e e e e e w [Music] [Music] [Music] welcome everybody it's June 27th 2024 and this is the town of chadam zoning board of appeals meeting pursuant to Governor Healey's March 2023 signing of the acts of 2023 extending certain covid U measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law until March 31 2025 this meeting of the chadam zoning board of appeals is being conducted in person and via remote participation every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings provided for in the order a reminder that person who'd like to listen to this meeting while in progress may do so by calling 1508 945 4410 conference ID 472 188 387 pound or join the meeting via online Microsoft teams through the link in the posted agenda while this is a live broadcast and simal cast on chadam TV despite our best efforts we may not be able to provide for Real Time access we will post a record to this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible in accordance with the town policy the public can speak to any issue hearing or business item on the agenda during the meeting when recognized by the chair we start the meeting by authorizing this form of meeting with the roll call vote and we're going to start and go clockwise with Virginia Fenwick I approve Steve dor approves Lee Hy I I approve all C simple I approve Randy podes I approve I approve uh Ed Acton I approve uh and David H I approve okay so the way the meetings are are conducted is as follows we just took a roll call vote of all members we ask if any citizen or non-board members participating in the call via the phone only provide their name and the last four digits of their phone number for identification purposes um the notice is read by our staff sah clar on my right you and your all your representative can present your application anyone in favor of the appeal or application will be allowed to speak for up to five minutes getting an echo but I think I'll wait a second I've been known to like the sound of my own voice so I don't want to okay um anyone in favor of the appeal or application may speak for five minutes um at most unless um the discretion is is used to allow for more time uh I'll read or summarize all letters received by the board anyone against the appeal or application may speak for a qu for um up to five minutes applications uh applicants will then be able to rebut any testimony board members may direct questions to anyone present will he further information close the public hearing deliberate and usually vote on the application all votes taken by roll call and at the end of the meeting we'll close with a verbal confirmation and note the time time of adjournment first order of business is going to be approval of minutes we're going to take them one at a time and stop for any amendments uh Paul I will move to approve the uh minutes of May 23 2024 as published uh D Feed seconds and other there any amendments no not on this one okay uh and I I vote Yes and Ed were you voting last time that time um I was I vote Yes and Dave yes and Paul Paul votes yes Jenny Jenny votes yes and I vote Yes as well uh next uh Paul May 30th yes I'll move to approve the minutes of May 30224 as published uh and Dave V seconds and does anyone have any amendments David V has an amendment pleas go ahead uh like to amend um these minutes to reflect uh on application number uh 24- 051 um that U Dave Nixon recused himself in a butter and um Ed act and voted in his place okay and anybody else have any amendments Virginia Fenwood please go ahead yeah I do have um a comment on the property 486 which was application um sorry give me a minute here application 24053 um it says here that the voting was um that I voted in favor and that the board voted 500 and I actually opposed so it should be 41 okay thank you for that anybody else have any amendments on May 30th seeing none we'll take a vote a uh V votes yes and and acting votes yes and Dave you voted I vote Yes I'll vote yes as to the amended minutes right and J Jenny votes yes all right so there's that um first application Sarah when you're ready 24-70 town of chadam application number 24-70 town of chadam 549 Main Street chattam Mass 0 2633 owner of property located at 85 mil Pond Road also shown on the town of chadam assessors map 15c block 0 lot 85 the applicant seeks to extend variance number 23- 047 for 6 months the current expiration date is August 24th 2024 and the proposed expiration date is February 20th 2025 this variance allowed the applicant to demolish the existing Wastewater Pump Station and construct a new Wastewater Pump Station the proposed Wastewater Pump Station will be 2033 ft tall where 20 ft is the maximum allowed and will be located 7.4 ft from the road where a 40ft setback is required the property is located within the our 40 zoning District a dimensional variance is required under master Law chapter 4A section 6 or sections 10 and 14 and Section 8 d2c of the protective bylaw welcome sir uh thank you madam chair Rob phy director of Public Works ten of chadam so this is just a simple extension of time we haven't Broken Ground yet we had some details to work through with the utilities so there's existing water gas and Sewer on milpond road it's a very narrow road we're adding a sewer pump uh Force main and we're undergrounding all overhead utilities on a certain portion of that so it took a little while to get through a lot of those details the Project's been awarded to a contractor Robert bow will be reconstructing the pump station so we've made a lot of progress but we just haven't Broken Ground yet so with the summer moratorium we need the uh time frame to extend beyond summer in order to uh for the variant in order to break ground okay thank you um is there anybody here or on microsof of teams that wishes speak in favor of this application if so please make it known seeing none um we have no correspondence we have no correspondence I knew there was something missing yep and is there anybody here or on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak against this application or has any questions seeing none questions from the board we just going counterclockwise quick question for you I believe the answer to this is yes but this is your first request for an extension yes it is okay thank you st I have no questions Lee no questions no questions Dave Ed no questions no questions Dave no and I have no questions either okay well I will move to close the hearing and move into deliberations Dave V seconds and and votes yes and uh Dave yes J yes and Paul all yes as do I it's unanimous well no no we just closed it deliberations dve we could have rolled together yeah deliberations Dave well I I supported the um variance uh and found that it met the criteria and and I don't see uh any reason to uh uh not to support this extension I think great Dave Nixon deliberations yeah when um um when you were talking about that moratorium you know sometimes I wor worry about that with Town Projects such as stage Harbor The Pump Station by the market CVS uh the time frame on those is has run into the summer folks so um I would hope that this didn't start until say mid September we are working on the start update and we're trying to find a a reasonable date for to allow folks to get their boats out of the water in mil pond so it would be sometime after Labor Day I don't have an exact time frame just yet thank you and Jenny I agree with my colleagues I would support the extension request and Steve yeah I have nothing to add that's fine yep I echo my colleagues Paul certainly a reasonable request and it seems like you tried to start and you got some unexpected delays so it's certainly reasonable and i would support it as well um so Paul motion I will move to approve the application as submitted Dave seconds and votes yes Dave Nixon yes J yes votes yes and it's unanimous yes great thank you very much okay whenever Sarah is ready we're going to go to 169 Vineyard a um number 24-0 [Music] six zero application number 24-6 the Douglas Ross kemly revocable trust care of Andrew El singer Esquire PO Box 67 dennisport Mass 02639 owner of property located at 169 Vineyard Avenue also shown in the town of chadam accessor map 10 d block 90 lot d124 the applicant seeks to enlarge extend or change a non-conforming dwelling and a non-conforming lot via the construction of additions and a deck the existing dwelling is non-conforming and it is located within the coastal Conservancy District the proposed addition and deck will be non-conforming in that they will be located within the coastal Conservancy District where a 50ft setback is required the existing building coverage is 1,647 ft 17.2% and the proposed building cover coverage is 2,236 Ft 20.9% where 15% is the maximum allowed the lot is non-conforming and that it contains 10,710 ft of buildable Upland where 20,000 ft is required in the R20 zoning District a special permit is required under M General Law chapter 4A section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw attorney single welcome um we know that you've been here before on this so if you'd like to outline the changes um ially absolutely um good afternoon for the record Andrew singer attorney in dennisport uh with me is um Mr kemly and Chris Cannon project architect Mr kemy would like to address the board briefly after I do and we're all here for questions this is a new application because when we were here before you uh many months ago we withdrew because there were some questions and concerns about um in part uh the massing of one of the faces of the building uh but more importantly even uh or by more members uh concerned about the floor layout and so uh we went back uh to the drawing board well let me rephrase that Chris went back to the drawing board and um redesigned the floor plan to um as well as the elevations and the access to very clearly demonstrate that this is a single family dwelling it's going to remain a single family dwelling in fact though the chemes travel a lot for work this is their registered year- round home this is their home um and uh they're just trying to as many do um you make it a little bit more uh have have a little bit more space inside um the request um is this is a it's a it's a two-story house but because of the way the topography changes the garage is actually at the lower level then you have a first floor then you have a half story a second store so the proposal is to um as you can see uh that is uh on top left the proposal is to uh in effect uh add a third garage Bay on the left and to a build out above it and with a half story above that it's only a 390t garage Bay Edition so the footprint change is not um overly significant um there will be some roof and some other obviously the inside changes um there is a deck on the back that's being proposed uh but that's conforming to setbacks we have a big lot here it's 48,000 Square F feet or so but we have undersized on uh Upland so the building coverage is non-conforming and you have a flood plane uh you know the coastal area so while the setbacks of everything that's being proposed are conforming to front side rear setbacks height everything's conforming on that score um we need the special permit because we are increasing coverage in a pre-existing nonconforming situation and uh because of the Wetland area the Conservation Commission has reviewed the proposal and you have a memo in in the file um regarding that approval um within the so we are asking for a special permit and looking at the zoning bylaw uh standards and these really many many of them are similar to before but I wanted to highlight as well the ones uh to the chair's point that that have been revised in response to that first application that we had um the the property has been developed as it is it's going to remain that with no changes um Chris has set forth I won't go over it unless you have any questions he's here but on his sheet reg-2 he has a very detailed write up of his um the methodology about how he came to what you see before you both for the elevations the layout access everything um the impact and I'm jumping through some I'm not going through every one of them I did address those all in my summary reasoning but to your point just getting to the to the main ones that are changed and the impact of scale sighting Mass on the neighborhood um we submit that the proposal is in keeping with the neighborhood um the dwelling has been designed to be blending in there is existing mature screening vegetation right along Vineyard Avenue that's being left alone it's not being touched so that's going to help um the the building's really behind it you know the view you see here is when you got the vegetation behind you if you're out in the street uh particularly now you know there is a fair amount of screening that's there by the mature vegetation the building height we calculated it both from the grade plane and the lowest average grade plane so under both analyses no matter how you measure it the the building height is conforming um it is is um Less in under grade plane it's significantly less than 30 ft and if you do from the LG it's um you know it's it's 29 ft so it's still conforming but the way the measurements are different again here as you can see the land goes up and down right around the house so um we do have the what's in effect a lower level garage uh which is on the right hand side of that top image but the house itself is not it's more of a one and a half story uh structure than um than something larger um the petitioner uh went back he did this the first time uh but he also went back and spoke with all his neighbors regarding these revised elevations that you have um one of his neighbors uh emailed them her support and the others except for one had no objections uh to the proposal I don't think they submitted any letters but they didn't have any concerns and there is one letter of opposition in your file but even that letter Mr Tobin states that he is okay with the change to the house he still has concerns with with with layout but but the we haven't there hasn't been any opposition that the cam leades have received regarding what they're proposing to do structurally to the property and then as we're presenting to you when you look at the floor plans and we happen to go through them as much detail as you want um they clearly show a one it's a single family dwelling it's it's an increase of space uh with a a gamer room an artist area bedroom um but it is not anything separate there they removed the on the first plan there had been a separate door so there would have been a separate access into the two wings of the house that's been removed so when you look at this oh if you go back right there um on the existing deck uh you can that's where the front door is that's the only door it's not changing so there'll be only one access into the structure um that's been changed the massing on the more of the uh southernly southeasterly side I think it is has been changeed where the Dormers were changed to soften it up with a different style instead of a Gable end it is now just just um um a partial shed Dormer end um as far as I think for changes that that those are really it I mean there the project the property's going on to sewer so uh there will be there is one more bedroom that's proposed here but that's going to be accounted for in the sewer so everything there is accounted for there's going to be no change in traffic no impact on safety or anything storm runoff is going to be contained on site all services service the property they're not changing so so um with that and again this is probably really what what uh this floor plan that's up now is the one you're looking at we respectfully submitted that clearly demonstrates uh that this is just an addition to a single family house as Chris noted one of the reasons why that L what's where the lounge artist workspace is separated from the dining room and he can get into this more is is the floor levels are different and so the roof lines are different so you can't just put it all the same because of how the topography changes and again if you have questions be happy to turn to Chris for that um and if it's okay um Madam chair Mr kemly would like to briefly address the board and then as I said we're happy to answer questions of course thank you thank you thank you madam chair and fellow board members for the record my name is Doug cly applicant 169 Vineyard avue in chadam and just a brief history this house has been in family since 1964 so we haven't really had the heart to tear it down so we've tried to add more space over the years and this is just a continuation of that process hoping to retire and be able to enjoy some comfortable comfortable accommodations the house for example has no air conditioning Etc so we're just looking to modernize without tearing the house down I did want to point out regarding neighborhood and character so from Vineyard Avenue from The Junction with Meadow View Road down to the end there are a total of 15 houses six of those houses have been removed not just a remodeled removed and replaced so the neighborhood of that character has changed significantly in my lifetime and another three homes have been significantly remodeled including my butter I mean the neighbor Mr Tobin who essentially did a very similar project added a garage put a living space over it and a bedroom on top so the two projects are identical in that sense uh I'm available to ask answer any other questions I know that in the hearing in February U Lee you'd had a question about redundancy and I think GIS did a good job of explaining that those redundancies have been removed there's only one laundry room there's only one front entrance Etc and Steve I know you had a question about the driveway reconfiguration that's not going to be reconfigured so it's going to stay as it is okay those are my comments thank you very much thank you very much council do you have anything else no thank you welcome any questions thank you okay so is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application please make it known seeing none um I will read the correspondence first we have a letter from Judith Georgio from 62524 I have reviewed the plan to expand the dwelling via the art studio and bedroom Edition this property was ordered to connect to town sewer by February 2025 this appears to be part of the proposed site plan they are allowed to add an additional bedroom as part of the sewer connection the existing dwelling has three bedrooms with sewer they will be allowed a fourth bedroom then we have a letter from the Conservation Commission and that was was from February 15th 2024 uh the proposed project was continued to February 28th 2024 um when it'll be issued in order a condition um and I believe it's continued again correct has it I thought it had been approved but oh you well you have to get an order of conditions after you're done with us correct um I don't see Sean if it I had thought it would had been issued if not obviously we have to get it because you can't go forward without it absolutely okay um Tim Tobin writes on June 23rd 2024 um he lives at 159 Vineyard Avenue he's writing to express his concern about the pro proposed zoning variance requested by um the chem revocable trust from 169 vignard AV while I would support all the variances to expand the home my concern is over the design which builds out a separate housing unit with a few minor modifications and it could be used as a rental unit I have been assured by Mr kemly that even as a part-time resident he no longer has plans to rent out either unit so I have no comments about his intentions as an AB butter to the property in question I'm deeply concerned about the potential negative impacts this type of design um long term could have on our neighborhood number of occupants street parking increased traffic congestion decreased property values changes to the neighborhood character are just a few of my concerns furthermore I believe that granting this variance would set a dangerous precedent for future development in our area it is crucial that zoning regulations are upheld to maintain the integrity and stability of our neighborhood I am not an architect are in the real estate business so I rely on the zba to represent what is allowed in this matter I respectfully urge the zba to consider these factors regarding this variance requested by the trust thank you for considering my objections I trust the zoning board will be will carefully weigh all factors before reaching a decision on this matter would you like a chance to rebut that are you comfortable with what you said yeah one he does use the word variance but obviously we know it's special permit in this case and respectfully just we believe that the plan that you see clearly removes that concern from before okay thank you thanks can Mr kemly respond sure in the meantime can we make sure no one has a cell phone on at all or a watch or anything that makes noise thank you thank you very much Madam chair I just wanted to clarify sort of once and for all some of the comments in Mr toan's letter so I have very good relations with Mr toin I've met repeatedly with him to discuss this project and as you can tell I'm a bit frustrated that he persists in some assumptions we're not part-time residents full-time residents registered voters this is my place of work I have no motivation to fix up my house and rent it out he used afraid continue renting we haven't rented this house in the summer since the early 90s well before they moved in and and two his point about neighborhood character again as I mentioned the character is already changed they remodeled their house significantly which changed the character and if you look at the project it'll be a three car garage house with ample parking in the driveway why would there be overflow street parking if anybody came to stay with us so some of his his objections I think are are sort of tenuous at best and and highly what I find highly speculative um thank you very much okay thank you thank you so would that be it Mr s yes thank you okay is there anybody here or on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak against this application or has a specific question seeing none questions from the board dve uh I have no questions Randy thanks questions uh no questions questions Judy I have a question Mr kemly if you would yeah we sent them back too quickly it actually was something that Mr Tobin wrote about last time and and you come back up and addressed it thank you and he's written it again but there my recollection of the last hearing was that he specifically mentioned he had had a conversation with you by the way I appreciate you being here today you can answer this directly um that he had a conversation with you where you told him or he was led to believe that you were going to rent it I think that's the kernel of my confusion I asked that question at the last hearing and so since you're here can maybe you could explain why he thinks that why does he think you said that it was a sort of a casual comment sort of a casual question and I answered by saying sure who know is what the the future will bring MH and I think a lot of this stems from an unfortunate incident where we had a friend of a friend asked us once well can I rent your house well we didn't know at the time she was suffering from bipolar disorder so she moved in quickly exercised her rights to camp out on our house and we we had to coer her over the next couple months to to get her out of the house so the neighbors still have kind of a a bad feeling about that situation it was not intended to be a Summer Rental a long-term rental we were trying to help a friend out okay short term who had deceived us and so I'm having trouble finding a place to live and it turned out that she was having trouble finding a place to live because of her bipolar and disorder unfortunately so okay I think they were a bit skittish about any renters and the fut well that background is helpful thank you I just I I remember that coming up last time and that was a concern because it was on the record and you weren't here to explain it was on the record that you had said that and so that's why he was saying that so thank you for clarify I just like to re reiterate excuse me is my place of employment I work from home and it's going to be our full-time resident so NE in my opinion both of those preclude any intention of of renting okay thank you thanks Virginia any more questions Jenny no Steve question um a couple of questions actually just to verify a couple of things so there are there is no access to the area above the garage other than from within inside the garage or the the rear deck there's no other exterior doors anywhere that that section of the house could be isolated from the the main part of that that's my understanding Chris Canon architect um there is no access into the garage and um the access from the uh the deck on the there's another floor this is the second floor uh the axis from the deck is new it is the only three foot wide access into this house um I spoke with Jay at one point about this there is no legal 36 in door so I opted to do that in this location so so now it makes the entire house compliant with our codes okay I just wanted to verify that I didn't see any on the plan but I wanted to he someone's tell me um the other question this might be for Jay actually is I noticed there's a kill here is there any special requirements or precautions that you need to take uh in order to have a kiln in a residential dwelling I didn't see the Kil but um we would defer to manufacture specifications on protection from combustibles around the Kiln okay okay and then the third thing and this is kind of nitpicking a little bit maybe but there's a what appears to be a washer and dryer in the pantry of the existing house and there's a washer and dryer in the new part yeah it's currently laundry it's currently in that laundry it's going to turn it into a pantry okay so that'll be removed and relocated into the O I just I I didn't know if it was a mistake on the plan plan or that's fair question they just have a lot of laundry you'd be surprised a lot of people do it now that's it thank you thank you um we no questions all questions um I was not at the uh first hearing uh but I did uh watch the hearing on the uh recording at uh uh the chadam channel uh as I recall one of the objections was uh with respect to the mass of the uh addition um it looks to me as I look at U reg2 that you've sort of taken the that and turned it into an asset in effect by saying that the uh idea is to refocus the composition of the house such that the addition is the dominant the mass where the original home becomes a secondary form off the new Wing uh um would you say that that's where you're at that the dominant Force now is the is the new addition as opposed to the original House correct it's to refocus the thinking of the house uh where you know the old portion becomes more of a secondary portion uh even though there a front door on there it's a it's a front door that doesn't get used and so everybody enters this house from the back of the house um it becomes fairly obvious when you arrive at the house where you have to go so you know it's not a traditional uh approach in most houses we we think of the front door as being this inviting place but I can tell you as an architect uh the very first question I ever get when I arrive at a house is which door do I use and it's very often and probably more often than not not the front door it's the side door and so this is a a an informal house where that's the case so it happens to have the front door at the front but really everybody uses the front door at the back okay I have no other questions okay okay um I guess I just wonder why do you have to go over um where you're already over when it comes to billing coverage why can't you just keep it where it's at you know you're already over and you're asking us to go over the over is there is there a universe where you don't have to do that uh I was asked to to add in a certain section um we at the time did not have the uh absolute calculations of the build Upland um so you know we'd had some preliminary stuff um we used the bylaws the way we've used them typically on every other project and uh we're uh if we're over we you know we continued to be over we added a little bit um so there was not a point where IID considered not filling in that portion it was always part of the original plan un under the zoning b as well you're allowed to increase by special permit which is why we're here um but there's another requirement that you can't have more than 2,800 ft of housing here it's still going to be 2236 so even though the the building coverage is going up slightly because of the Upland not because of the overall lot on the overall lot you know it's 48,000 square foot lot but although the coverage is going up for zoning purposes the proposed the square footage of that coverage is substantially less than is otherwise Allowed by right under the bylaw because it's well under the 2800 y okay I just wanted to ask that um Paul did we have any other questions we we already did this side okay went through all right I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations Dave each seconds and votes yes yes J yes all yes do I okay deliberations um Ed um well I guess I appreciate your efforts to to um save the house um it might have been easier to build a a new house quite honestly where you look at the the the change in in uh elevation on the different floors I mean that you don't see that too often and um an effort was made to keep the house and unfortunately that that's the results so um I I think it's going to fit in with the neighborhood I appreciate that you you kept the structure um where you know it might have been easier to do something else so if I was Voting um I would approve Dave oh Dave Nixon thank you madam chair yeah I I have one major problem and Randy touched on it if we add the 600 odd square feet that you're going to add to what the existing is 39 to what 3 just 390 I I want to go too high well okay anyway um to the amount that already is over which has nothing to do with you folks that's the way it is that it adds up to me and particular with what the neighbor wrote about respecting the towns zoning the limitation and so forth that I don't see that it was necessary that the house be expanded beyond the 17 what was the number 17.2% uh I just feel from a neighborhood standpoint that's not what I would want to see I would want to see it kept at the 17 to I'm not asking it to go back to the 15 which is what it would be it was a brand new house um I just feel that it makes the massing of the structure too much and not necessary thank you Mr Nixon um let's see Lee thank you madam chair um yeah I I mean in general I I don't really have a problem with this with this um project um I do still struggle a little a little bit with the mass Criterion number five I think it's the it's the um the thought process and as as I mean I respect it but making the new Wing uh or making the main house secondary to the new Wing I just struggle with that a little bit but if that was your intent then that's your intent and that's what the homeowner wants um you know maybe just going over the main garage and not adding the third Bay would have helped um I'm not voting today but if I were I would approve it but I I still kind of struggle with it well thank you Paul your thoughts on deliberations well uh I think that the uh rendition that we have in the uh paperwork uh showing the uh Southwest view uh and the Northwest view uh do certainly emphasiz size the size of the addition uh in relationship to the original building and um I have somewhat the same hesitation that Lee has just talked about with respect to that um it is shielded by some of the growth uh along the road and um I know you've spent a great deal of time trying to accomplish what you can accomplish given the different levels that you're working with uh um but um it does look as if it from these renderings that it's going to be fairly U massive uh in comparison to what exists and in comparison to um a number of the other properties on the street um I do think your overall uh coverage under the 2800 is is H correct so um I'll listen to the rest of my colleagues uh suggestions but uh those were my initial reactions thank you Dave V go ahead well I think um I see it it's definitely I think Chris you've improved uh the situation from the last time the appearance of it I'm not I don't feel and I and I'm I'm in support of this I think um I don't share the same concerns I think that he has done I mean he's made it visually um the the addition does um visually dominate because the ridge is a little bit higher um but and I and I appreciate that they don't want to tear the house down and start over and try to straighten it all out they want to keep the old house I understand that I've done it myself to some degree not adding on but keeping an old house and I didn't have a lot of choice because it was historic district but uh we wanted it anyway we want to do it that way so I I am I think that it looks and I think that it does fit the neighborhood um and particularly um I looked at uh a few photos I took when I went out there in February and and uh and I'm really struck Honestly by I I kept a photo of the neighboring property and and this turned out to be the the gentleman that's written in opposition twice and I mean I took this photo from if I had enough thought I would have given it to Sarah to put up but I mean this is right next door and the garages on the underneath and the whole you know there's a lot of similarity and it was clearly it's a fairly new project I don't know what was there before um so I take uh I take to heart um Mr kem's comments also about what's taking place on metor road and things and I I don't really see this as being uh substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood I think I think uh Chris has done a good job working with the within the constraint of of of you know with the what what his client was looking for uh I don't think they're asking for that much more um you know they are less than 2,800 square fet that might be allowed um and I and I also um you know I still go back I have some problems with the ne that the neighbor still is is is finding objection to the interior layout of of what they're proposing and I to me that's just a bridge too far and that's not that's not where we are the town does it its job in controlling bed number of bedrooms use of rooms and things like that and and I don't I'm definitely not comfortable um interpreting the those objections of the neighbor and applying any of that kind of thinking I think we can you know looking talk about the massing of the building but and I don't feel that it it it dominates that badly so I will support it thanks thank you um Steve do you deliberate yet no please go ahead um well I I I want to say that I appreciate you taking the steps to sort of relieve some of the anxiety that um you know how this house is going to be used and the the the entrance entrance way and the appearance that it was going to be a two family house so I'm glad that you took steps to sort of um uh relieve some of that anxiety that some folks had I'm also glad that you you're trying to save at least part of the house that um it sounds like has been in the family for uh quite a while um I had some reservations or I have some reservations about the size of the addition um sort of making the original House sort of subordinate now um to the addition um and the fact that this hill this house is up on a hill a little bit maybe gives the appearance that it's even bigger than it really is um just because of the topography um but I also think that there's some other houses in the neighborhood that are quite similar to this and um um so although I have some reservations about the the size of the addition um I would probably support it thank you uh Jenny so Mr singer L you open by saying last time we were focused primarily on massing and floor layout and Chris you did a really nice job of the floor layout going through the entryway and the um mismatch floor levels and um and I agree with Dave e like the the interior layout should be what the applicant the client uh and the homeowner wants um so that so great job on that let's talk about the massing um oh and also I agree with with uh Ed uh my colleague Ed that you know I appreciate the approach to renovate um that the homeowner has expressed uh you know his desire it's in the family um and I can understand and also appreciate desire for more space so having said that but I do agree with Paul and Steve a little bit in the and Mr Nixon on the increase in the building coverage and the massing um I I do um um I'm concerned about Mr singer you mentioned a number 390 what was that number that is the the footprint Edition on the ground where the that third garage Bay is 390 Square F feet so the coverage increase though the numbers not the percentage was 589 so where where am I M where are we off like 200 square F feet um Jenny yeah the original plan I got was on 11 by 17 and with a magnify glass the 18800 like a six so it's 18847 not 1647 but the added already gone to the paper before okay I had gotten um okay the information but the 17.2 is the correct percentage okay well that's helpful because I was going to say it was a 35% increase in building coverage in the coastal Conservancy district and that was a real hardship for me to kind of get over that so that that is helpful um so I I so I was um I was thinking that the massing hadn't changed at all and I had concerns about it but I do u i I read the narrative and I understand what you're saying you're flipping the perspective it's that is now the you're you're that is the larger part of the house and it's going to make the original House more subordinate and um so I was struggling coming into today's hearing with criteria three which um was the extent of the proposed use of the increase in the non-conformity but you brought up a great Point Mr Stinger about it's really 2800 you're under that and then with the correction that Sarah just made um I'm I'm getting more comfortable with with it that would be my deliberation okay so I'm also struggling with number three because I I just feel that they've given us a bylaw that we've been sworn to uphold and we have limitations and when something's already over I just hesitate to um agree to allow more when it's already over um I understand a lot of times we have like 133% to 15 but that's still within the the law it's within the bylaw um and this is again already over and the perspective of the house also um has the massing where you can see it especially when you drive dve down the street from you know going towards Main Street um so I don't think that's insignificant and I said last time that I was concerned about the massing I I will point out that our our criteria don't include the interior layout of the house not whether people plan to rent or not that is no bearing on anything that I think um or even comments by the neighbors necessarily um because this is a snapshot in time and we don't know what's going to happen with real estate down the road um but so I I'm concerned about number four suitability of the site um about the natural environment because we are getting um we're impinging more on the conservation um area so that's another concern and the impact of scale sighting and Mass on neighborhood visual character including views Vistas and streetscapes that's I already addressed that um so I'm not sure how I would vote I'm not sure how Mr Nixon's going to vote so well how do you want to proceed well I'd like to if I could just in response to some of the comments um chapter 4A and the chadam zoning bylaw expressly allow changes extensions and alterations to pre-existing non-conforming structures if the board finds that they're not substantially more detrimental so an increase by law can be detrimental you could find that an increase of something is detrimental under the zoning B or the 40a but if it's not substantially more detrimental it's something that you are authorized to approve if you find that something is substantially more detrimental like there's something about it that is so much more than than either what's there or what could be there that's the legal standard you're looking at and so respectfully the zoning bylaw says you can increase uh your building coverage even if you're pre-existing non conforming but has to get review and approval from you guys and but you have to be under 20 00 squ ft we comply with that if for example and I'm not an architect so I'm just thinking things through my mind if if the front of the building was kept smaller and you made the back of the building taller I mean you could in theory build a bigger structure here with either the same or less relief but then you're not preserving as much and I'm not and again this is me just thinking as as as um Devil's argument not something that the client wants to do or will do but that's how we look at that's how you have to look in an application it's what's there is what's being proposed substantially more detrimental when you look at that neighborhood and and you've heard some of the comments here when you look at similar houses in the neighborhood when you look at the fact that it is not unheard of it's not unprecedented in chadam to have increases in non-conforming coverages and where we're so far below the 2800 square feet you know which is the other maximum Hardline number in the bylaw I respectfully submit that that this is isn't substantially my detrimental even though you have concerns and I appreciate them and those are concerns and maybe that makes it in your mind somewhat detrimental but I would suggest that that doesn't raise it to being substantially more detrimental that's the legal standard you're looking at so um as far as how to proceed um I would ask so I'm trying I was trying to keep track here and it's kind of tough sometimes um you know the five voting members um if if if you're willing to pull the board just as are you leaning towards yes some we know some I'm not quite sure yet and some of you said you weren't decided yet right that would help us decide what to do and I'm hopeful that given that the application the revised application is responsive to so much of what you asked for and that it does fit into the neighborhood that I'm hoping that you would vote to support it so I would ask for a poll if that's possible I just want to say that you were responsive because you changed the names of the rooms I don't see that you were really responsive when it comes to the massing or the coverage so I just feel compelled to say that okay and I know you made um a way to get from one of the buildings to the other and I understand that but I don't think that you really address the other two concerns that we still have so there's that so um all right so we'll do a straw vote um Madam chair could I just add one thing to give you a little perspective um if you look at uh uh the 11th sheet um it shows you the heights of the ceilings so when you're comparing this to the massing of other houses on the street I assure you not one of those houses has a 6'9 ceiling in their second floor or a 7 foot ceiling on their first floor I'm going to guarantee you that they have 8 foot on the first floor and probably 7' 6 to 7' 8 on the second floor so we're bound to this first house which is seriously under scaled inside and out and that I think maybe twists the sense of of how you perceive the house it's actually a much smaller house so in order to comply with typical or even somewhat less than typical Heights in today's world and in today's codes um we had to do a larger volume in this addition so you know I'd ask that you consider that as well when you're talking about massing U because the mass of the building is you know has some constraints that today's codes put on to us that I could you know back in the 60s they didn't have those codes okay so and we wouldn't duplicate them today I see um okay so we'll do a straw vote let's see um how would you vote Dave each uh oh well I I would vote in favor uh and and also just to to um what Chris just said is very much true I mean you know this this is a compressed existing structure that they've asked to try to say and um you know in in terms of trying to balance and meet the codes and current codes and things he almost has to do what he what he's done so I I don't I this part of the reason I guess part of my thinking and also another part of my thinking is maybe it's the part of the town I live in and I see some of the structures I see and I see where like buildings were put together and and and and I think about what that architect said to us on Crow Road at the last meeting of something about well sometimes perfect is not the goal um so I I'm I'm I'm definitely in favor of it and then I would encourage and hope that others can do as well thanks okay thank you Dave Nixon well I'll be voting know um as Chris said earlier there was no attempt to be concerned about the square footage that is added it was an attempt to clean up some of the things they wanted or didn't want inside whatnot but as a result um I believe we have a massing situation that is substantially detrimental yeah okay Jenny so I um I agree with the pro I had the problem with the with the um building coverage but I think the fact that 2800 is allowed and you're with within that um and I do appreciate what you're just saying Chris about um you know building working with an existing home renovating that it it's it's a challenge and I appreciate that the homeowner wants to save the original house um and you you have made attempts to that we asked for last time I think the massing to ry's point really didn't change visually but um I think I'm could get comfortable with what with with what you put forward today Paul well uh I think that the uh the family is old this property since 1964 and they've seen a lot of changes in the neighborhood and they're trying to uh keep up with uh with what's happening in the neighborhood and what's happening with the people in general I'm persuaded by um Chris Cannon's comments with respect to uh Heights of ceilings and so forth um and they're dealing with a project that's not an easy project to try and accomplish uh and they've spent a long time I'm working on it at the last hearing a great deal of the conversation was about the fact that there were duplicate kitchens and duplicate dining rooms and duplicate living rooms and so forth all of which I think was designed to go to the question of whether it was going to be rented out or not rented out I don't think that's an issue for us um I don't think the question of whether it may or may not be rented out in the future is a question for us it will be dealt with by regulations that are in existence at that time so um what while I'm a little troubled by the size of the uh garage side from the road um I don't think I'm so troubled that I would say uh that it is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood so I'm still struggling with that word substantial um I wish that you come back with less coverage and less Mass I haven't changed anything since last time so um is that a possibility that you could consider coming back with less mass and less coverage is it is it remote is there a world where you do that if I vote no well it would require removing the garage obviously because you can't make it smaller I would imagine without removing the third garage Bay because you physically could do it Ian it's hard to answer that question just standing right here whether it could be made smaller whether you just go to a raise and replace I I don't know that'd be if we don't get the fourth vote then that'd be something the applicant's going to have to consider um if that answers your question so it's not it's not something that is simply just shrinking it down a little I mean if you can just tell me that I'll I'll vote not used to doing the sun yeah well I'm not used to like a trained monkey um I mean some maybe but if uh taking away that entire uh bay would make it so you'd have to have take away the entire Bay all right well I I'll vote Yes okay I'm not gonna okay pick this battle well very much appreciate the straw pole and and based on that we request to proceed to a vote okay Paul I'll move to approve the application as submitted uh let me ask you in terms of construction and so forth conditions that we would normally put on would those apply to you as well in other words that all construction activity and vehicles would be contained on site or at neighboring property with the permission of the property owner between June 30th and Labor Day no exterior construction will be allowed no work will be permitted on weekends and construction activity between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. only I think those are the stand standard conditions that you typically impose I'll move to approve the application as submitted of those conditions uh Dave V seconds and votes yes and Dave Nixon no Jenny yes and Paul yes and I'll vote Yes as well thank you for your time thank you very much for your time yes we appreciate it all right Sarah's ready we're going to go over to 70 metaview Road South 24- 061 application number 24- 061 Kyle L lissac and particia marilus lissac care of William G litfield Esquire 330 Orleans Road North chadam Mass 02650 owner of property located at 70 Med Road South also shown in the town of chadam assessors map 10d block 16 L S15 the applicant proposes to change alter or expand a non-conforming dwelling and a conforming lot via the construction of additions and a deck the existing dwelling is non-conforming and that is located 24 ft from the coastal Conservancy District the proposed additions in deck will be non-conforming and that they will be located 20 ft from the coastal Conservancy District where 50ft setback is required the existing building coverage is 1,392 Ft 4.2% the proposed osed building coverage is 2,949 Ft 9% where 10% is the maximum allowed the lot contains 32,800 ft of buildable Upland in an R20 zoning District a special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw well that was dramatic Mr Lichfield welcome nice to see youno that good afternoon Madam chairman Bill Lichfield uh here on behalf of Kyle and Marlo lissac uh we appreciate the introduction uh the musical introduction uh with us today is their architect Sam striber and Mr and Mrs lissac are both online with us Unfortunately they could not be here we recognized that you hadn't had occasion to go out to menow View Road South in a couple of months so we thought we would uh invite you back to a rather different lot a significantly larger one I think it's almost four times the size of the one that was before you several times earlier in the year the lxs have a lot of almost 50,000 Square fet on the south side of Med Road South in West chadam uh and what they proposing to do is to as shown there on the site plan thank you Sarah the house the existing hous is on the left the house complies with dimensional and setback requirements to the left and the right but it is under current regulations too close to the coastal Conservancy District on this very large lot however they propos two additions uh from the facing the house from the left or on the right on that side is a proposed garage and on the other side is a proposed enlarged first floor master bedroom I looked at the site plan and the uh architectural plans a couple of times been out to the house several times and then I realized looking at the plans that there is an existing garage and I suppose you may have seen it if you walked around to the back side of the house it's really a boat storage area uh there is no garage and you can't get there now anyway you'd have to drive around on the west side down the hill through the vegetation into the Conservancy district and then you might be able to get a Mini Cooper in there uh aside from that it is not a functional garage and the LX would like to to have one so would it be helpful Madam chairman to have Mr striber talk about the plans or because you've seen them you'd like me to go into the criteria um let's see if anybody criteria criteria thank you um as to adequacy of site including build building covered in setbacks we have as I've said a very large lot the site is certainly adequate for the the existing home which meets all B bulk and dimensional requirements except for the setback to the coastal Conservancy District if you approve the special permit you can do so based on a finding that the site is adequate for the additions including a useful garage unlike the one we have now and except for the modified elevated deck meeting all setback requirements the change in the deck is minimal it results only from squaring off a corner of it as to compatibility of size on the third page of the handout you have what I ordinarily present you uh the numbers for the the neighboring properties the neighor neighborhood was developed under prior zoning we have the second largest lot in the neighborhood and a very modest house if you approve the special permit it will remain compatible the addition of the garage and the basement under part of the house obviously increases the gross flow area as does the larger first floor bedroom it while both increase the size of the house the increases I think you can find to be reasonable and it will remain compatible except for the deck uh it meets all dimensional requirements it's not strictly a criteria as to compatibility but even if it weren't uh neighbors are very hard pressed to see this house because of its setback from the road as well as the vegetation as to the extent of increase in nonconformity we have the existing conservant district non-conformity and we will technically be 4 feet thank you Sarah I was just going to ask you to do that uh technically at the very bottom of the that uh site we will be 4 feet closer to the Conservancy District by squaring off the existing deck on the southwest corner that's the only change as to suitability of site impact natural environment the site has been developed for residential use since 1966 this project has been extensively reviewed by the Conservation Commission there is now significant there have been significant mod modifications as well as mitigation conservation's concerns obviously were with trees and vegetation because the bulk of the houses is further away from their concerns and we have addressed those concerns successfully as to scale sighting Mass uh views and Vistas Mass isn't really applicable to what exists now a simple full Cape it's without impact in views and Vistas and again in a very private location the location of the proposed additions was of course dictated by the coastal Conservancy District on the south side to which we did not want to encroach further the additions are that is designed by Sam are designed to complement the existing house there's no impact on views and Vistas and we are again more than 100 feet back from a private way as compatibility of use there's no change it's a residential use as to adequacy of water and sewer we have Town water and a four bedroom uh with four bedrooms uh we are on Municipal sewer the Board of Health has reviewed and approved it I am tempted to note that the bonus room shown on the plan is to be referred to as a nixonian room uh given Mr Nixon's prior definition of Bon bonus rooms but the Board of Health has no concerns in that regard because we are on Town sewer no impact on traffic flow and safety noise and litter or utilities all of which are present so as you know the question to be decided is whether constructing a garage on the left side uh or right side which is the east side and the complimentary first floor Edition on the West Side both of which are compliant as to dimensional and bulk requirements of our zoning bylaw and a very small change in the elevated deck at the rear whether those changes are substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conforming structure the vast majority of the changes the two wings are totally compliant without any change in setbacks or an increase in non-conformities and those are again proposed on a lot with 250% of the currently required lot size and for that matter 160% of the minimum buildable Upland none of it is all of it is situated more than 100t back from the street with again heavy vegetation along the east and west uh Sidelines but for squaring off the deck this would be a borid request and even as expanded coverage remains well below the limit we're at 9% of buildable Upland and just F uh 5.9% of the entire lot it's completely without impact on neighboring Properties or the neighborhood so given the criteria and the plans I think that you can find the proposed changes are not substantially more detrial excuse me detrimental the neighborhood neither Sam orai would be happy to answer any questions you might have thank you very much is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wishes speak in favor of the this application if so please indicate seeing none questions from the board um actually correspondents there are two one is from the Conservation Commission um let's see the project is scheduled to be heard again on July 10th um for an order of conditions and we received this on June 7th 2024 from uh the conservation coordinator Crystal Keon we also have a letter from Judith Georgio um received 62524 she's reviewed the requested additions and renovations to the property the property is connected to town sewer does not add any sewer FL to the property of and is acceptable she has no concerns now is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wish to speak against this application or has a question no okay did you okay okay so questions from the board Dave Nixon don't have any thank you okay Ed uh no questions DAV no questions Paul no questions we no questions Steve question go ahead I have I guess I guess it would be a design question um if you look at on page A4 it seems like the rid of I think it's the new bedroom that's out in the front doesn't go all the way back and connect to the house and is there a reason for that because it's sort of blocking the second floor window also if you look at it it allows that that second floor window to to be there okay and to have a view out of it it also keeps the the the the the uh enclosing blocks of of as separate entities and not something that's sort of glued into a a whole second floor so it gives a it makes it uh a little simpler to connect and to deal with all the little um uh detail uh moldings and everything that have to fit because they're already settled in and it's open to the top so sunlight would come in to that window quite easily okay so that that that's my thinking about it that was all thank you and Jenny questions Mr litfield um the coverage numbers that you have on your table that you've included um they don't match what are you calculating it differently than what we have in our um packet I'm seeing 9% is the increase to the or the new 9% of buildable Upland and 5.9 of the entire lot size oh okay we don't as there's a footnote or a note at the bottom as there always is we don't know which says based on build of based on entire lot size we have no way of knowing short of having an engineer go out how much buildable Upland is there is on the other houses in the south side of metav road South okay thank you I oversight on my part so all the other coverage calculations of the neighbors are based on the lot size complete lot size because we just don't know otherwise thank you and I don't have any questions so Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations Dave V uh seconds and votes yes yes yes all vote Yes as do I okay deliberations um Dave Nixon well unlike the previous application this is great it conforms that Mak sense thank you Lee she makes more sense than I do usually it uh it's wonderful MRT doing yeah very good uh Ed deliberations um it it certainly meets all our criteria um as u i don't believe it's really the house isn't really not noticeable from anywhere else and I think it'd be a nice nice addition to the neighborhood and D yeah I agree with previous okay uh J I agree with uh my colleagues as well it's a large increase but the lot can support it um so I I were and nice job Sam on the design and Steve I think it's a nice project I commend you all and Lee I agree with my colleagues um Sam great job you are compl completely transforming this house and I think it's really going to be great I mean it needs a little it needs a little TLC and this is going to be really nice um yeah that's my opinion thank you Paul yes I agree I think it certainly meets our conditions and is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood yeah and specifically in my view it's adequate the size is adequate for the site and the extent of the proposed increase is non conforming nature um or structure is is not an issue um the site is suitable and there's no uh real impact on the natural environment and the impact of scale sighting and Mass on the neighborhood is really not an issue in this one um and so all the other criteria clearly met and you've presented that in writing as well which we always appreciate so I would vote Yes and with that Paul um I'll move to approve the application as submitted uh um I'm not sure with this lot that we need any conditions uh given the isolation of where it's going to be done and there's plenty of room um so I'll just move to approve the application as submitted does anybody have any comment on that does anybody feel uncomfortable about um I I mean I don't know I it's it is a not a wide Road and um I have I have mixed feelings you know that it's I I'm okay with not not um putting conditions on in this case do you want to comment on that Mr Nixon I do I agree you know it's uh we don't have to put the conditions on everything and in this case with the expanse you got to go up the hill now there's nobody I know of that wants to park on the street and no matter what the situation and there's plenty plent of room up there yeah does anybody else on this side yes Lee well I'd like to see that um during the summer no construction on weekends and no construction between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 or construction only between 8 and 5 okay in the summer I mean I don't know when they're planning on starting this but and there's construction right across the street there is so does anybody else I have something to say but I'm going to wait and go last I was going to just say making sure that the construction activity is on the site and that folks don't you know can get crowded up there and someone may say oh well let me park on the street and so we're assuming everyone would not park on the street but we should specify that and it's also doesn't it isn't this a neighborhood uh have its own rules there might be rules about that there is a neighbor Association I'm not aware of a a temporal construction requirement we would certainly accept a uh requirement that all uh construction vehicles be maintained on site realistically the special permit assuming that you grant it and I think you will won't be ready until the end of July after the appeal period I think we'd probably prefer not to have a summer restriction uh given that the lissac started this project about 18 months ago but on the other hand if you impose it I don't think it's going to be a particular problem okay all right all all that being said Paul do you want to Bubble something together uh yeah why don't I uh why don't I move to approve the application as submitted with the condition that all construction activity and vehicles would be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner um that between June 30th and Labor Day uh no exterior construction will be allowed no work should be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. only I think that would add all the conditions everybody wants is that right Mr litfield if if I understood it would summertime construction be allowed between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. it would thank you yes okay all that being said uh dve Dave yeah so that I just want to just clarify my mind because I I thought I heard the no exterior construction part between hours of maybe maybe I misspoke what I was saying is that between June 30th and Labor Day construction activity would be between 8:00 am and 5:00 p.m. only right yes and no work on weekends and no work on weekends and no exterior oh no exterior construction would be allowed is that an issue yeah I think we were saying that that we didn't I don't need to do the exterior okay so we'll delete that construction so we would add uh only that all construction activity and vehicles be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner that between June 30th and Labor Day no work shall be printed on the weekends and construction activity would be between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. only before we cify that is that that that that is acceptable as far as we are aware and I don't see Thunderbolts coming down electronically so I think it is and everybody on the board is also comfy cozy yeah yeah now you can second now okay now I will second and vote Yes all right yes yes all votes yes as do I it's unanimous congratulations very much very good very good thank you yep we're going to move over to 28 cranberry Lane 2462 when Mr litfield is ready and when sier is ready if anybody needs a moment we can we can do that too application number 4- 062 Richard and Jill teer care of William G litfield Esquire 330 Orleans Road North Chad Massachusetts 02650 owner of property located at 28 cranberry Lane also shown in the town of chadam Assessor's map 15j block 27 lot 18 the applicant proposes to change alter expand a conforming dwelling and a non-conforming lot via the demolition of the existing dwelling and four non-conforming sheds and the construction of a new dwelling the proposed dwelling will comply with all bulk dimensional requirements of the bylaw but is considered substantial alteration and under the second accept Clause of section 6 of Mass General Law chapter 48 such substantial alteration requires the grant of a special permit the existing building coverage is 1,6 squ ft 16.2% and the proposed building coverage is 2,269 Ft 13.7% where 15% is the maximum allowed the law is non-conforming and that contains no Frontage for 150 ft is required and contains 1654 ft where 40,000 ft is required in the R40 zoning District a special permit is required under mender Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protected bylaw Mr litfield welcome back thank you madam chairman members of the board Bill Lichfield here on behalf of Richard and Jill teer rich is in the rear of the room uh Mr Mrs teer uh purchased this house a couple of years ago uh they have a house around the corner and they envisioned this uh as Rich loves his in-laws uh but they Envision this as a place for uh his children's grandchildren to spend time uh it is as you know a small and less than pristine structure uh which has been on cranberry Lane for about 90 years and uh it came on the market and the tappers thought uh that they would uh purchase it uh update it uh build a with your permission build a new and conforming home on a non-conforming lot and have it uh for use by family members and we'll get to its potentials for other uses it will not be a short-term rental that is the site plan uh it is a lot like virtually all of the others in the neighborhood which is not conforming current zoning is R40 and this I'm sort of segueing to the criteria uh with one exception all of the Lots in the neighborhood are non-conforming as to size this site has multiple existing nonconformities it has an array of sheds around the uh North Lot line excuse me uh but the site has been adequate for residential use as it has been since it was built in 1933 give or take I think you can uh if you do approve the special permit and I hope that you will you can do so based on a finding that the site is adequate for the construction of a new home which meets all dimensional site or height rather and setback requirements and bulk coverage requirements of the bite law bylaw the house completely complies as to zoning and the the existing sideline deficiencies are eliminated as to compatibility of size on the third page of the handout we have right now the lowest coverage at 6.2% and the dwelling the existing dwelling has a footprint of only 749 Square ft by far the smallest in the neighborhood if you approve the special permit you can do so based on the finding that the coverage is still below that allowed and while the the living area of 2730 Square ft is increased it remains reasonable and compatible it's certainly a change from what is there now but I think frankly having been out there what a change from what is there now is not necessarily A Bad Thing and as to size it's still consistent with its surroundings as to the extent of increase in nonconformity uh there is none we have non-conformities as the lot size and lack of Frontage we can't change that but we are eliminating the several sideline setbacks and the multiple sheds where you can only have one as the suitability of site impact the natural environment is a residential neighborhood but with multiple nearby inland Wetlands both the North and the West this has been extensively reviewed by conservation uh the first page of the plane sheet the or the second page of the plan sheet that you have the house plan shows the uh mitigation involved there is extensive mitigation a pollinator garden and so forth we are also replacing a cesspool the house has not been occupied since the temper bought it but now has a cessful we are putting in an IIA septic system which will be an improvement as the scale sighting Mass views and Vistas the existing structure is close to unhabitable uh it may have had some quaint charm in the past but that was a very long time ago uh it however given its location it has no impact in views and Vistas the the proposed house while plainly larger is of an appropriate scale we haven't yet decided whether it's going to be clabber or cedar shingle siding sidewalls but it's going to have architectural shingle Roofing it is off a PRI as shown there thank you Sarah it is off of a private way and it's without impact on Street skate views and Vistas the historical commission has reviewed it and did not impose a demolition delay as to compatibility of use it had historically been used for residential use there is no change except that uh in our discussions with the Board of Health to get the third bedroom and the IIA system uh which is required of course uh the Board of Health Board of Health also imposed a restriction which we accepted because we had no plans otherwise that it not be used as a short-term rental and I think that is a good thing for the neighborhood as the adequacy of water and sewer right now there's Town water and assess pool as I've said with two bedrooms the Board of Health has approved an IIA septic system for three bedrooms which as you know produces less nitrogen than a standard two-bedroom system and again we're getting rid of currently assess poool there is in that location no traffic issue uh there is a neighbor who has an easement to cross for his driveway and we'll sorry we'll continue to keep that open during construction and work with the neighbor uh all utilities are there and the tuers are not unusually noisy or produce a lot of litter as to the criteria as you know the question is whether the proposed house with greater but hardly excessive living area is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the somewhat dilapidated structure on a non-conforming lot and again the current conditions existed when Rich and Jill purchased the property almost two years ago the proposed house meets all of the requirements of our bylaw and to the degree that they can be seen the current structures I think tend to make a positive comparison rather easy uh this is is I think an improvement and is certainly not substantially more detrimental again the design of the uh proposed house incorporates traditional elements on a site where the impact on the streetcape is negligible the mitigation plantings the new septic system and prohibition on short-term rentals all make for a positive impact on the neighborhood and the town so in light of the criteria the plans and in this location rather hidden away especially in comparison to what's there now I I think that you can find that the proposed new structure is not substantially more detrimental the neighborhood and in fact will be an improvement we'd be happy to answer any questions thank you very much is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application please make it known seeing none I read the three correspondences from the town um areas let's see we have Judith Georgio writes on 62524 that she's reviewed the plan to demolish the existing dwelling and rebuild a new dwelling the Board of Health has approved the construction of a three-bedroom dwelling at this property as proposed with the use of an IA septic system the property will be deed restricted to three bedrooms we have a note from the Conservation Commission from s the 7th of June 2024 the project is scheduled to be heard again June 26 2024 the project will be revised to meet the performance standards under the wetlands protection act and then we have a note from Christina Basset from the historical commission that was received on June 6 2024 and that says the home was reviewed October 18th 2022 and they found it not to be historically significant therefore did not impose the demolition delay however the house is not demolished by October 18th of 2024 they will have to come back to the commission for another full review would you like to respond to any of that uh thank you very much briefly that's the the last uh historical commission that's because our bylaw has an 18month window so if action isn't taken we we'll will have to go before uh historic look again but I don't think they're going to impose a delay as to the conservation commission's hearing I think it was sort of a generic matter uh we we're not hearing we're not before here appearing before them yesterday that's even something that I can't do uh and the project has been revised to meet conservation standards we'll be back I believe on July 10th for the next hearing very good very good is there anybody here on Microsoft teams who wish to speak against this application or has a specific question seeing none questions from the board think we'll go in clockwise starting with Virginia Fenwick thank you um Madam chair Mr field um I see plans for an AC unit but I don't or two of them but I don't see anything for a generator was that contemplated if there is a generator proposed do you know Mr terer if there is one proposed there is one proposed but it's going to have to meet the setback requirements okay so it's just not on the site plan here okay um removing four sheds replacing them with one no sheds having a garage what oh garage yeah and in the gar garage there is a area which looks as though it might be for kayak storage or something like that it is for kayak storage so some of the things I'm not sure who or what was in the shed over the years the existing sheds but that's a separate Story and there's even the neighbor shed is on the property well and if I could and and this is not in response to a question so perhaps I could wait but I should tell you which I didn't that I have spoken to the two neighbors immediately to the South and they have no objections I ought to have offered that I apologize for cutting into your questions no that's that's fine um that's all I have thank you Steve I have no questions Lee my only question is um I've seen the mitigation plan they're going to have to take down a number of trees correct I would assume thank you Paul it's hard to say that anything new there is not going to be an improvement on what's existing uh let me just ask you you mentioned that the the Board of Health has said that there would be no short-term rentals on the property what's the basis on which they do that uh one of the reasons that the historical commission approval was granted in October of last 2022 and were not before you until June of 2024 is that the Board of Health has went through a lengthy process of determining when and where they would allow lots to increase the number of bedrooms even with an IAA system uh this was discussed by the Board of Health at Great length starting in I think last October resulting in a new uh regulation from the Board of Health in March Sarah does that sound right give or take in March and one of the issues that they are very concerned about is the number of short-term rentals apparently we have something in the order of I don't know 18800 or something like that in the town and the teers have no desire to have 18001 uh so because the Board of Health was concerned about short-term rals and thought that the increase of of the number of bedrooms might lend itself uh to to a short-term Ral they imposed a restriction which we accepted that this not be used as a short-term and I think the definition is 30 days or less but I can't guarantee that um so basically it was a trade-off to get the third bedroom without the third bedroom would that restriction be possible uh no uh okay historically the Board of Health had granted an additional bedroom whenever an IIA system was installed they changed that I don't want to misquote the Board of Health but my recollection is that they changed that last summer last August in part in response to the view of at least some folks that people were putting in an eyes uptic system to get a new bedroom to make more money with short-term rentals that may be oversimplification I don't mean to misclassify their thinking but I think that was part of it and that's exactly the opposite of what the tempers have in mind some might say we were sort of caught up in that and this was the outcome was that we accepted a restriction right I see um and I notic that the uh comment from Judith Georgio doesn't make any reference to that it only says that there's a uh IIA restriction and deed restriction and I think that the deed restriction will include a restriction on short-term rentals okay I have no other questions Dave questions no questions Ed uh no questions and Dave Nixon no questions and uh I I just want to add that as far as the Board of Health my understanding is for every 10,000 square feet they'll allow the extra bedroom but whereby this one didn't have size of a lot that was how this all started that sound right yeah it's the the basic rule is 10,000 square feet per bedroom but no one gets fewer than two uh we had two but we would need 30,000 square feet for a third bedroom that had all in the past had always been you put in an i system you get one more bedroom the Board of Health had some second thoughts about that regulation the prior regulation so Size Matters in this one yeah all right okay I I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations Dave V seconds and votes yes yes yes Paul votes yes as do I so um dve oh um I think it's an improvement uh certainly not substantially detrimental in the neighborhood it it meets all of our criteria um and I will support it and Ed we'll just go around this way uh sure um yeah definitely meets all of our criteria I believe um it's going to be Improvement to the neighborhood and um if I was Voting I'd vote Yes and Dave Nixon it's hard to imagine anything there wouldn't be an improvement on that property I really okay Paul I agree with the comments that have previously been made and Lee I do as well Steve I agree with everyone and Jenny I agree with everyone also and I'll say that you addressed all the criteria in a written in written findings we again appreciate that and uh it meets the criteria and I would vote Yes as well um so now we need to talk about conditions start construction tomorrow could you live with a starting Labor Day yes Mr Tapper indicates that while he would like to have started some time ago uh that a a summertime exterior construction uh restriction is acceptable okay all right I'll move to approve the application as submitted with the conditions that all construction activity and vehicles be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner between thir June 30th and Labor Day no exterior construction will be allowed no work shall be permitted on the weekend and construction activity will be between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. only Dave be seconds and votes yes Dave nion yes jny yes well yes as to why it's unanimous congratulations thank you very much you're welcome one more application we only have one more application and that would be uh 52 monomoyic way very good application number 24- 063 Jeffrey and Melissa Peru care of James M Norcross Esquire peel box 707 chadam Mass 02633 owners of property located at 52 Mono Way also shown on the town of chadam assessor map 8K block 27 lot c1138 the applicant proposes to change alter expand a non-conforming dwelling and a non-conforming lot be the construction of a second floor Edition the existing dwelling is non-conforming and it is located 22.6 ft from the easterly butter the proposed second floor addition will increase the building height within the required 25 ft a butter setback the existing building coverage is 2,339 square ft² and the proposed building coverage is 2,396 square ft or 2,950 sare ft is the maximum allowed the lot is non-conforming and that it contains 27,100 ft where 60,000 ft is required in the r60 zoning District a special permit is required under massger Law chapter 4A section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw welcome Mr attorney narcross good afternoon Jamie Norcross representing Jeff and Melissa Primo uh the Primos are here in the audience this afternoon um this is a pretty straightforward application uh my client's house is currently a three-bedroom Ranch um and it's a little bit tight so they're looking to add some additional living area um two of the bedrooms are quite small they're also sort of tucked in with amongst each other so um and working with their architect Henry arnado who is also here in front of them today uh they came up with this design which is to add a second level to the structure um the two bedrooms will go upstairs they'll have a larger master and some more living area on the first floor um the existing uh property is non-conforming it's quite large it's 27,000 Square ft but uh riverbay is is all an r60 zoning District so we're technically under size in that regard um the house is slightly non-conforming on the East setback the corner behind the garage it's uh 22 and 1/2 ft where a 25t setback is required in a r60 zoning District the footprint is only changing um very very minimally there's a small bump out in the back to incommode what's going to be a larger dining area and then there's an entry way that's going to be covered as well so it's going up about I think a total of 60 Square F feet so essentially it's going to be in the same footprint uh in terms of height while we are adding a second level our building height is going to be around 24t so we're certainly not uh overly tall in that regard um so moving along to the criteria number one is adequacy of the site in terms of size for the proposed use uh we believe the site is adequate as I mentioned uh it's a very small increase in building coverage it's only going from 8.6 to 88.8% so we're still quite below the 15% allowed for this lot and um with the exception of existing encroachment on the East lot line uh we meet all of the setbacks um I would point out that the area of that slight encroachment is the garage which um is not going to have a second story on it um and as you see right there that section will be the lowest point of the home number two compatibility of the size the proposed structure with neighboring properties um I'd suggest this house with the addition is certainly compatible with the size of neighboring properties in the gross floor area numbers that I um provided I think we're just about right in the middle in terms of size and I think we have one of the larger Lots uh in this neighborhood also just driving around this uh area of riverbay you see homes that are either were originally two stories or had a second story added so I think we're certainly compatible um with the uh neighborhood from a visual character in that regard extent of the proposed increase in non-conforming nature of the structure or use uh again the only increase in non-conforming nature is the fact that we are going up uh just a bit in the area of the garage that as I mentioned is slightly within the setback to the east lot line uh suitability of the site uh we believe the site is suitable there'll be no negative impact on neighboring Properties or the environment caused by the construction impact of scale sighting in Mass uh again I'd suggest the project will not have a negative impact on neighborhood visual character uh with a proposed Building height of 24 feet the house does not have any concerns with massing and it will continue to be set back about 45 or 46 feet from the street um Additionally the use of dogghouse dormers on the front and the shed Dormer on the back help to minimize the mass that's being added with the Second Story number six uh it's a residential use in a residential neighborhood therefore we're compatible uh number seven we have adequate water drainage and a functioning Title 5 system there's no impact on traffic flow and safety no issues with noise and litter uh we have adequate utilities and 11 and 12 are not applicable so again I suggest it's a it's a um very straightforward application I think it's a very uh reasonable uh request and certainly not substantially more detrimental thank you thank you so much um is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wishes speak in favor of this application please indicate if so seeing none I will read the couple of correspondences that we have Judith Georgio our health agent writes on 62524 that she's reviewed the plan to add the second floor to this property the property has three bedrooms and the proposed addition and plan will maintain the three-bedroom layout no changes to the septic system are required then we have a note from Tim Bailey and Katie McConnell 778 Riverview Drive received on 6224 my wife Katie and I have carefully reviewed the plans for the proposed addition to the house located on 52 Mono Way owned by Jeffrey and Melissa Primo we live close to the subject property um and it's feeling that the addition in question does not pose any detriment of any kind in fact we find the style and scale of the addition to be consistent with architecture in in our neighborhood of and of riverbay Estates we therefore pledge our full support to the above mentioned project that concludes the correspondence is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wish speak against this application or has a specific question if so please make it known see seeing none we'll do questions from the board we'll go this way da I have no questions uh no questions no questions well no questions Lee just a quick one regarding um potential AC condensers and or generator I don't see them Henry do you have any uh Insight on talked about well you got it okay if you want to come up and explain please I I don't think we've considered a generator at this time the AC units we're probably going to go with manyi splits and they'll be probably hanging on the G end of the um where the bulkhead is on the side that's most conforming yes you do have a very conforming side there can you just identify yourself please Henry arnado HPA design on the architect thank you thank you Paul thank thank you okay questions from Steve or Jenny I have no questions and Jenny uh no questions and okay Paul all right I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations a seconds and votes yes yes yes well yes as do I okay deliberations uh Steve um well I think you've taken you know a somewhat modest house and and really transformed it and it's it's it's really an elegant house so I think it's a great project okay Lee I agree it's a great project it meets our criteria and um if I were a voting I would absolutely vote in favor and Ed uh I was struck with how how nice the house looked now beautiful house now and it looks like it's going to be a beautiful house uh with a second floor on it so if I was Voting i' have my vote Dave Nixon I totally in favor very good DAV yes uh it's certainly uh it's it's um nice looking house now I agree with that kind of stir my Midwestern Roots you know see like that uh but no it's it's a real Improvement um and a nice way to add uh and and and free up space and uh it's not substantially detrimental in any way to the neighborhood so very good and Jenny yeah I agree with my colleagues um I appreciate that it's that you're renovating it um and agree with Ed it's beautiful now but I can appreciate more space 57 square feet increase in coverage very modest height is great Jamie your list is very helpful 27 properties on this these sheets within three streets nearby and it's uh you know very much what you're proposing is in line with some are larger some are smaller but it's really right in the middle um I mean it is a big increase but it's fitting in with all the other numbers on this in my view um I think that and and agree it meets our criteria adequacy compatibility suitability and would not and is not substantially more detrimental I would support it Paul what do you say what say you I agree certainly not more uh substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood it's an improvement to the neighborhood and I agree with everything that Jenny just said I'm glad that she provided all that detail and uh also your written findings are extremely helpful as was your presentation so um with that should we talk about conditions I had talked about that with uh Jeff and Melissa and they're not planning to start work until uh after Labor Day so if you wanted to do a summertime restriction that's fine there's also certainly plenty of room on site for vehicles so sure okay Paul all right I'll move to approve the application as submitted with the condition that all construction activity and vehicles will be contained on site or at a neighboring property with a permission of the property owner between June 30th and Labor Day no exterior construction will be allowed no work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8:00 am and 5:00 P PM only Dave V seconds and votes yes Dave Nixon I vote Yes yes yes as do it's unanimous congratulations thank you very much thank you that concludes our agenda for today and uh what time is it we need one more motion oh we need a motion to adjourn right I'll move to adjourn Dave V seconds and votes yes Dave Nixon oh actually Ed Ed votes yes I vote Yes Jenny yes Steve Steve votes yes yes and Paul yes as do I and now what time is it 4:48 p.m. all right good night chadam [Music] [Music] w for