot setback that is to 179. And so on that plan you can really see the distance between where the generator would be and the house on that location. And uh as it relates to 70 uh where we're going to be 20 ft from this uh
almost 21 ft from the lot line, that is a um detached garage in that property. So it's not a house for um 70 bay lane. Um circling back to the criteria, uh number four, impact of neighborhood visual character. I would say there's no negative impact on neighborhood visual
character as the generator will be largely unseen from the street and neighboring properties. Uh adequacy of utilities. Uh the generator will be able to connect to existing gas and electric services at the property. Uh noise and litter, no issues with litter of course
and I think uh the noise is mitigated by the fact that this property the grade for one is below the neighboring properties. And as I mentioned, the generator is going to be a significant distance away from any uh neighboring homes. And as uh mentioned in your first application, the generator is only used
during power outages uh exclusive of testing. And so certainly very limited in duration. And uh number eight, compatibility of the proposed use with surrounding land uses. This is an accessory use to a residential home and I would say compatible with the surround surrounding land uses which are also uh
residential in nature. So based on the criteria of section 8, um again I believe that we uh qualify for issuance of a special permit. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh anyone here today or on Microsoft Teams wishes to speak in favor?
Uh, I'll read the correspondence. Is there anyone here today that would like to speak against it or has a specific question? Are there any questions from anybody on the board? >> I'd like to hear the correspondence
again. >> I wish I could do that all the time. >> Throw away the key. Paul, >> I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations. >> David seconds and votes yes. >> Paul votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. I vote yes. >> I vote yes. >> Deliberations.
>> Anybody want to deliberate Lee? Sure. >> I think this makes sense. Um I think uh you know it's a small piece of property. They've being able to tuck it in there um in a perfect spot. I don't see that it's detrimental in any
way. meets all of our criteria and uh and is not substantially more detrimental. >> I agree. I agree with our colleagues. >> Well, I just I agree too. Um I think Jamie said it very well. This is tailor
made. The bylaw is tailor made for this proposal. It's it's a very small lot, but also the just the importance of a generator. You know, we um had the opportunity to speak with the homeowner and understand that. But just broadly across Chadam, we all went through the winter that we did. We know how
important they are. So, I'm really happy. And I like Jamie how you pointed out we we um the homeowner pointed out to us when we were doing the site visit that the property on 70, you know, was was a shed. He made sure he pointed that out. But I'm glad you pointed out
because when you look at it, you know, if anyone's watching and they see a structure there, they might say, "Well, that doesn't seem fair." But it makes complete sense. And um I would support it. >> Um I I would suggest that perhaps the only condition we need on this one would
be that all construction activity and vehicles be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner. So I'll move to approve on the basis of that condition. >> Yeah. Dave seconds and votes yes. And >> Paul votes yes. >> Jamie votes yes. I vote yes. >> I vote yes. That's a unanimous decision.
Thank you, Jamie. 26-020 please. >> Application number 26-020 Akawi Family Trust LLC care of Stonefield Engineering and Design 2011 Washington Street Sweet 2011 Salem Mass
01970. Owner of property located at 655 Main Street. also shown in the town of Chun's assessor's map 14E block 2 lot 43. The applicant proposes to establish and operate a formula business chase bank under section 3C4C of the protective
bylaw. The applicant is and proposes to do business as a bank which utilizes a standard array of services trademark service mark and logo utilized by 10 or more other businesses worldwide. The structure is located in the GB1 zoning district. A special permit is required
under mastering law chapter 48 section 9 and sections 3C 4 C and 8D2B of the protective bylaw. This was continued from April 23rd 2026. >> Good afternoon to the board. Um I'm Arturo Borrostro with Stonefield Engineering located at 120 Washington
Street in Salem, Massachusetts. Also with me is um Kevin Kelly and just Kevin Kelly with Core States Group, the architectural group for the project as well. And we are here on behalf of JP Morgan Chase Bank to propose the
adaptive reuse of the property at 655 Main Street. Um just as a brief uh summary of the entitlement process and where we stand. This has gone before the planning board um and HBDC
and been approved for the uh signage site improvements and building improvements. Um just going through the sorry the existing conditions of the site. Um, in our analysis of the site,
uh, we found that the site had, um, non-compliant ADA, uh, aspects such as the parking area, the path to the front entrance, which includes, um, the ramp. Um, in terms of the vegetation, a lot of
it uh, in our analysis, we saw that was either overgrown or um, in poor condition. as well as just in the general parking area, cracking um and wooden curbing along the parking spaces.
So, in our um site plan page C4, um you can see that a lot of our proposed improvements are centered around bringing the site up to ADA compliance, um which includes a a new
proposed ADA parking area, uh path of travel and ramp, which will all be um ADA compliant. I would like to note that the existing building which is now vacant also historically operated um as a bank.
Um we are looking also to maintain the access points um of the existing site from Stage Harbor Road and Main Street. Um as well as propose a new trash enclosure which you can see in the rear
of the site. Um, and we think this is a great opportunity to patch up some of that um some of that cracking that we saw in the parking area. Um, and propose um improve landscaping within the
entirety of the site. Um, kind of revamp and activate a site like this in such a high visibility area. Um some other improvements that I would like to touch on um are the lighting
improvements which we I believe it's page C7 um yes uh which we are proposing in accordance with the um regulations of both the general business district and historical
uh district. um while also maintaining the security standards for patrons and uh customers. Um with that being said, um we we're very excited at the opportunity to uh
revitalize this site and want to thank the the city or the town and all the boards for their continued uh assistance throughout the process. I'd love to open it up to any questions now. Thank you.
No one's left here. Uh, anybody on micros wish to speak in favor of this? >> I guess not. All right. We do have some correspondence. This is from the HBDC.
A note from Chantel Kil Kilkenny. She says on May 8th, the HBDC met and rendered the following decision. The commission voted five zip zip approving the site improvements and alterations to the structure and property at 655 Maine.
And then we have a note from Christine O'Granny Greedy who is the town planner. And um I'm not going to read the whole thing because it's not necessary. But at the end she writes, "The planning board voted to unanimously approve the site plan approval amended. Change of use
application for the above property planning board also recommends that the ZBA approve the formula business use." I don't think I need to read any more of that. Um, >> statement. >> Yeah. >> And she did include the statement of conditions that was emailed to the
>> which to the usual. Yeah. Okay. All right. Okay. So, um I don't I will I'll ask is there anybody at Microsoft Teams who wants to speak against this has a question? No. Okay. Does anybody on the board have any
questions? >> I have one. >> You do. Well, go ahead. Good. >> Very small question. Um lighting. I just wanted to confirm that there um signage rather. There's no signage on the
southern side. There's a light, but there's no sign over the door or anything. It's not Is that >> That's correct. >> Okay. And then um the only sign Chase sign on the east side is the one above the door. That's it.
>> I'm sorry. On the eastern side. >> On the eastern side. >> Yes. Um that is the the ATM side. >> Yes, the ATM. >> That's correct. >> Okay, that's all I have. Anything else? Okay, Paul, >> I'll move to close the hearing and move
into deliberations. >> Dave checkkins and votes yes. >> All votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. I vote yes. >> I vote yes. Deliberations. >> Okay. Um well, I think it's a very important location as you know, right there at the corner and and the entry to
downtown. And um I think it's an improvement to what's there now. So I I like it. >> Steve. Yeah, I'm glad to see that um the building is being re rehabilitated somewhat and um and um repurposed and re
reused. You know, it's been empty for quite a while and uh been a little bit overgrown, but so I'm glad to see somebody's finally taking the initiative to clean that up and um I think it's a good project. >> Lee,
>> I agree with my colleagues. Dave. >> Yeah, it it meets um all of our um standards and criteria. I mean, it's certainly it's a formula business, but there's no um not presenting any negative um aspect to this at all of
that part of it. Thanks. >> Um I agree. I I think um if memory serves me right, we were just the reason we didn't approve at the last meeting, we were just waiting for HBDC to um >> Yeah. and the planning board had not received the site.
>> Yeah. So, and I I don't think anything is changed and uh would still support it and I think it's going to be a a nice improvement to that area. >> Paul, going to be a lot of people using that uh who have been using that for free p parking that are no longer
>> they're going to be really unhappy. >> Uh but clearly it meets all our criteria and it's good to see something happening there. >> So, I'll support it. >> Yeah. I mean, there's no golden arches or any of that kind of stuff, which is what would be important. And let's face it, a bank is a bank. You had a bank,
you got a bank. And I know I shouldn't say that. They're all different, right? But anyway, okay, Paul, I'll move to approve the application as submitted. I guess the question would be, uh, do I need our standard conditions here? >> I don't think so. Um,
yeah, I think the only the only uh people that would be disrupted are the people that are using it for free parking right now. So, uh, I'll just move to approve it as submitted. >> Uh, Dave V seconds and votes yes. >> Let me let me revise that boy want by
saying all construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner. That add condition. >> Yeah. And I I will second it with that uh attachment. Yes. And I'll vote yes. I'll vote yes. >> Jenny votes yes. I vote yes.
>> I vote yes. That's a unanimous decision. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Okay. We have one more piece of business for today. Let me sign my name. As we all know, uh one of our members is
has taken a demotion, I guess I'd have to say it. Uh, and certainly it's from my standpoint. Anyway, uh, Randy is no longer with us because she was elected to the select board. So,
congratulations to her. She spent five years, I believe, with us. Six, maybe five or six, one of those two. I don't know. Seems like longer. But anyway, she was a great member and we thank her for her service and wish her only the best in the future.
Which brings us to the letter that Sarah and I both received on Friday, May 15th. Ink was still dry on the ballots. With the election of Randy to the select board, there was now a vacancy on the
ZBA. As you know, there are currently three associate members and its next meeting, maybe I should have said and at its next meeting, the ZBA may wish to consider recommending one of the members to be elevated from
associate to full member. Ry's term was through 2028. That would be the end of June of 2028. So, the person being moved up would be filling that term through June 30th, 2028.
The ZBA would need to list this as an agenda item, which we did. We need to take a vote on which member they would recommend being elevated to full member status and send a transmitt of that vote that would list the date of the vote, the motion, the vote count to me so I
can schedule it for consideration by the select board. And that was from Kathy Lewis. Kathy is the executive assistant for the town manager and the select board. So I am very pleased that we have three great associates and we do but there is
one who's outstanding and has a trump card on the other two because of the years that she has spent here. She's been with us for more than three years as an associate. She has suffered through scores of
applications and meetings and uh a lot of times she drives around with Jenny and I and and I think that's enjoyable for her. We try and make it anyway and not painful. But she's come to understand that being on this board isn't an easy thing. You have to know
what substantially detrimental what the heck does that mean? Well, there's no definition that you're going to be handed. Uh, and what's the neighborhood anyway? What's this neighborhood business? Well, we have some cases to tell you what it isn't, but it really
doesn't help you what it is. And it takes time. Takes time to understand what you're doing. It takes time to understand. We impact the lives of the applicants who come here both personally as far as their lifestyle, financially.
Uh certainly we impact neighborhoods and uh I was kidding about Randy taking a demotion. Well, she can worry now about things like parking meters, uh dogs on the leash or not on the leash and I don't know that kind of stuff one
day, booze permits, things like that. Well, good luck. Anyway, so it it's my privilege to recommend that we vote that Lee Huby become our new member.
>> And plus the things I just said about Lee, she also comes with a something that not everybody has and you don't learn it. If I had to describe her in one term, Lee actually exhibits and
has common sense, and that isn't always true. >> Yes, I would I would echo that, and I will second um happily second that nomination. Uh and
and also um say that uh it's in it's in keeping with what has been a long-standing tradition of elevating the most senior uh associate member that the the board of sum has strayed from that
somewhat from time to time over the past five or six years. But I I I in this case it's certainly uh happy to support this. So I I second that nomination and uh an enthusiastic yes vote.
>> Yeah. And so voting is by members only. So that would be a yes from Dave Paul. >> And I am happy to support Lee as well. She's doing a great job and hopefully we'll continue on for many more years. Jenny, >> I couldn't have said it any better, but
I will just say I'm so happy that you're that you're having this opportunity and I fully support it. >> And obviously I vote yes. And so we can't vote for the select board, but they need
to confirm this. When they're going to do this, I don't know. But as you heard from what I just read, they're they're in a rush for us to do this to write this letter to Sarah and I. Friday. I
tells me they want an answer. So, they're going to get an answer >> tomorrow. >> Tomorrow. So, >> well, thank you very much. >> I am scheduled to go before the select board on the 9th. >> Well, hopefully that won't be necessary.
>> Oh, all right. >> But if it is, okay, then you have something. That's right. >> I think that's for a little different situation. So anyway, >> well, thank you all. >> No. Okay, >> I'll move to adjourn. >> And uh Dave seconds and votes yes.
>> Ed votes yes. >> All votes yes. >> Jenny votes yes. >> Steve votes yes. >> I vote yes. >> And I'm going to vote yes, too. What time is it anyway? >> 5:17 p.m. >> Okay, very good. Thank you all and see you.