A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to the proposal by Katherine Ricks, representing the Town of Chatham, to relocate a non-conforming antenna tower situated too close to a coastal bank. The plan involved moving the structure 40 feet landward to improve compliance with environmental regulations and mitigate erosion risks. Despite the relocation, the tower would remain non-conforming, being 45.6 feet away from the Coastal Conservancy District instead of the required 50 feet setback. Ricks emphasized the historical value of the maronei tower, asserting the move would not alter its structural integrity or increase non-conformity. She addressed environmental concerns, stating the relocation would benefit wetlands and vegetation by reducing potential harm.

The board considered correspondence from the Chatham Historical Commission, which acknowledged the tower’s significance but supported the move, as it would not substantially alter its historical status. The conservation commission also stressed adherence to wetland protection standards. During questioning, board members raised concerns about the decision to maintain the tower’s non-conforming status, with one suggesting the structure should meet setback requirements if relocated. Ricks clarified the design aimed to minimize tree removal, a factor in the decision-making process.

The board demonstrated divided opinions regarding the tower’s necessity, with some members skeptical about the need for a third tower, while others supported the move for historical preservation and environmental safety. A motion to close the hearing and commence deliberations was unanimously approved.

In another major agenda item, the board reviewed an application by the Markd D Pearlman Revocable Trust for the demolition and reconstruction of a dwelling on Bay View Street. The existing non-conforming lot required a special permit under Massachusetts General Law. The redesign involved reducing the house’s size to better fit the neighborhood’s character, with the new proposal featuring a living area of just over 2,000 square feet and a significant reduction in building coverage.

William G. Lichfield, representing the applicants, expressed gratitude for the board’s patience, noting the redesign process involved collaborating with architect Karen Kemp. Kemp explained that foundation issues led to the decision to construct a new house rather than adding a second floor to the existing structure. The new design aimed for harmony with the streetscape, including a two-car garage and modest second-floor bedrooms. Letters of support from neighbors were read aloud, highlighting community approval of the revised plans.

Board members discussed the site’s adequacy and compliance with zoning requirements, with Lichfield affirming the proposal met all bulk and dimensional standards. He cited neighborhood support as an indicator of the proposal’s suitability, emphasizing that the existing house lacked architectural significance. Deliberations focused on balancing neighborhood character with zoning compliance, ultimately leading to unanimous board approval of the application with conditions regarding construction activity containment.

The meeting then addressed a proposal for property on Vineyard Avenue, where significant expansion of an existing home was planned. The project faced substantial opposition from neighbors, who raised concerns about the size, massing, and non-conformity of the proposed structure. James and Janet Heatley, among others, argued that the proposed building covered 91% of the buildable upland area and did not meet setback requirements, potentially setting a concerning precedent.

The board’s discussions revealed a division of opinion, with some members supporting the project due to design improvements, while others remained opposed based on site adequacy and neighborhood impact criteria. Ultimately, the applicant requested to withdraw the proposal without prejudice, a request the board unanimously approved.

Lastly, the board considered the Chattam Bar Inn’s application to replace a non-conforming structure on Shore Road. The proposal involved constructing a new building that would eliminate the existing encroachment issue by maintaining the same footprint but adding a second story. The board received feedback from neighbors and queried the necessity of certain design elements, such as a widow’s walk. The board emphasized the proposal’s compliance with zoning requirements, moving towards approval with conditions on construction timing.