0:28The application, identified as number 24129, sought relief from zoning bylaws to permit the construction of additional rooms and an elevator shaft, which would surpass the maximum height restrictions. Legal representatives for Noble House Hotels argued that the project was eligible for a special permit under Section 5B of the local bylaw, presenting precedents from the Rockwood and Harrison cases to bolster their position. They contended that strict adherence to building codes would impose financial hardship and that the modifications would enhance accessibility and community benefits.

26:10However, the Chatham Old Village Association (OVA) opposed the proposal, labeling the claimed hardship as self-imposed, given the applicant’s substantial investment without adequate due diligence. The OVA and various board members emphasized the importance of maintaining the architectural integrity of the historic neighborhood. The board deliberated on whether the proposed changes would introduce substantial detriment or intensify the existing non-conformity, ultimately siding with the Town Attorney’s interpretation that a variance was necessary.

0:28Board discussions also highlighted the need for ADA compliance in the proposed project, with specific focus on the elevator’s functionality for all three floors while respecting height restrictions. Despite the applicant’s argument that the elevator shaft’s height would be permissible under special permit guidelines, concerns about the visual impact and neighborhood aesthetics persisted.

1:08:43In the deliberation phase, board members expressed unease about granting the variance, citing the property’s non-conforming status and the potential exacerbation by adding more rooms. The existing shortfall of 55% in required square footage was a factor, with one member emphasizing the substantial legal implications of overturning the Building Commissioner’s decision without a variance. The board voted unanimously to deny the appeal.

1:56:54In another key agenda item, the board reviewed an application for properties at 322 and Bridge Street, which involved the demolition of existing non-conforming structures to make way for new ones. The proposal aimed to enhance the streetscape by altering the design and placement of a guest house and main residence. While the applicants argued for the project’s compatibility with surrounding properties, concerns were raised about overdevelopment, traffic congestion, and the preservation of neighborhood character. Significant opposition from residents highlighted fears of increased non-conformity, safety hazards related to parking, and the potential for disrupting the district’s aesthetic harmony.

2:52:35Despite some support for the project’s potential to improve neighborhood appeal, the board noted the complexities of balancing development with historical preservation and community concerns.