##VIDEO ID:2jYkUg0sgDs## e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e [Music] y yeah [Music] good evening everyone or good afternoon it's uh the zoning board of appeals meeting on 125 2024 in the town of chadam pursuant to Governor Hy's March 29th 2023 signing of the acts of 2023 extending certain covid measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law 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 as provided far in the order a reminder that persons who would like to listen to this meeting while in progress may do so by calling 508 94544 1010 conference ID 989 435 684 pound or join the meeting online via Microsoft teams through the link in the posted agenda this is a live broadcast and simoc cast on chadam TV but despite our best efforts we may not be able to provide for Real Time access we post a record of this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible in accordance with 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 with a roll call of all board members and I think we'll do that right now um actually we'll do that in a moment I want to just say that if everybody could please shut off any devices that make any sort of noise whatsoever um please do that so we're going to start the meeting with a roll a a roll call of all board members in a moment then we ask if any citizens or non- board members participating via phone um just make it known what their name is when when they're called on a hearing notice is read by our staff Sarah Sarah um CL on my right you or your representative will present your appeal or application anyone in favor of the appeal will'll be able to speak for five minutes at the most and if you already have an an a letter into us then perhaps um you can wave the writing the reading of the letter we'll we'll get to that when the time comes but there are a lot of letters tonight and there are a lot of people so if we could just either do the person or the letter that would be extremely helpful um I will read or summarize the letters that that that we do um attend to anyone against the application will be able to speak for up to five minutes as well and the applicant will then have a chance to rebut any of that testimony um we'll hear any further information close the public hearing deliberate and then we usually vote on the appeal or application all votes will be taken by roll call and at the end of the meeting we will close via verbal confirmation and note the time of adjournment and so as I said we'll do a roll call vote of all members um starting with David V and we're just going to go right around uh David h v and I approve this format Ed Acton I approve David S nion I approve Paul C simple I approve Steven D Lee Hy I approve Steven D deor I approve Virginia F I approve and Randy podes I approve as well um I think we have a a a list one um one minutes to yes we have minutes from a meeting of November 7 uh 2024 I'll move to adopt those minutes as published uh DAV seconds it vote Yes I vote Yes all votes yes you need votes yes and as do I so voting tonight will be um David V David Nixon Paul simple Virginia fenick Fenwick and myself except for the first application um we're going to have um our Lee Hy our alternate vote instead of Mr Nixon all right so first application um whenever Sarah is ready is 24- 099 Damon and Lisa [Music] Harrow application number 24- 099 Damon and Lisa harell car of James M Norcross Esquire PBX 707 Chad M 02633 owners of property located at 66 of Thelma drive also shown on the town of chadam assessor map 11g block 30 lot g33 the applicant seeks to enlarge extend or change a conforming dwelling and a non-conforming lot via the demolition of the existing dwelling in garage and the construction of a new dwelling the proposed dwelling will comply with all bulk and dimensional requirements of the bylaw but is considered a substantial alteration and under the second accept Clause of section six of Mass General Law chapter 4A such substantial alteration requires the granted special permit the existing building coverage is 1, 159 Square ft and the proposed building coverage is 2581 Square ft where 2,900 ft is the maximum allowed the lot is non-conforming and that it contains 90.8 7 ft of Frontage for 100 ft is required the lot contains 24,100 ft in the R20 zoning District a special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5 be of the protective bylaw this was continued from October 10th 2024 attorney Norcross welcome good afternoon thank you uh Jamie Norcross representing Lisa and Damon harell uh next to me is Tim luff the architect for the project uh Mr Mrs harell are in the I guess you'd call it the second row on the left-and side also uh here this afternoon uh David Clark the engineer for the project uh blae skoli who was the builder and Andrew geray who was the landscape architect um just a little bit of overview uh if I may uh Madam chair and then uh Lisa Herold would like to make a a brief statement to the board and then uh Tim's going to go through the design if we may um the Heralds purchased this property about 18 months ago with the goal of uh building a home for their family that can be used for many years and as they eventually enter into retirement uh more and more time can be spent at the house the lot has 24,000 square feet in an R20 zoning district and therefore is conforming relative to square footage uh the herold's proposed house will be fully compliant with all dimensional aspects of the zoning bylaw uh the lot however and this is why we're here today is Just sh has just shy of 91 ft of Frontage on a Thelma drive or 100 feet is required uh but for this 9 ft uh no zoning approval would actually be required for this project but U that being said we are 9 ft short of the frontage so a special permit is necessary for our proposal today um as Sarah uh mentioned in the um introduction our original here in was scheduled back in October at which time we asked for a continuance to modify the proposal based on comments from the board members and letters received from Neighbors there was obviously concerned about the height and massing of the proposed structure uh the heral and their design team have spent a lot of time uh reviewing their concerns and coming up with an alternative proposal that's in front of you today uh to reduce the height and massing of the structure um just briefly going through some of the highlights the setback from a Thelma Drive will now be about 75 ft uh this is measured to the garage section of the house and the larger section of the house which is uh runs parallel to a Thelma Drive will be set back over 90 ft from the street uh this is in line with the current structures on the property and about 17 ft further back than the prior design the setback to a Thelma Pond will still be well over 100 ft and the sideline setbacks remain conforming the ridge elevation for the proposed house has been reduced by uh 5T from the prior design which makes it only 5 F feet higher than the existing house this was accomplished through a combination of several factors uh the prior design included raising the grade on the property which resulted in the first floor elevation being about 5T higher than the existing house the con proposal uh removes that grade change the structure itself has been reduced in height by almost a foot and a half uh the ceilings in the structure um when you consider modern requirements are quite modest in terms of height it's 8.4 feet uh on the first floor8 feet on the second floor as a result while the structure is larger than the existing house by keeping the current created and moving it further away from the street it's reducing any visual impact from the additional size I think it's important to note that given the natural grade changes on the lot the proposed house as seen from the street is essentially a 23 and 1 half foot structure this doesn't account for the fact that the grade of the street is higher than that at the structure resulting in a situation when you're actually looking downward toward the area of the home uh additional concern raised with the driveway the size excuse me with the driveway parking area that has been significantly reduced in size which also reduces The Hardscape on the site and allows for more of the existing trees to remain uh this also reduces any visual impact caused by the additional size of the new structure obviously as you'll read into the record and folks here today based on the new letter submitted uh neighbors are still not in supportive of this project there are a couple elements uh within these letters I did want to address before uh moving along with the presentation um the gross floor area comparison in the neighborhood average that's reference in the letters appears to be based on net area figures provided by the Assessor's Database which does not include an unfinished basement or a garage so I would suggest it's not an accurate comparison to floor area numbers for this project uh second uh reference in the letters is the impact on views and Vistas from a Thelma Drive um if you go out to the site which I'm sure you have currently there's no view of the pond over the existing house while we're going up in height by 5 ft is not taking away a view that currently exists from the street there is a view Corridor on the left and right side of the house is seen from the street the width of the proposed house is such that it's going to allow for those view corridors to remain as they are today so with that Madam chair uh Mrs Harold would just like to make a brief statement and then we'll go on to the design sure thank you very much thanks before I begin I wanted to say thank you to you for seeing us again and if you could also state your name just for the record yes I am Lisa harell owner of 66 aalma drive with my husband Damon Harold I also wanted to acknowledge the neighbors who are here today and also who came to the previous hearing Damon and I reside in Bedford Massachusetts we've lived here for 11 years originally we're both from the Midwest where our families still live I was born and raised in Chicago and Damon in Madison Wisconsin we have a daughter Lauren who plays volleyball at Sacred Heart University in Connecticut we also have an English lab named Scout when I was in junior high my parents three sisters and I be began spending our summers at my parents' place on a small Lake in Kingston Wisconsin population 284 Spring Lake only had eight homes was adjacent to a corn field and was the perfect backdrop for summer Adventures not only for us but also for our relatives and friends who occasionally visited as adults my sisters and I returned each summer with our own families and talked about how hopefully one day each of us would have our version of Spring Lake after working with the cap wred her for 2 years she called to tell me about 66 of Thelma Drive she was convinced she had finally found the perfect place for our family once I saw it I couldn't agree with her more and smiled at the thought that my family was going to have our own Spring Lake Our intention was not to tear down the house we were perfectly content doing a renovation over the course of multiple months we brought brought out a building inspector and four separate Builders asking advice on how we should proceed the inspector pointed out multiple defects the worst being the stairstep cracks in the foundation their very nature indicating serious structural problems this was problematic especially since we wanted to maintain and utilize the walk out basement the inspector and the builders advised that new construction was the best path forward these were not words Damon and I wanted to hear over the course of many months countless hours and multiple iterations where our team of professionals went into both the design of our house and the land in order to ensure we were within the setback height and footprint restr restrictions as well as within the conservation easements we were successful in working within all of these restrictions recently when multiple neighbors wrote letters of opposition we regrouped and discussed what changes could be made to address the concerns both the board and our neighbors had Jamie Norcross has already discussed them and Tim Lu is going to talk about them further I also came back to the neighborhood to have a look at the houses that not only comprise a Thelma drive and its surrounding streets but also the other houses that that make up Emory Pond I noticed the unique styles of all the houses not one house in the neighborhood or around the pond looks like the other and as was pointed out yes there are 1950 style capes and ranches but there are also houses that are contemporary and Colonial in style larger houses due to Renovations and additions and other houses that appear larger from the pond due to the Topography of their Lots this very situation is true for the existing house at a Thelma and our proposed design I spent years looking for a place for our family not to list on Airbnb or VRBO ma'am if I could just say that this is like part of the um you know people that are in favor of an application and that there's a five minute limit for that so I'm going to ask you to conclude all right I will conclude by saying our dream is not much different than anyone else is we too want to create a home where family can gather and memories can be made for future Generations I thank you for your time and for your consideration thank you thank you thank you very much for the um allowing Mrs Harold to speak um Tim if you wanted to just run through for the design sure please sure I'll try to be too repetitive but I think it's helpful to take into consideration the neighbors concerns the neighbors's concerns were three-fold environmental massing and the aesthetic disruption addressing of the environmental can we pull up our site plan again just just briefly um you'll notice in the site plan that there are four locations where new drywalls have been Incorporated which none of the houses in the neighborhood have trees were a concern of the neighbors that were coming down eight have been maintained four will be felled 12 were proposed before so we reduced that uh dramatically uh driveway was another concern driveway safety was a concern we had two curb cuts the driveway has been reduced by 40% there's one curb cut major major uh uh condensation second mashing uh in the site plan uh Mr norros helped us to appreciate that this building has been pushed back the front of the garage is 75 ft from the lot line not from the street which is another 5 to 10 feet away when you push a building back that type of distance almost 100 feet from the face of the building the perspective of the house changes it drops massing changes due to the fact that you've pushed the house back we've also the landscape architect came up with a brilliant design to push the house back but also so to drop it down significantly this house has been pushed into the ground and we are 5 ft below the ridge um that we had before it's only 5T taller than the ridge that currently exists so that contributes to to reducing the massing the garage Dormers have been changed one Dormer has been pushed in significantly the other has been pushed in to match and so the two Dormers if we could take a look at the model the number one image image on the models maybe not that one but the first one image one that helps you to see that this Dormer that you see above the garage was was in the previous design much closer to the outside wall as was the other one and those have been pushed in to help uh reduce that mass a view Cora was also a concern The View Corridor has been improved because the building has been reduced by 12 in from left to right 12 in from front to back the garage has been reduced by 2 ft from 26 uh to 24 aesthetic disruption was something that came up in the original um letters from A Butters uh I'm pretty proud of this design I've I've designed over 300 houses in the Old Kings Highway and this house would be approved in the oldak Kings Highway we have true divided lights we have shutters it's a typical Cape design it's a story and a half uh it is not two stories or three stories it's a story and a half the current structure that exists there is a story and a half with a walk out so we have not changed the vernacular or we have not changed what was there before it's a story and a half with a walkout uh below and uh as as uh as Jamie mentions my client is 6'8 tall he's sitting down but when you see him stand up you'll see he's tall H he can't even fit under underneath the standard door which is 68 so 8 fo2 finish ceiling we felt was a modest ceiling height for this house we have not uh gone to anything taller in in this ceiling Heights on the second floor are a little bit less than that that is my general summary of the design and I'm happy later to answer any questions you have thank you thank you Tim uh I'll briefly go through the uh criteria Madam chair please and we can move along to U comments uh number one adequacy of the size of the site uh we believe the size of the site is adequate as I mentioned we meet all dimensional uh requirements of the zoning bylaw we meet the height requirement and we meet the building requirement uh of the bylaw um by Main containing more of the existing grade has been referenced earlier the applicant is able to better use the site to allow for the additional size of the structure while mitigating any potential impact from this additional size um while the structure is moving closer to Emory pond with the revised proposal in front of you today will still be set back more than 100 feet from the edge of the Wetland and will be heavily screened from view due to existing vegetation at the rear of the property uh number two compatibility of the size of the proposed structure with neighboring properties uh neighborhood is a mixture of homes of various sizes and Styles as uh Lisa mentioned some of which date back to the 1950s uh a review of the homes in this neighborhood demonstrates that the homes are very unique to one another with all types of styles and Designs this will be one of the larger homes in the neighborhood as shown on the gross floor area analysis but we don't think it's out of scale um there are some small homes in this neighborhood there are some larger homes we submitted photographs of a couple uh specifically 46 46 Barber Drive essentially a twostory structure sitting up on a hill so I don't think we're the first in this neighborhood to be of a larger size in that regard and as you see on the rendering from the front it's certainly not a mcmansion it certainly isn't going to overwhelm the street if you look at that Visual and think about it 75 ft to the garage 90 feet to the main house from the street I don't think it's going to overwhelm the streetcape uh by any means uh number three extent to the proposed increase in the non-conforming nature of the structural use um this is an easy one there is no increase in the non-conformity nature of the structure or use our only non-conformity as I mentioned is we're 9 ft shy on Frontage and that is not changing uh suitability of the site uh we believe the site is suitable uh without any negative impacts on neighboring Properties or in the natural environment as T me ttim mentioned there's going to be significant um controls put in place to put to control runoff which are not there presently so I think it'll actually represent a net benefit to any runoff that's going to go down to the pond we also be removing the existing Cesspool and connecting to uh Town sewer number five uh often comes down to this criteria course impact of scale sighting and mass a neighborhood visual character and we spent a lot of time thinking about this in terms of what's the neighborhood what's the the visual character and it's really sort of two sides if you think about it you have this side which is what faces anthela and so this is part of the Thelma Drive Barber Drive Carolyn subdivision area and again we think this St and this size and this design again 75 ft back from the road is appropriate uh for that neighborhood the back if you look at the uh rendering obviously much bigger but if and we provided some aerial photographs that was taken by drone excuse me we're taken by drone uh by the Harolds and you can see there are a number of structures around the pond that have this sort of three-level feature with the walk out because of this topography pretty much any design is going to utilize a walkout feature otherwise you're going to put the house up closer to the street which I don't think anyone's going to particularly enjoy from the neighborhood because again that's going to increase the massing so you're going to utilize the walk up to create more space so when you look around the pond you see houses they're all different designs they're all different styles but they utilize a walkout they have that sort of three level feature to them and again this is from really a bird's eye view if you're sitting down in the pond looking at this is really from the only place that's visible there's trees that are in the in the that Shield our structure uh right here you can see significant vegetation in the back and at that distance and with that vegetation it's certainly not going to overwhelm the streetcape as seen from the pond uh six compatibility of the proposed structure with neighboring uses single family residence in a residential neighborhood it's compatible uh number seven method of sew disposal as I mentioned it'll be connected to town sewer it is connected to town water and we'll have adequate drainage number eight impact on traffic flow and safety no negative impact on traffic flow and safety no issues with noise and letter it's going to have necessary utilities and 11 and 12 are not applicable uh so just to sum up briefly again we think um by you know sighting is one of the criteria looked at on number five we think the the major changes that have been made in the sighting of the structure will result in something that uh is a big Improvement uh and something that is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood thank you very much for and thank you is there anybody here or on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application if so raise your hand please seeing none in the audience is there anybody raising their hand online seeing none okay so first I'm going to read the um letter from our health agent and then we'll discuss the letters briefly um to see who wants to wave the reading of their letter because they're going to talk so our health agent writes to us on 108 2024 I have reviewed the plan to demolish the existing building in five bedroom dwelling at this property the dwelling must be connected to sewer as part of the approval for the increase in sewage flow from four to five bedrooms the connection application has been submitted I have no concerns at this time and again that's from Judith Georgio so now we have a number of letters um from people with the last name Paige Fredo Coleman Nickerson Silva mow and gilletti um Y and clock those are the most recent letters and then we have another batch from last time thank you Sarah um Clifford moio malows Coleman and Bosley I think I said Fredo silver but just to make sure papura again silver why and clar now if I read your name and you want to talk instead of your letter if you could just raise your hand that's only two so [Music] silver okay I'm going to read the rest of the letters then this one form one okay okay so we still need to read the form all right I'll get that out way all right the first one is a form letter so I'm only going to read it once but I think it has a lot of names attached to it um wait this is Mike page so right so this is the additional information so we don't need to read that one don't read this one okay just bear with me all right um yep lindsy Clark and Brian v y write to us um dear zoning board of appeals this is on December 3rd 2024 our names of Brian van why and Lindsey clar we own 63 of Thelma drive and chadam it's come to our attention that the proposal to replace the home at 66 a Thelma with a much larger structure we want to let the zoning board of appeals know that we are not happy with the scale of this proposed project The Proposal is um slated for slated for this home will have 5,696 square ft of floor space this is two to three times the size of the vast majority of the homes in the neighborhood furthermore the home will be significantly taller than any other Home in the neighborhood there are multiple reasons that this project is detrimental to the neighborhood one out of character with the neighborhood most homes in the neighborhood are one to two 1 to one and a half story structures with two to four M sized bedrooms and one to two bathrooms this is a much larger home with exposed basement and five bathrooms in addition the current feel of the neighborhood is being near Emory pond with glimpses of the pond available through the trees even for those not living immediately adjacent to the pond indeed when the neighborhood was originally developed it seemed that a sense of connection to the pond was very intentional and important as reflected in the fact that many of the properties in the community Comm have deed rights to access em Pond the proposed building's enormous size would significantly change the viewscape of the neighbors living nearby and those simply enjoying a walk or bike around the block it has a fundamentally negative impact on the character of the neighborhood two harmful impacts on the environment good water quality is crital critical for the quality of life and economics in chadam situated at the edge of Emory pond stormr water runoff from this property has more potential to harm water quality and habitat than it would if it was located further away given this a higher level of care should be exercised for construction progress projects in this area trees and other natural natural vegetation should be protected as the natural buffer rather than be removed the to minimize long-term impacts every effort should be made to reduce the amount of impervious surface on the property such as rooftops and pavement rather than allowing it to increase if there is an increase in per imperious surface runoff reducing green infrastructure should be installed and maintained indefinitely to minimize these impacts given the scope of the proposed changes it would be reasonable to require runoff from all the impervious Services surfaces on the property to be managed at a pre-development level which is the US EP a has stated can be achieved by managing runoff by from the 95th percentile storm for the area in addition during construction it's important that most of the prote protected erosion control measures be used that includes structural practices to reduce erosion and sedimentation from Disturbed soil as well as non-structural management practices to minimize disturbances um we should Implement good health housekeeping practices on site we depend on uh the town of chadam to enforce these standards during permitting during construction and after Construction in addition to water quality impacts larger buildings typically consume more energy and water and have more envir environmental impacts to a greater degree than smaller buildings as more houses are replaced with larger ones it's not only accumulative environmental impact but an impact on chadam energy infrastructure and drinking water supplies making the town more vulnerable negative impacts on the affordability of housing as more and more small affordable houses give way to large and more expensive houses chadam becomes increasingly unaffordable for those who are AFF aren't affluent those on fixed incomes and the workingclass people who run the businesses restaurants schools and other government structures uh services in town the town can't run without people to work in it and that's becoming hotter and hotter the proposed development is not is not resp responsible for this all on its own but it has a large Trend that must be slowed and reversed in chatam to continue to function and preserve its workingclass history thank you for taking uh concerns into consideration we care deeply for our home and our neighborhood and the environment and we think the proposed project should be allowed to Pro we we do not think it should be allowed to proceed instead it should be more in line with surrounding neighborhoods um then then there also from Lindsay clar my husband and I oh same one okay okay next we have a note from Albert angeletti dear s we live at 118 Wilford Road in chattam mass changes have been proposed to the property adjacent to us at 66 the Thelma drive we feel these changes would constitute a significant detriment to the neighborhood we wish to express our disapproval for the proposed changes and hope they will be rejected uh thank you Albert angeletti MD and Regina angeletti and that was uh on December 4th 2024 next we have a note Dan Brother okay this is from Dan uh Silva so we're going to wave that sir um as indicated because we're going to allow you to speak yes you you've already indicated that we appreciate that um next we have a note from December 2 2024 um subject opposition to new home proposed at 66 of Thelma um okay some of these have too many words and I'll be I might skim through we do have a limit I can't startop counting you know all the words at this juncture not could I ever but um so this person is writing to say I just want to get the name is this okay Mike Paige oh Mike Paige said he's going to talk so form letter and that's the form letter so it's already been read yes no no no all right so we do need to read it now we're going to read the form letter what is that just put same letter as everyone else GNA read this okay and then the names all right here we go December 2nd members of the zoning board of appeals this is the topic is opposition to house at 66 thma drive I'm writing as concerned property owned in the neighborhood regarding the proposal for a new three level five-bedroom home at 66 Thelma Drive The Proposal which requires a variance due to the lot's non-conforming Frontage of 91 ft where 100 is required fails to meet two critical decision criteria considered by the board as proposed structures is more than twice the size of the largest home in the neighborhood and would adverse adversely impact the streetscape and views on Emery Pond and the cranberry bug Beyond it and we that we currently enjoy the neighborhood is small um between old Queen and Road and Wolford drive and includes the Thelma Drive Carolyn Barbara Janette in the R20 Zone most of the Lots in the neighborhood are non-conforming and would therefore require a variance if owners start to expand or replace their existing homes the application was originally scheduled for October 10th 2024 um the applicant has not contacted me or to my knowledge anyone else who Express concerns um when the hearing got continued the applicant has now submitted a revised proposal that moves the house closer to the pond reconfigures the driveway and makes minimal changes to the size of the house compatibility with the proposed structure in neighboring properties is an issue uh they say that the proposed home at approximately 4800 Square ft is of net livable area is more than three times the size of the existing house which is 1547 also significantly larger than the homes in the neighborhood which is a net area of 2387 squ ft the neighborhood mean home size is 1536 the median is 1514 please see the spreadsheet so if anyone is interested in a spreadsheet that's been provided by um numerous people it is online impact of scale sighting of Mass on neighborhood visual character including views Vistas and Street Scapes the proposed structure despite minimal revisions um since October 10th remains disproportionately large and poorly cited the proposed structure has three levels with a finished walk out basement and a full story in the in a neighborhood where most homes are only one to one and a half Stories the home that would be replaced is a one-story home the proposed footprint is 2441 square feet um versus 1509 for the existing structure the lot is at at least 15 ft wider than the existing home its significant mass and scale will dominate the streetcape and block views and visors to the pond and cranberry bog which are in integral to the neighborhood's visual charm and appeal the slight reduction in forc place and repositioning of the home closer to the pond does not sufficiently mitigate its adverse impacts on the neighborhood VI views and vistors in conclusion the new uh project does not meet the zoning board's criteria for compatibility and visual impact I I urge the board to deny the the variance Quest as approving it would set a precedent that could erode the neighborhood's charm and cohesion and so that was written by Mike pagee Kathy and Mike Fredo from 10 Barber Drive U Mike pagee being at nine athela um and then Kathy and Mike Fredo also say if this is approved please um have no construction between Memorial Day and Labor Day this is also sub committed by Allison Coleman and Lisa Bosley of six Aela Drive Deborah and modet Nickerson of 21 Carolyn David malow 88 Aela Drive Daniel and Joanne silver from 20 Barber Drive the next round stay tuned for more these are from last time that we did read them last time because we didn't get there I don't think we got there this one did not get read okay this one did not get read yet John and Alisa papura from 54 of thma drive chadam it's relatively short they tell us on October 9th 2024 that they're writing the letter to convey their thoughts relating to the application submitted upon our first reading we thought the major issues issue was the non-con ing Frontage number however when the stakes were placed on the property we were startled by the sheer expanse of the house in relation to the property Dimensions we feel that the proposed plan for a nearly 6,000 square foot house does not blend with the rest of the working class neighborhood it is more than twice and in some cases three times the size of other aelod Drive homes a 30 foot house High house will Tower over the rest of the nearby homes and this was from the last application this is not 30 ft now um we do understand that the cost of the land and expense of the new construction requires that a house of certain square footage be built in order to make a project financially feasible but we hope that the zoning board appeals will recommend a ton down house plan many neighbors have resided um on this road for many years and we do welcome growth but in a manner that complements the surroundings we don't have to read this one skip this one I think we skip um this one it's just that yeah okay here's one from September 23rd 2024 from Bob and Eileen sergison from 180 Wilford Road we have no objection to the application next we we like that one now we have one from Susan Clifford 128 Wilford Road chadam my name is Susan and I've lived at 128 Wolford Road in chadam for the past 27 years the back of my property a buts 88 AAL which is an empty lot between my property in 66 I have carefully reviewed all the material and information presented to the board's consideration and feel that the compatibility of the size of the proposed structure with neighboring properties is grossly out of proportion my home is a modest ranch with a walk out basement and an attached garage the current structures on 66 of thma one uh are 1509 square feet and the proposed structure will be 2581 a pretty substantial increase in size once the leaves are off the trees that structure will feel like it's sitting just outside my bedroom window I also believe there will be a negative impact on the natural environment including slopes vegetation Wetlands groundwater and water bodies emry Pond is just below 66 of thur and run off from fertilizers Etc well mostly most definitely have an effect on the pond I am not I am not naive enough to think that the current owners won't want to request permission to add an access to the pond which will require removal of trees and vegetation the size of the proposed structure will most definitely alter the visual character of the neighborhood as well as having a negative impact on views Vistas from the pond I believe that a scale down structure will be more appropriate in this neighborhood and I'm asking the board to vote no on this request we don't need to read this one M okay Sandra and Franco Museum tell us on October 7th 2024 that they reside at 41 Janette drive in chadam and they are writing to express their concern for the proposal to replace the existing home at 66 of Thelma drive with a larger home this new home is slated to be to have 5696 square fet of living space it is significantly larger than any of the existing homes in the neighborhood the vast majority are in the 2,000t range we believe that a structure of this size is detrimental to the neighborhood aesthetic aesthetic disruption A Home of this size would be out of character with the existing neighborhood the majority of ranches with one to one and a half stories and two to four bedrooms and one to two bedroom bathrooms the proposed home will have four to five bedrooms and five bathrooms this has been a neighborhood with modest well-maintained homes property values will impact um be impacted which will increase our taxes many of us in the neighborhood are retired and increased taxes could create a financial burden to some residents we're not opposed to a new home being built however the scale of this Home Project is out of character within a thank you this is mow of that's it that's it okay thank you for your patience everyone now is there anybody here are on Microsoft team teams that would like to speak against this application or has a specific question we're going to go to the audience and then to Microsoft teams back and forth starting with Daniel Silva please go ahead you know the drill good afternoon folks it's good to see you all my name is Daniel Silva I'm here with my wife Joanne we reside at 20 Barber Drive uh we are here in support of our neighbors and all the comments that you have read in the uh that have been read in the letters I have a couple that have a couple of concerns that have not been addressed and I don't think there's anything you nor I or anybody can do about them but I do want to uh voice my concerns anyways houses like this generally H come with an abundance of lighting for some reason and this particular lot the house will be on the pond and I'm afraid that the back of it will be lit up you know like marago but uh anyways you know we too are concerned about the pond and don't want it to lose its character Joan and I have already seen this happen with a house across White Pond that was done by another developer in town for some reason every night they did uh they need to find a need to turn on all 18 lights across the pond and it just changes whole atmosphere of the pond the other is that um I think that the applicants have been blinded by the view rightfully so have not taken into consideration uh other concerns that developers or a designer might take into account uh Shantel you haven't got a uh have you got the uh plot plan of that showing where Barber Drive is that would be Sarah okay see Dan would you like the accessor map pulled up it doesn't really show Bara Drive coming around but any when you come up Bara drive you come down the hill and it turns the corner onto a ther the cars will be coming up Bara drive going down Bara drive and going around taking a right up to the Thelma drive with the headlights on and that is primarily the side that all the windows of the house are so in the future I can see what's going to happen like so many other houses in the neighborhood is a six foot plastic Stockade Fence will be going up to protect them against that uh those lights as well as the lights coming from the neighbor on the hill across the street uh the house on sadly is going to be a bit of a fishbowl and I don't think anybody's taking that into consideration so um you really don't have a map of ABA drive so I can't show that to you up there I mean that's right but you haven't got the house on it so anyways that's all it was thank you very much thank thank you sir is there anybody on Microsoft teams now that has a specific question or wishes to speak against I know there somebody else online but I mean in the audience but I'm going to go back and forth Who's online that would like to speak against or has a specific question anyone no okay sir in the audience please go ahead and when you can you get up there um just state your name and you have five minutes at at most oh I don't need five minutes good uh my name is Mike Paige I live at 9 of Thelma drive and that's the opposite end of the the the street from 66 um I have a few points to make um but before I make them I want to welcome Damon and Lisa to the neighborhood this is a tight neighborhood we care about it very much and you've bought into a great place um with that said I hope that um we can come to a compromise that will prevent us from uh having the neighborhood feel that it's going in the direct wrong direction um in 2014 the house across street for me six of Thelma Drive was renovated it became the largest house in the neighborhood at 3,888 Square fet no one said boo no one had a problem with it great design fits in well in 2023 14 Janette Drive was renovated it is now the largest house in the neighborhood at 5,700 sorry 5 4,571 Square ft so as we can see we're having these increases uh in 2024 66 of Thelma D proposed 66 is 177% larger than the largest house in the neighborhood which is 14 Janette 14 Janette is 15% larger than the previous largest house in the neighborhood we have a homesize arm race going on and if you don't take if you people do not stop it you will ruin our neighborhood because the next house will come along and what's it going to compare itself to not my house it's going to compare itself not to 14 Janette drive or six a Thelma drive it's going to compare itself to 66 a Thelma drive and then people are going to say oh it's only 15% larger the Heralds in their defense of of their proposal state that this will be one of the biggest houses in the neighborhood that's very true but misleading if the empire State Building was located on a Thelma drive it would be considered one of the largest houses in this neighborhood and that's that is misleading so there is a tremendous amount of push back from the neighborhood we we don't like the trend and we think that the Herold should come up with a design that is has similar square footage to the house in the neighborhood we have no problem with them we have no problems with a new house in the in that location um what they've done is to create a situation where they've gone from a house that was 5700 ft to uh 53 43 Square ft this is lipstick on a pig um it's like a pair of pants that are slimming but don't actually lose any of the weight um this was horrifying to many of us when we saw the first and a slap in the face to to the to us when we saw the second proposal you got to save our neighborhood thank you thank you sir is there anybody else here or Microsoft teams that wish should speak against or has a specific question yes sir in the back hi Brian Phillips 374 Orleans Road um I the two things I want to go over I don't like it when applicants get up here and say they had no intention of tearing down the house um that they were going to save it because if there's anything really wrong with the house I would have found that a question about this application no I'm I'm just speaking out against it okay you know so I just feel like you know that applicant was being dishonest uh saying they had no intention were you just going to entertain specific questions about the application are problems that pertain to the 12 criteria that we have all right okay I guess I'll skip my second point then okay thank you anybody else here on Microsoft teams that we should speak against or has a specific question related to the things that we consider um please raise your hand seems to be none okay now questions from the board oh you you're at Rob ju just briefly if I may yeah sure um again um we had touched on uh in the uh beginning of our presentation some of the concerns on the neighbors and the most recent letters um just wanted to touch on a couple points the Heralds are appreciate the concerns they they understand the neighborhood very close-knit it's protective of its neighborhood which is great um but I think a little bit of sort of not seeing the forest through the trees in terms of we're looking at the size but what's the impact in terms of the visual impact of the pro of the property in the proposed house so as we pointed out the front of the house of facing a Thelma again 75 ft from the road it's going to be a 25 foot house as seen from the road it's not a very big structure from that side you've seen the rendering what it looks like it's not a mcmansion which apparently it's being painted out to be um the back has three levels but again that's consistent with other homes around the pond if you flipped it and that faced the Thelma yeah we're completely out of out of character of the neighborhood but that's the Pond Side and that's consistent with other homes on the pond and I think if again if this property was in the interior of the subdivision surrounded by other homes what we're proposing would be would not be compatible with the neighborhood but the pond side I think is going to lend itself to some larger properties because again you have that backside where you're not butting up against another home there's more area there you have the topography that's going to allow for the walk out this type of design so short of doing a ranch which I don't think would be really appropriate for this property either it's going to have that three-level feature from the back and so again the Heralds are not trying to create a mcmansion they think this is a design that Tim has worked very hard on and we think it's appropriate for the property in terms of its look and terms of its size thank you and thank you Council questions from the board we'll start with Dave be and this is going to just be questions no comments um I'm I reading over some of the letters uh I'm just curious because some of the um writers indicated that uh they were disappointed that um you or the Heralds had not reached out to them or to the neighborhood in in terms of their input uh from after the first uh view at the first proposal is that is that true or what's the tell tell me about that so so what happened was was after the hearing um everyone uh the Harolds the design team spent a lot of time reviewing the letters and um we had several calls after that trying to determine next steps and there was a common theme in the letters in terms of concerns about massing and height and so the determination was made based on the Andrews uh review of the grade that we could reduce that by the sighting and candidly it was there was 10 letters and we said well if we reach out to 10 people saying what could we do different we might get 10 different answers and then you're sort of chasing your tail in terms of what are the changes that you can make so we thought again there was I don't want to uh minimize the work that went in because there was really a lot of review of those letters and trying to understand the concerns and so that we thought was addressing the concerns in those letters which all seem to have sort of a common theme in terms of massing and height okay that's I that I just wanted to to get your your version of that is fine yep um okay I don't think I really have any other questions at this point how about you Ed questions uh no questions no Dave Nixon Jamie as you know I wasn't here for the first part of this uh why five bedrooms why is that necessary and I know it says it's could be a bonus room and all that kind of stuff but when I see things like that I say woo this is being made much bigger that I would imagine was necessary I I think that your client stated uh um their family is three folks is that is that correct I mean just yourm okay yeah I mean yeah anyway so why five why a five-bedroom house well I guess the answer your question is not necessary but preferred just because uh Lisa and Damon visioned this of having family come in and stay with them from out of town in the summertime okay so that's the reason daveid okay questions Paul um I have no other questions okay and Le no questions Steve um is is this is this going to be considered a full-time resident residence for the uh families this the part-time uh right now it' be part-time okay um the other question that I was going to ask has already been asked so that's it thank you okay and jenie questions yeah um Jamie I think at the beginning of so so you're right the last hearing three primarily three things height mass and fitting in the neighborhood so I want to start with height um I think at the very beginning of the presentation was talked about the fact that it was reduced five feet is that right that's correct okay so maybe I'm not reading this right but when I'm looking at A4 is it correct for me to look at the average grade 588 previous and the average grade 554 I think you need to uh David Clark's site plan would give you the accurate height Asos so I shouldn't be looking at that that's only three feet I'm sorry no if you look at David's site plan um and if I'll draw your attention to the to start with at the bottom left um we have the uh you see the proposed Ridge elevation the Box 83.2 Jenny if you see that yes and prior plan had I believe was 88.2 Ridge elevation okay so that's the 5 foot change okay all right um that's that's all I had thank you I just want to ask you um my question is about the recreation room is that like a gym up there or it looks like a gymnasium and it's it looks like people could come in off the street and work out there or something it's huge it's it's it's it's not meant for people off the street it's kind of a flex space A lot of times the space above the garage becomes a flex space some people will use it for overflow company and July 4th other people will use it as an office or college kids come in and flop there so it's really a flex space okay all right um somebody from so we can we we're done with the people from the audience so we finished with we've concluded with that portion um so I'm sorry ma'am I see I do see you there and I don't want to ignore you all right um okay Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations uh Dave V seconds and votes yes Dave oh all votes yes I vote Yes jny yes and as do I okay deliberations Jenny um I want toled that I'm sorry uh there were a lot of changes um that you made height coverage setbacks um changing the configuration the driveway I I think that uh the before and after images that you have here really um do do show the effort that was made there I um something you said Jamie appropriate for the property you know I in some ways I don't I don't disagree with that you're you're right when you're on the water you there and if you look at the some of the site plans that we have the agregate plant you'll see those are larger Lots typically and so they do they can't afford coverage wise and setback wise to have larger homes um but I look at your comparison that you gave us and I'm really struggling still with the size 5,300 Square ft it um the comment you made appropriate for the property I don't disagree with it but I I don't uh I I'm really I'm really uh concerned about appropriateness for the neighborhood I guess my only comment to that is you know a lot of the structures you're taking into account are on the inside right whereas on the Pond Side larger lot we do have one of the larger Lots in this area you you do and so I think that can withstand the additional size and again viewing it from a Thelma Drive I don't think it's going to look like a big house have you seen from the rendering and yes is it three stories three levels from the back sure but again I don't think that again that's not inconsistent with other properties around the pond and just just to be clear I I am extremely strict on the way our meetings go I'm going to even get more strict um but when our comments and our deliberations are made unless the um commenter really U wants to involve someone else meeting is closed sure my apology it's not your fault no it's it just happens a lot kind of directing some of my she was directing to you and and you appropriately responded we're not asking you to stand there like a statute so I'll I'll look this way but if we could do our deliberations Among Us that would be extremely okay um so so yes I I I do see that but I think in that neighborhood the the comment that was made by the neighbor at home property 9 UM and then Jamie you know Jamie sheet that he provided us with the gross floor area um it's by far way larger than anything that's existing today even including the ones that are on the pond okay so more deliberations uh David David V your thoughts um well I I um was happy to see the response it responses that were made to the design um the the lowering the floor which had the proposal to have have had raised it about 5et above the uh existing first floor dropping that down um um reducing the the the prior proposal was was um proposed to be the ridge was 10 feet higher than the existing and it brought that down to 5.4 ft or so the sav of some trees and the um reduction of the hardscaping some of the hardscaping was proposed initially I think is a big improvement over uh what we saw initially um I'm I'm I'm struggling to a certain extent here I I feel that that what they're proposing is in many ways is appropriate for this situation I I I mean J Jamie's um presenting that yeah this is on the pond side of the neighborhood um I I agree with that to a certain extent um and uh and and there is I think it's it is true actually I used I I I rented a house across the pond here many many years ago and uh I saw noticed it in some of the Aerials that you sent out um and there are are a number of houses around the pond and and with the that that slope that are that present three three stories or two and a half stories if you will to the Pond Side um and I and I don't think that's inappropriate necessarily and I I don't think that that is something to be held against um what they're proposing uh I it is the largest it's proposed to be the largest house in the neighborhood and um and so I'm I think I guess for me the bottom line is I I I understand and I hear the concerns of the neighbors and I think that that this is a reflection of of this being a real neighborhood and um I but I think that all said and done if this proposal were to be go forward as we've seen it project is finished everything's done I don't think it's going to stand out in a way that is um inappropriate or substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood that said I think a lot of people would be happier if they found a way to reduce it somewhat more somewhat more and and I certainly wouldn't go against that um but I think that um it's not I am in agreement I don't think it's it's not going to it's not going to appear scale sighting and mass Wise It's not going to appear to be looming over anything except perhaps the pond and there isn't actually when you get over on the other side of the pond unless you're on Agnes lane or or or one of the houses on queenanne road you're not seeing much of the back of this house I mean I've tried to look you know going down George Rider Road and I I I don't want to I need to keep my attention on the road so you can't you you can't really see from the cranberry bog side th this you don't get a Vista of this and I don't think this and I don't think the proposal uh is going to look uh uh inappropriate in that respect either so uh I I can I can support this um it's it's it's borderline but I I I think that they've made some very very good efforts all right thank you um David Nixon you going to deliberate sure yeah I'm not a voter but um to me this house is a beautiful house but this is not the correct neighborhood for this house it has been pointed out by a number of folks today uh the massing of it uh it it's just too much it's just too much and there's so much I think extra in this house whether it be the fifth bedroom or the recck room or whatnot that it's a great list of wants but not the needs in that neighborhood and so there for I believe would be substantially more detrimental and based on compatibility and massing uh I would vote no all right thank you and uh Paul your thoughts deliberations well I uh I agree that the uh changes that have been made uh from the first proposal are substantial and uh that they certainly uh mitigate the issues that uh existed with respect to perhaps uh mass and uh view from uh from the neighborhood um where I have a hangup is on the uh question of compatibility of the size of the proposed structure with neighboring properties um if we look at the gross floor area comparison uh which you have provided um we're looking at basically almost 30 properties um and the surrounding neighborhood all of which are uh substantially below the growth floor area of what's proposed here um what's proposed here is uh 5300 Square fet approximately 5343 uh the next highest in the neighborhood is at uh 4,571 um and that at 14 Janette drive and then it drops down again so really when you talk about it in comparison to size in the neighborhood uh it's substantially larger and as Mr Nixon has pointed out has a number of uh features in terms of uh the size of rooms or the uh additional rooms uh whether it's exercise room or bonus room or however you want to put it um it seems to me that those could be downsized such that the building would then be consistent with the neighborhood um so I think from my viewpoint um it does not meet that criteria and would be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood if adopted as proposed right now thank you Paul Lee okay well um I like I Echo a lot of my colleagues um first of all it is a beautiful Beau home beautiful design beautiful site um in a very very unique neighborhood it's a special neighborhood it's it's modest it's old chatam it's um obviously a very special place um I appreciate all of the um reductions uh I think it really looks fantastic um but I too am still struggling with criteria number two the compal compat compatibility of the proposed structure with the neighboring properties I think this is a neighborhood that needs to be preserved a little bit and I think if the applicants could and the architect could see a way to reduce a little bit make it fit in just a little bit better um that would be my wish okay um Ed deliberations I didn't mean to skip you just kind of skipping around uh I'm not voting tonight um so I'm going to just be brief um I feel the applicants made significant uh concessions um I could I feel it meets our criteria I feel it would be uh you know a very nice house and and I think it would look you know compatible the neighborhood um in addition um it's an R20 zoning and the lot is actually larger 24,000 square fet and if if this lot only had nine more feet of Frontage uh you wouldn't be here tonight uh you would have built the first design or something larger by right um so if I was Voting it it it would have my vote okay and uh Ed Steve sorry uh well I I uh commend the um the owners and and The Architects and all in in meeting the sitb backs and reducing the size of the house from the original by 5T but I'm a little confused by the fact that the owners originally made an effort to rehab the original house and then that was going to be acceptable for their use and they got three or four people in to take a look at at the feasibility of doing that and when that failed or when that didn't seem reasonable they decided to build something that's more than twice the size of what the existing house is so I don't I don't know how the existing house could have been okay um but then they suddenly needed something that's more than twice the size of of of of what they what they were going to look at um and then the other thing that sort of bothers me is that you know when we get these applications you always get one or two pros and cons um you know there's some letter some letters that we get that are favorable and some that are are not and sometimes we don't get any but the fact that we got probably 10 or a dozen um that that sort of weighs on on on my my um decision that I think that this would probably be detrimental to the neighborhood and it it could be scale down to almost to what they were going to try to live with originally I see I'm just going to point out one thing that I noticed um there is a an empty lot next to it and people can say no one's ever going to build there but imagine if they did it would look awful crowded you know with this big house and then even a small one next to it so so that that's somewhat concerning but um I actually agree with everything that that Mr Nixon said and uh pretty much what Paul said and what Jun has said so do you want us to vote what would you like us to do uh if I just have a moment to speak to my clients sure sure thank you for e Le okay so we're going to go to the next application as opposed to waiting and we'll get back to that one um afterwards and so I already lost my sheet no next application is um only the second one which is 144 Chad harber Lane uh number 24-1 126 with attorney Michael Ford whenever Sarah is ready application number 24-1 126 RNs nominee trust care of Michael D Ford Esquire peel box 485 West harch Mass 02671 owner of property located at 144 chat Harbor Lane also shown on the town of chadan accessories map 5B block 1 Lot 10 the applicant seeks to modify special permit number 22- 082 granted on October oober 13th 2024 which allowed for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a new dwelling the applicant now seeks to modify the special permit to allow for a new design the approved dwelling was proposed to be located 12 ft from the coastal Conservancy District the proposed dwelling will be located 14 ft from the coastal Conservancy District where a 50-ft setback is required the approved building coverage was 1,650 ft 11.5% and the proposed building coverage is 1,625 Ft 11.3% where 15% is the maximum allowed the law is non-conforming and that it contains 14,400 ft of buildable Upland or 20,000 ft is required in the R20 zoning District a special permit is required under master Law chapter 48 section 6 and14 and sections 5B and 8 D2 be a protective bylaw attorney Ford welcome uh thank you madam chairman members of the board attorney Michael Ford representing the applicant RNs uh nominee trust with me I believe online are um Sean Riley the site engineer from Ty and bond and uh also uh representatives of Catalano Associates the architects who have put together the plan that's before you tonight on the modification so in October of of 2022 after a long and arduous uh permitting uh this board uh granted a special permit to allow a single family home on this um 178,000 foot lot um most of the lot is developmentally challenged either Wetlands or in flood plane or um there's an existing house on the site and um we worked very hard with the neighborhood uh to come up with a plan um that uh everyone could support and while perhaps not everybody was uh got everything they wanted the vast majority of folks um did not object to the plan that this board approved um since that time um my clients have uh retained a new architect um uh and uh uh have moved on to a a new architect and a new Builder and as a result of that the uh plan that was approved by the board um designed by the prior architect the one of record um is is not one uh that they can proceed with at this point and so they hired uh Catalano Associates and um the goal was to design a house that was uh in all respects um in terms of mass height coverage um the same as the house that was previously uh approved um it went through many iterations among the team and um uh we were hopeful that it could be designed in such a fashion uh that perhaps um given the fact that it did not trigger any new metrics that indeed it was uh going to be 112 s square feet smaller in terms of coverage um it was going to be smaller in terms of the gross uh floor area um and uh was also going to be exactly the same height and sit on um the same footprint except getting a little bit better in terms of the setback from the coastal Conservancy District that it might not need another uh review by the board but the decision was made and I respect it that uh because the last special permit was tied to a specific plan um that this should come back here for your review um and approval and uh so that's what we've done and so we've applied for a modification and the modification uh really is to um swap out the old plan uh for the new plan and um what we' like to do is uh compare um the existing approved plan uh with the proposed plan so that the board can understand where the changes are in terms of the design again as I've indicated it's um a reduction of 112 Square fet in Gross floor area same height um little smaller in terms of lot coverage um and uh a setback of 14 ft from the coastal Conservancy District where the other one uh was 12 and so to do that the the uh plans are up on the screen the approv plan is on the bottom and uh the proposed plan is on the top and what we tried to uh the new architect tried to do was to be true to the actual design and layout in every respect they could uh while designing a new house um to uh keep it in in keeping with the the general look and feel um of the prior one this is the facing the water the last one was facing the the woods um and these are the the two ends the uh approved ones are on the right hand side and uh the proposed ones are on the leftand side so that's the change in the configuration you can see the change in the um the uh Foundation itself again we got a little smaller in terms of of the foundation in terms of lock coverage uh overall the layout of the house um inside is is a little bit different in terms of uh the way it was the last time not that you necessarily voted on that but we wanted you to see that and that's the second floor and there's the site plan and this is an interesting lot as some of you board members were on it and worked with us on it for quite some period of time there were several iterations of of houses before this one that came before the board that uh did not proceede and um uh the prior ones were uh to be located to the north uh farther away from the water but it was a neighbor's strong desire to have the house be down where um the existing house was the existing house on that site plan if you can see it is U south of the the green line um which is the the flood plane line and uh this house is actually not in the flood plane we found a spot that was not in the flood plane and we're able to get everything um in it and so for all of the development limitations that were on this lot we worked so hard on last time and got your approval and conservation's approval um it's in a good spot if if you want attorney Ford we do have your findings and um yes we we're happy to let you conclude at any point time you'd like to okay I like what I'm hearing so uh let me just get to the findings we we have them just you have them yes so they're on the record so they're on the record and I will rely on the findings that are on record and um I I think we meet um all of the findings we met them last time I think we meet them this time because we do a little bit better in terms of the metrics and last time and uh I don't think there's any other changes in terms of view Vistas or any other impacts on the neighborhood um you will read a a letter from the Conservation Commission Sean Riley has been working with them as we've been going through iterations and they feel this plan is simply a field change yeah and uh they've they've sent that letter to you so thank you so much and I I know your staff is here and if anybody has any questions we'll definitely take advantage of that great thank you thank you very much at this point is anybody here our Microsoft teams have would like to speak in favor of this application if so okay sir um step right up to the mic if there's anybody online just let me know so I can get to you next don't see anybody but we're going to wait till this gentleman favor and this is in favor just so you know sir this is this is if you have something in favor I understand okay uh Lou hi Chad Harbor Lane hi uh um we were uh the group that was involved with the prior projects uh back in 2018 uh a very contentious um uh time and in fact we're still indebted to one of the members I forget who it was who at the last minute figured out that uh the number of trees they were planting to take down which I kept saying was 25 turned out to be 130 or something so anyway that didn't happen so in 2022 Mr Ford contacted our lawyer that we had for the previous uh project in order to see if we could get together and agree as he as he said so I anticipate that this will stay in favor but we do have and several of the other neighbors have some uh clarifications we wanted to quickly go over so that you could answer so so that we don't it was a little odd and strange so is this this sounds like it's the form of questions would that be accurate do you have some questions for us yeah clarification I'm going to ask you to sit down and when we get to that part of the hearing you can ask your questions okay thank you because we have to stick to the plan and we're doing in favor now does anybody else wish to speak in favor of this application if so please raise your hand seeing none I'm going to read the letters from conservation Commission in uh Health Department first the health department tells us on Wednesday November 27th 2024 I have no concerns about the proposed changes to the special permit and that's Judith Georgio then we have a note from the Conservation Commission and they tell us on November 7th 2024 the applicant was issued in order of conditions on November 15 2022 um and uh this is they're going to revise whatever they need to in order to go ahead and um and provide for this one to go forward as well then we have a note [Music] from Nathaniel B and joy a wle and they tell us on November 26 2024 my wife joy and I write in opposition to the proposed changes of the application it's not in compliance with any of the areas of concern setback square footage and is a non-conforming lot Etc the parties were well aware of the property limitation ation upon purchase and we feel they should be held to original specifications spe specifications of the special permit of record and we all agree that the area extremely fragile and Road access in and out is very limited chadab Lane is one lane of traffic from C Cove entrance into Chad Haba Lane it continues this way until you reach the end of the road at number 144 we as neighbors are very concerned about the welfare of chadab Lane and with the issue of very large vehicles on an already fragile roadway um and a new design suggests a larger and higher dwelling then that's where the question mark we also share a concern about any work being done between the months of May and September as uh 20 plus dwellings rental summer visitors and year- round residents are affected the road sees far more traffic than most would realize due to the interest in the beach and water access to Eel River there's also a concern about access through the property to the existing seaw wall as upon construction a Stairway was required upon construction allowing for foot traffic to be allowed from the end of Chad Hab Lane onto the beach as the original owners of this property we sincerely hope all care is taken in many in making the appropriate decisions regarding this unique property and again this is Nathaniel and joy W 38358 cck Cove Road that concludes those oh wait a minute I didn't didn't see that then we have one more I'm sorry from uh John and Mary curtain from 18 Chad habane they tell us on December 4th 2024 that they're very concerned with the proposed construction of a new dwelling at 144 chadab Lane the land is fragile it's gone through ex ex extensive discussions and amendments historically the environment Road marks SE Shoreline roads trees along with a house that is not within the existing footprint on a non-conforming law creates a concern for today and more importantly tomorrow within a within a Chad haban community that has numerous generations of families which has built a strong neighborhood Bond allowing this construction not only doesn't fit with the ethos it also goes against the responsibility of the zba and chadam ethics we are not opposed to rebuilding a new home on the already Disturbed area on the old Dune to the north of the seaw wall we would like the construction to be limited to the buildable land on the Dune in our view building any structure on the wooded null would risk both an environmental and Community issue thank you for considering our concerns to this project that's that now I'm going to ask if there's anybody that has any questions or wishes to speak against this application either here or Microsoft teams please indicate and we just have that same gentleman now you're going to come go ahead sir and and you can ask your question questions when you get to the mic and just state your name one more time if you would uh louive Chad hoer Lane and as I mentioned we had worked with Mr Ford through our lawyer and basically decided to uh approve or give our approval uh the last time but we did have several of the uh our neighbors have some questions I'd like you to clarify or reassure us um so this is presented as strictly an architectural change and we just want to make sure that there wasn't because we don't This is complicated I mean you folks deal with this all the time the lawyers and the and the construction guys this their livelihood we get something in a week or gee how do we figure this out it's very complex so we just want to make sure be reassured that nothing else is under is uh you know in the fine print or something in other words anything other than this is everything else exactly as it was before all the conditions Etc is there anything they take down more trees more driveway space anything else or is it just the architectural we're going to let Mr Ford Answer that on the record it is limited to that uh Mr hve uh just the architectural uh we've tried to keep the site plan exactly as is other than make it a little bit better getting it a couple of feet farther away from uh the Coastal Bank uh but that's all the same the parking area is in the same place septics in the same place we're not cutting down that any of that stand of trees it heads back towards all of your properties that's not proposed right um the conservation plan is staying the same except for a field change for this particular plan to pick up a couple of those small things um around the foundation itself um that are shown on the on the site plan with respect to the conditions we're not seeking any change in those conditions and as you may recall and and to Mr wardell's letter uh that you read um the board imposed a four-month uh no build restriction here because of that tight Lane um so we already have a restriction no construction between June 1st and October 1st um of any kind to be allowed we're not seeking any change in that good so nor are we seeking uh uh changes in the fact that um uh any structure accessory that was a a big thing that your group wanted to make sure we weren't going to build a barn or something else anytime we want to seek an accessory structure if we do got to come to this board you get not all right then there was one more there that we're not seeking to change either that prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy for the building the culvert in the road which were charged with um repairing and and then protecting uh during the construction period shall be inspected um and restored to its current condition prior to the start of construction so um the covert is is is something Forefront in our minds first thing we're going to get at in the beginning of construction to replace it make sure it's okay and um that's tied into the certificate of use an occupancy as well because that might not necessarily be so we agreed to it as part of that um to clarify so is is there going to be work on the CT before the project starts there will be through the chair uh maybe I'll let Sean Riley answer that I do the chair okay and then we're gonna we're g we're almost at five we passed five minutes so this is the amount of time he talked to count for that five minutes no I know that but we have we have rules and um we're going to let by the word we're going to let the professional answer that question um because I have now U acknowledged him and then we're going to stop this thank you madam chair um Sean Riley Ty and bond for the record representing the applicant uh I I believe that the condition was to um review the condition of the Culvert uh we are going to Plate the roadway over the Culvert for the heavy traffic we are to monitor that Culver's condition throughout Construction and then provide a report uh at the completion of construction to ensure that um there's no degradation to that Culvert uh so that was the condition that was was imposed okay thank you okay and thank you I ask one can I ask one less than a minute one more question please go ahead so the the the um I tell me if I'm wrong but when you I think the house is going to be moved a little bit so it says it's going to be the same height but if the the height meaning from the ground to up in the air uh if you've moved it to a higher place it's going to be a little higher I just wanted to ask the same site Mr Riley filed a height elevation certificate and it is still 29 and you can look at that online sir okay okay thank you appreciate it thanks a lot yep just through the chair if I could just share my screen real quick I think I clear I think we I think we're all set with that CU we've well exceeded the five minutes for that one and um we're going to move on but thank you um it's okay so where are we um questions from the board oh no did you have any rebuttal um from any of the letters uh uh the first letter the first letter from the wardell's there their biggest concern I think is the road and I just wanted to remind everyone that there's a four-month period that there could be no construction trucks in there okay that's right okay so questions from the board David vich does any any body have questions we're going to do it that way for this one since we already heard this one recently does anyone have any questions no Paul please go ahead I'll I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations Dave V second and votes yes I vote Yes all votes yes any votes yes as do I okay deliberations Jenny um I agree with Mr Ford this does not appear to have triggered any new metrics in fact there are three improvements that I want to make sure Mr Hy um here's the improvements were to setbacks coverage and gross floor area so I uh would approve okay uh Steve deliberations yeah I I don't have any problems with this it's not often that somebody comes in and asks for a reduction from the original proposal I know it's very small but um I don't have any issues with this I think it's a good project great Lee yeah I agree with my colleagues I think it's um I like the new design a lot um I think it's a sleeker simpler design um it's more beachy and it fits in very well at this site very good PA yes we're very familiar with this lot we spent a lot of time on it over the years and uh we're familiar with the design I think it's an improvement I don't think it's substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and Mr Nixon no comment no comment okay um go ahead Ed new issues and uh yet another example of Mr Ford's office bringing us a reduction in uh the size of a waterfront property uh what else was there to say and taking it out of the flood zone boo okay so uh Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into Del Liberation we already did that we did that bye golly 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 neighboring property with the permission of the property owner between June 1st and October 1st no construction activity of any type shall be so Allowed no any excuse me any structure accessory to the single family dwelling shall require approval from the zoning board of appeals and for prior to the issuance of a certificate of use in occupancy the cul shall be inspected and restored to its original condition current condition excuse me prior to the start of construction Dave V seconds and votes yes and Dave Nixon well I vote Yes but I don't think we need to go through the conditions again we already did I know it but nothing changed okay well all votes yes J Jenny votes yes as do I it's unanimous congratulations thank you very much appreciate your time thank you okay we're g to just finish up with our prior application 66 of Thelma and then we're going to take a five minute break so welcome back Mr Norcross thank you appreciate your patience um in talking to the uh herols and their design team there's some uh changes they can make that they think will address the concerns from the board so uh in terms of reducing the size um their preference would be to have a continuance if the board be willing to grant that we're going to have to see okay um does anyone U want to speak against that idea of a continuance go ahead David Nixon yeah I think you know it's already been continued once not twice because what happens is not only is it a waste of our time but it backs up other people who could be in line so I understand what you're saying but I think uh this needs to be withdrawn rethought through and resubmitted does anybody else agree with Mr Nixon you can because then we'll know we we're GNA what we're going to do um I'm going to agree with them so we ask you to withdraw okay sure then I would ask if we uh could withdraw without prejudice please absolutely Paul I'll move to Grant the requested withdrawal without prejudice Dave each seconds and vote Yes I vote Yes all votes yes jinny Jenny votes yes as do I actually that was Lee That was supposed I vote Yes okay thank she did I'm sorry it's okay that's okay that's okay so at this juncture we're going to take a f minute break and we will be back with um 170 Vineyard Avenue on the other side e can't s people ni meet over don't you e e to right heard what's happening back e [Music] two yeah okay we are back this is the continuation of the zoning board of appeals meeting on December 5th 2024 and our next application is 24-1 122 David Briggs car of James Norcross 170 vigard Dev whenever s is ready application number 24122 David Briggs care of James M Norcross Esquire PO Box 707 chadam Mass 02633 owner of property located at 170 vineard Avenue also shown in the town of chadam assessor map 10d block 4 lot D14 the applicant seeks to enlarge extender change a non-conforming dwelling at a non-conforming lot via the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a new dwelling the existing dwelling is non-conforming and it is located 13.99 ft from the Westerly of butter and entirely within the coastal Conservancy District flood plan elevation 11 the proposed dwelling will be non-conforming and that it will be located entirely within the coastal Conservancy District where a 50ft setback is required also proposed is the reconfiguration of an existing driveway as Allowed by special permit the existing building coverage is 1 276 ft 68% and the proposed building coverage is 1,582 Ft 84% where 15% but not more than 2,800 ft is the maximum allowed the LW is non-conforming and then it contains 1,877 ft² of buildable Upland where 20,000 ft is required in the R20 zoning District a special permit is required under master General Law chapter 4A sections 6 a and 9 and sections 5B and 8 D2 be of the protective bylaw attorney Norcross welcome back thank you uh good evening now I guess uh Jamie Norcross representing David Briggs um the architect Gordon Clark is participating remotely I believe he's on there along with Kieran Healey who is uh from BSC group who's the engineer um so Mr Briggs bought this property back in May of 2023 uh and as Sarah uh read The Proposal is to raise the existing structure and to build a new structure um it's a unique property uh as it's 15,000 ft in size which doesn't make it unique in it of itself but only uh about 1,800 square feet is located outside of the flood plane as you see the line go through uh the site plan um the lot is located in the R20 zoning district and therefore non-conforming as to size and as a result uh of the size and the uh flood plane location it lacks the required amount of buildable Upland um the existing structures non-conformity is non-conforming excuse me is Loc with the setback to the West lot line and as a result of the property being located within the flood plane it's over the allowable building coverage if you saw the building coverage numbers look a little bit scary it's not nearly as large as what's shown there but that's based on uh 1,00 square fet of the lot being outside the flood plane the uh proposed structure will meet all dimensional setbacks and will meet the height requirement of the zoning bylaw uh the footprint of the structure is increasing by only about 300 square feet and as a result uh of the vast majority of the lot being located uh within the flood plane it will remain non-conforming as the building coverage in terms of those numbers again if you're going off the um Upland which is 1800 square feet our numbers are 68% currently 84% but again I think that's a little well a lot deceiving if you go off the size of the lot 15,000 square feet the existing coverage is 88.5% and the proposed is 10.6 so it's really not that big of a change in terms of the footprint of the structure uh a couple aspects to High light relative to the setbacks in the building height uh the street setback to Vineyard AV is at 26 ft as you see on uh kieran's plan uh this is measured to the stairs for the proposed deck on the first floor if measuring to the house itself the setback is well over uh 30 ft uh similarly the setback to the West slot line uh the back of the home is just over 15 feet which again is to the uh the deck uh as measured to the home it's an additional 10 ft or so off that lot line so about 25 ft off the back Pro property line in terms of the height um the ability to adjust is limited based on the structure being in the flood plane um based on building code requirements and if you have questions on this Kieran can explain it much better than I but first floor elevation for this property would essentially be have to be up at elevation 14 uh in this case the elevation is about a foot and a half higher than that which is to allow sufficient head room for the drive under garage so while the structure is going up in height this is largely driven by the flood plane requirements um the applicant has tried to keep the height down as much as possible um there's 8 foot ceiling Heights in the first floor and 7 foot six ceiling Heights on the second floor and as you see from a lot of your plans that's uh pretty modest by current standards for ceiling Heights um seems to be my lot my lot in life tonight there's a lot of letters that you're going to read so um objection to the additional living area uh well one of the concerns excuse me was the additional living area on the first and second floor and um response to this is the fact that the basement cannot be used for any living area or for Mechanicals it does result in an increased area on the first and second floor as you're trying to have some additional living space you have to place the Mechanicals can't go in the basement so that creates a larger footprint than if you could use that basement for some of those aspects um Gordon if you could uh please just go through the design for the board Gordon might not be there um well if he shows up we'll have him go through that otherwise U moving along to the criteria number one adequacy of the size of the site um applicant believes the size of the site is adequate for the proposal uh as I mentioned the structure will meet all dimensional setbacks and the height requirement of the zoning bylaw um as I mentioned also uh total uh coverage if we're looking at 15,000 square feet our lock coverage is 10.6% our building coverage so again it's not huge numbers at all in terms of coverage looking at the actual size size of the lot as opposed to just the area that's outside the flood plane compatibility of the size of structure with neighboring properties again we have some letters that um I guess disagree with this conclusion but we think it's rather compatible in terms of size U many of the homes along Vineyard AV and the surrounding areas were originally built in the 50s but a number of them have been renovated and rebuilt in the last 20 years um the gross floor area analysis that's submitted with this unlike the prior application I was here for tonight we're very much consistent with the numbers that you in the neighborhood in terms of gross floor area and our lot size um 15,000 square ft is also quite consistent excuse me with lot size in the area um the height is going up by 5 feet as I mentioned uh a lot of that is due to the flood plane building requirements and the footprint is only increasing by 300 Square F feet extent of the proposed increase in non-conforming nature um our building coverage numers going up because we're increasing by 300 ft that's the only additional non-conformity suitability of the site uh we believe it's suitable for the project construction work can be completed without negative impact on the neighboring properties it was reviewed favorably by the Conservation Commission and you have a letter from the planning board who had no issue with the gravel driveway I should mention on the gravel driveway in terms of impervious surface the it will remain a gravel as opposed to Asphalt and the size is actually going to be reduced by about 500 square F feet there's a portion of the driveway at the back that's going to be taken away there's a portion that goes over onto the the neighboring property that's going to be removed I should also mention the ship shed that you see in the back that's not on our property that's going to be removed as well uh and that was a condition of the Conservation Commission impact of scale sighting in Mass neighborhood visual character and a lot of this I've addressed I mean I think it's going up in height I don't think the overall height really is is significant it's listed as I believe it's 29 ft but again that's measured from average grade excuse me lowest adjacent grade is what you have to do in the flood plane so that sort of skews the overall height numbers a bit if you measured it from uh average grade which is what you traditionally do if a lot not in the flood plane our height is around 26 ft um setbacks as I mentioned um were 26 feet to the stairs on the front over 30 feet if you measure to the house uh the footprint size is not increasing uh by much at all 300 square fet and the Topography of the lot sort of lends itself to number one the drive under garage that's being constructed um we can't touch the the grade essent because it's in the flood plane so that's really a natural feature there's one there now we're going to keep the drive under garage and there's similar Lots in the neighborhood that have a drive under garage and the topography also as viewed from Vineyard AV in front of the home the the grade is higher there which again I think limits the impact of the additional size of the home the structure is seen from the West so the back lot line where the shed is clearly that shows the most massing uh however that side of the property contains significant vegetative screening and there is a vacant lot uh between the property looks look like it's an unbuildable lot between uh our lot line and Horseshoe Lane which uh screens the additional size uh we're compatible single family residence and residential neighborhood uh property will be connected to town steart has Town water and will have appropriate drainage uh8 nine and 10 again we comply with all those requirements it's not a formula business 12 uh in this case I do have to address uh extent of the lateral expansion proposed as I mentioned it'll have a lateral expansion of 300 ft um this expansion again as I mentioned is uh largely to because we can't have any Mechanicals or living area in the basement the extent to which the lateral expansion impacts the impervious area of the site uh we believe it have a NE negligible impact in the impervious area of the site other improvements being made including a reduction of the existing gravel driveway by 500 square ft and the um construction of a flood compliant Foundation I would suggest offset this increase and result in net benefit so in uh summation it's it's bigger than what's there now again I think some of the height numbers that you see again if you look at it from average grade as opposed to lowest adjacent grade it's not as tall as it may seem um when measuring from lowest adjacent grade and I think given the topography and the lot it can support uh the design so with that we'd be happy to answer any questions oh thank you is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application if so please raise your hand seeing none none okay I I will read the correspondences um we have three from internal agencies and then one two three four five six seven eight from people in the community and I only need to read seven out of the eight because one of the people is going to address us um in person so AR Arthur spru the chair of the um planning board tells us that the planning board met November 25 2024 and they reviewed the request for comment um after the the board voted uh unanimously to send a positive recommendation with the condition that the driveway shall be constructed of a of permeable material and shall be constructed in a manner which permits the unobstructed flow of water and if we have any questions we should contact the town planner Christine Grady next we have a note from the Conservation Commission from November 7th 2024 they tell us that if the project is approved the project will be revised and condition to meet the performance standards under the wetlands protection act and all other other appropriate uh acts and then we have a note from Judith Georgio a health agent she reviewed the plan to demolish in the existing dwelling and build a five-bedroom dwelling at this property the dwelling must be connected to sewer as part of the approval for the five-bedroom dwelling they are not increasing the sewer flow at the property and that was received on 1127 2024 next we have a note from Larry Pim Palmerton and that was received on December 3 2024 um let's see he tells us that the proposed excessive expansion of the structural dimensions and lot coverage that were published by the zoning board are unacceptable in any situation in addition what has not been readily apparent is that the height of the new structure is estimated to be about 7t taller than the current house representing a 30% increase finally ponding of water already occurs in the back of the lot heavy rains which will be made worse with potential runoff occurring to Neighborhood neighboring lots and to the freshwater Pond nearby will ultimately Le lead to Oyster River while while in particular cases there may be justification for varying the standards of zoning and conservation however that does not apply to this property a minor amount of due diligence by the recent new owner would have revealed that the current structure is non-compliant and that the lot is severely undersized for development and that the property is located within the coastal conserv District this owner is now apparently asking the community to accept a proposal that exceeds in his out of character with the community standards of the streetscape it's also worth noting that local developers of nearby properties have worked with the neighborhood oer River Hills Association from the early planning stages they have made compromises and gain the neighborhood support and zba approvals this type of discussion has not occurred with the proposal for 170 Vineyard while simple maintenance of the exterior has been absent and an and it's been an eye swore to the neighborhood only a new structure of substantially the same dimensions coverage and character as the current structure would be supported and he lives at 50 horo Lane next we have a note from the Oyster River ass Association also Robert Adamo president 11 Meadow View Road in chadam this letter is in was written on 122 2024 and they are informing us um that the board of directors of the oyster Hill Rivers Association has recently reviewed plans for the proposed Redevelopment of the property at 170 Vineyard um which the O RHA is in a butter they um have 41 residents along Meadow View Road and secondary streets extending from Bon Hill Road and ending app but not including vigy AV the association owns a narrow passel of common land that ABS 170 and it's boarded by other the other side um and um along the Southwest rear corner of 170 it's low-lying area that drains onto the association common area in and our private storm drainage system um the O ha roads and Stor storm water drainage systems are private and owned and maintained by the Association our input includes uh two specific areas environmental the drainage is of concern given the increased size and excessive coverage of the proposed structures in the buildable area of the lot compared to current structures during heavy rains ponding will will uh develop um and the on the association partial and that'll be exacerbated the lot should be regraded at the Southwest Conner to retain all storm water runoff uh on the 170 Vineyard lot the proposed house is showing excessive decks in the front and rear which creates more impervious runoff and increases the massing of the structure which in comparison to other homes in the neighborhood um consider reducing these decks next shed the association previously agreed to relinquish rights to the shed if it were demolished by the new owner the deadline for removal was established as July 2 24 no action was taken uh notice was sent to the owner at this time the association proposes purchasing the shed I don't think this is particularly relevant um so I am going to conclude that they uh they do not they do not speak for individual abutters they speak for this Association okay Huntley Harrison 154 vgv writes to us I'm writing on let's see um recently I am writing to express my concern with the proposal to enlarge and otherwise make changes to this non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot I not an architect but there is just so much wrong with these plans the proposed house is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood it is much too large for the lot in an imposing design first and second floor F length decks in a garage portion that looks like an attached second house the house is taller than the existing house the north North drywall placement for the downspouts in the flood plan are in the flood plane um and it's very close to my property um with five bedrooms put undue stress on the sewer with a question mark frankly I have great concern about these proposed changes the interior design of the house with five bedrooms and four and a half Bo looks suspicious suspiciously like a rental setup for a house that will soon be flipped this is a quiet neighborhood and a rental and a rental capable of housing that me many people would not that they wouldn't welcome that um also so far the owner has shown little interest in upkeep of the property he is not in he has not had any Goodwill with the neighbors a tree fell in the front yard and it's still sitting there untouched a lot currently looks it looks abandoned I truly feel that the way this house is currently designed and the way the owner has kept up the property does not bode well now or in the future with the neighbors or the neighborhood at large uh thank you in advance for considering my my note um next we have a note from 170 Vineyard Road no let's see from 58 Horseshoe Lane Peter van amson he writes to tell us that in reference to this application he's the abutter at 58 horseshoe um he would like to express three concerns The Proposal provides an increase in total LW coverage 33% higher 33.1 given the almost entire lot with is in the flood plane and the lot is uh within the 100 foot buffer to the pond it's extremely important that drainage is properly engineered this coverage is 262 per of the lot excluding Conservancy District um the plan should require engineering confirmation that drainage post construction is adequate not to not and not worse than it is today the current plans as presented do not give any indication about that front and rear elevation plans drawings for the proposed structure are inconsistent with the second floor plan the second floor indicated finished space with a normal height ceiling for the entire floor plate the elevations show a gap between the northern and southern portion of the second floor the proposed PL show a new building will be visually much more imposing than the current home the proposed structure has a FL plate that is 24% larger and 100% larger at full second floor height in addition to being 4 to 6 feet taller at full height than the conr the current home um there are no measurements for total elevation of current homes uh provided given that the lot is non-conforming a total of 15,000 square fet where 20 ft 20,000 is of buildable Upland is required the existing building envelope should not be so significantly significantly exceeded next we have a note from Allison C but she is going to speak to us in the flesh in a moment um next we have a note from December 1st 2024 from Carol Campbell she lives at 200 vignard AV and she's writing in regard to this project it's the first time I've written in objection to any building issue on my street in general I support all the neighbors efforts to upgrade and improve homes and all recent work on my street has been designed in keeping with the existing character of the street the proposed plans for 170 in my opinion are not in character with the rest of the street or even with the town of chadam the proposed home takes up nearly the entire lot crowds the neighboring homes is extremely close to the street and overbearing and unattractive in effect it consists of not one but two multi-story buildings which is an excessive which is excessive and unnecessary my extended family lives in a commun Community uh in New in New Jersey so I am very familiar with the strategy of building a mini mansion on a quad rake a lot I think most of us are here because we wish to avoid that particular aesthetic I understand that the property owner wishes to get a return on their investment but their failure to do due diligence is not the problem of the residents of vigy Av I believe that their indifference to the neighborhood is well demonstrated by the current complete neglect of the property I hope you'll take this into consideration next we have a note from Tom Beneva 150 Meadow View Road in chatam received November 29th 2024 I am in receipt of your letter of November 14 2024 concerning the application for David Briggs for a special permit um I have reviewed the material provided online including the site plan based on my review I want to to express my strong objection in B lettuce to the project as currently conceived several years ago we renovated and expanded our house into a yearr round residence we also needed approval from the zba and I vividly recall that our plans were evaluated in a lodge poot on whether our modified house would maintain the character of the neighborhood and whether it would be architecturally consistent with other nearby houses in short whether or not it will improve the aesthetic of our beautiful town I believe the current plan fails on all these counts it appears to take current non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot and make it doubly non-conforming with all respects simply put the house is simply too large for the size of the lot most offensive in my view it is that the proposed height of the house which adds some 10 feet to the existing house virtually across its entire length I hope the zba takes this opportunity to prevent this kind of tasteless Construction since the property changed hands it has become in the eyes of many and eyes saw through the lack of Maintenance and neglect I would be it would be a tragedy if every if one I saw was replaced by another through the issuance of a special permit next we have a shter note from Judy Patterson from 119 vigard AV I'm writing to express my concern um the new structure will be in the flood zone the house does not fit with the character of the neighborhood it's way too big I'm concerned after looking at the current plans the owner may decide to put an apartment in within the house I would like my comments to go on record as I oppose the size and design of this house um and that could be it it is just make sure that had some pictures attached so now we will say is there anybody here are on Microsoft teams which who wishes to ask a question or to speak against and I will recognize Alison car please go up to the mic thank you madam chairman um ours is another one of those neighborhoods that needs a little bit of protection from Super sizing the houses on our street are one and twostory homes several one-story homes which I don't think I realized until I specifically watched when I went up and down for a dog walk if you start at Smith Street and head down the water where we have a town landing we're about 50% occupied year round it's a friendly neighborhood we know each other we're friends with each other we know each other's kids our dogs are friends odd but it's true but it's modest and this design is not it is a significant increase in size I agree with my neighbors criticisms it's also not a Cape Cod style home those Decks that sit way above street level to me look like a pan Gallery as someone who would stop and chat with all of the neighbors right how do you stop and chat with somebody who's up a half story um it's really inconsistent with the rest of the design most of the home we've lived here for about 20 years full-time we've owned our property for almost 24 most of the homes going Smith Street on down have been at some point expanded or renovated uh they've gone from 50s Cottages to year round home homes but they've been done modestly and this current plan is not modest I don't think many of our homes have five bedrooms four and a half beds um the let's see I'll leave the conservation issues to other people but I share and would Express personally my concern about fit and character of the neighborhood it's a lovely neighborhood it's a modest neighborhood and this house really does not make any sense thank you thank you Miss and anybody else wants to ask a question or has uh a comment uh against this application online or here I don't see any oh yes sir please okay well okay you have to wait till you get to the mic and we'll give you one minute since I read your Letter's the guy there is that Mr no uh Huntley Harrison 154 Vineyard Avenue in chatam uh just a brief comment I think the owner by not being here has spoken very loudly uh about his can can we just stick to the criteria and not personal attacks you know we we gave you a chance we read your letter if I had known you wanted to talk as well but if just add in any anything that has to go with the criteria um are you familiar with the criteria that we consider nothing on the criteria all right thank you thank you anybody else here wishes to speak against the application or has a specific question seeing none we will go to questions from the board David if I made yes yes I apologize problem I always forget that Kieran if you don't mind if you could just explain a couple things um number one the height in terms of how the flood plane uh impacts what can happen in terms of the um first floor elevation and then also if you could explain um the drainage uh features that you've put on the property to address any issues relative to runoff I think you're muted is that better yes uh good evening for the record my name is Kieran hey I'm a land surveyor with the BSC group representing yor um to speak specifically about the drainage uh we have provided um two 500 gallon dry Wells with four feet of stone all the way around them on one on the North side and one on the South Side uh that is a substantial volume of water and is more than adequate to capture the entire rain runoff that might come off of this particular building um on the regards to the building height um the uh flood zone in this area's elevation 11 um the new bass building code requires uh what's known as twoot of freeboard which is twoot of safety and that is down to the um lowest water resistant uh material which means that the joists need to be above that elevation so we have elevation 11 for the FEMA flood zone two foot of safety puts at a 1 and then one more foot for the joist so that's a minimum floor level of 14 that doesn't give us any room for duct work in the basement our crawl space area so of where the garage is so as a result the building is at 15 to allow that um duct walk to be placed and comply with the FEMA regulations this also allows the drive on the garage to meet the the same as the existing building has that drive on the garage um other than that i' be glad to answer any other questions you may have great thank you Kieran um just a couple points um we heard some numbers on the height the actual increase in height is around five feet not seven or 10 and as you've heard from Kieran um a lot of that vast majority of that is impacted by the requirements of the flood plane construction I understand it's a bigger house that's one that that is than is what then what exists now excuse me but I don't think it's as big as people are making it out to in terms of the uh square footage it's 300 square feet uh larger than what's there now um the height is going up by 5T um the design I guess folks might have an issue with with the design but I don't think that really goes to the massing of the structure um the deck on the second floor facing Vineyard AV um there's a peak of the water from there so that was the intent of the deck I think the decks also allow for some exterior area uh for recreation because again in this lot you can't do any change of the gr there's not a whole lot of lawn area so that allows an area for the folks that recreate in the front and the back um as they're a bit limited on the lawn space so uh with that I'd be happy to answer any questions all right thank you um questions from the board uh Steve um well I guess the first thing I would like to know is um apparently the owners own this house since last May I believe 23 yes can you can someone explain why it hasn't been maintained in a year and a half I mean you can still maintain an unoccupied house and make it look like something other than what that house looks like right no I appreciate that um the plan was to have uh plans done uh far earlier than they were actually completed so I think Mr Briggs was relying on the fact he thought he'd have stuff submitted and up and running a long time ago and unfortunately not uh having a house down here already he's not nearby but again doesn't excuse the condition but that's the explanation it just took far longer to get the plans done than he anticipated and is there access direct access from I guess the main house to the area area that's above the garage uh there is access from the first floor to that area there is not access on the second floor to that area a Stairway there's a stairway from the first but there's not access from the second floor okay uh as Mr Briggs explained his stop process there was having a guest area if folks are saying that they could have a little bit of privacy okay it's not intended for an apartment to address one of the concerns that was RA all right and then the other thing maybe maybe you know it's just uh a typo I don't know but on page um A1 which is the first floor plan there is what is um called a master bathroom sort of in the lower right hand corner of the of the page and then so I would assume the the bedroom that is that has access to the master bath is also a master bedroom or a primary bedroom and then there's also another master bedroom or primary bedroom and a master bath which appears to be above the garage so are there two primary bedrooms and bathrooms I see Gordon Clark has joined us on uh the architect so I may ask him to address that question please Gordon yeah frequently when we do um homes on uh the cape or uh as second homes um a lot of times we'll design a house with with the ability to have two uh master suites and uh the first floor master bedroom uh is smaller the second one is larger um sometimes they're used um as a guest room um uh depending on um the ability of the owner to get to the second floor if they don't have that ability then they can use the first floor uh bedroom they expressed a a desire Mr Briggs to have a you know a second floor Master Suite which was a little bit more elaborate um and separate from the rest of the house um and we had labeled the other one as a as a second master um essentially that's that's the reason behind the labeling I don't know if that answers your question adequately but that that was that was the the thought behind it okay no I appreciate that thank you thank you okay questions Lee I don't really have any questions thank you okay Paul no questions David Nixon no questions and Ed Acton questions no questions no and David V questions yeah so I just have a a couple of questions so Jay is that I two footer free board is this something new on on the flood plane regulations or the new building code which is mandatory as of uh July 1st 2025 would be 2et of free board in an a Zone rather than one foot okay but that's to the lowest floor that's not to the bottom of the joist so to the floor the lowest floor not to the joist okay correct so given that at elevation 11 they could put that floor if the and meet the requirements at elevation 14 they could I would never encourage anyone to lower a floor in a flood plane just because we don't know what's going to happen Road no I mean I think it makes sense for them it could to go uh you know to the bottom of the joice it probably makes more sense in in many respects um and also Jay just to because the the plan wasn't to mention in that regard but um there's kind of an awning over the entry to the garages and and uh that needs to be two is it if it doesn't Exceed 2 feet in width and it doesn't count on ground coverage is that true two feet in depth yes if it if it does exceed two feet in depth it it has to count toward okay well just to flag that for the thank you and just to reiterate on the building coverage the building coverage isn't taken on the whole lot it's taken on the Upland portion of the lot so I know sometimes people compare it to the whole lot but no all of the and the as the ad States those percentages are relative to the buildable uplet right right okay um and uh I think those are the questions I have okay great anybody anybody else no um Paul oh I'm sorry I'm sorry to you no it's okay Jamie you you mentioned in your narrative you know that the changes are kind of minimal right increase to gross floor area is only 151 square feet um that's not true sorry Jenny I I noticed that and it's not true if you go into further into the um uh the information on on the sheets the gross floor area they're proposing is 4746 not 3164 okay well the I couldn't figure out how they could get 300 Square 316t increase in footprint and only 151 didn't add up I guess here's I if I explain some of the uh so the basement isn't count toward the growth floor area because it's in the flood plane so that's how it come up with the 3,000 and change I I understand that but but gross floor square footage was as applied to the initial basement it was ENC counted as oh say okay yeah so I I understand so that's wasn't I mean that's where the number comes from in terms of the definition but yeah yeah but that that's I think another one of those modifications we can make yeah we don't need it made in the presentation as if it were that were the case when we asked for gross gross square footage that's what we asked for so okay okay oh thank you Dave because I I was looking at the information on that cover sheet and I couldn't reconcile how it was not you know it the image of it is so much larger than the original that I was couldn't reconcile that um okay so um so my question is that's related to the was one of the reasons the heighten has to go up which is part of the objection to the size and the mass is um because of the flood plane so was there consideration to renovating this property was that why wasn't that possible um because then you could keep the height down uh Gordon could you explain the interior ceiling Heights in terms that option yeah the existing house um on the first floor I believe we had a seven 7' 6 uh 7 fo4 to 7 fo6 ceiling height um the floor Jo were less 2 by8 um the basement had so little height in it you couldn't even you had the duck to go underneath the Girt in there so the house was lower on the on the lot if you look at the height I think the height to the ridge from the height of the the floor of the garage uh is 24 ft um on the second floor um this had a 912 pitch on the roof on the second floor there wasn't even legal Headroom for a bedroom under current code it's only 611 uh so it doesn't even meet the code for um you know for height I believe you have to have a minimum of 7 ft um which this house does not have the windows on the front of the house if you look at it are set at 5'4 off the floor you can't even look out the windows if you're standing up in the house unless you're you know quite short uh so a lot of this the existing house there were a lot of Impractical reasons to renovate it if we if there was a renovation we did look at it we measured the house and Drew the whole house looking at it to renovate it but the Foundation is in such poor uh uh you know such poor condition there there's cracks in it there's diagonal stress cracks in it uh evidence of you know water leakage into it um it's concrete block instead of pour concrete if we were to add any second floor uh additional loads to it we would have had to uh either Jack the whole house and take it off the foundation and replace the foundation or put structural supports on all the way around the perimeter of it which we've done that in some cases if the structure was worth saving um the dimensions of the house aren't a whole lot different other than the height the existing house including the deck thats out 4 ft is about 58 ft long uh the proposed house is 59 ft some change um the height is uh from the from the where the grade uh where the floor in the basement is is I believe 4T higher the existing house is 26 ft wide um the proposed house is 28 ft so we we increased it by 2 feet um so the although this house uh looks larger from on the face um if we were to try to make this house with 28 28t base um a standard C and we would to used a 1212 pitch which a lot of standard capes uh use right now we would have been 2 fo n over the 30 foot limit of the of uh building limit so we we couldn't we couldn't use a a standard uh just gable roof which would match what's there now so we went to the Gambrell style design to keep the height of the house down um given the flood plane you can't average the grade either you have to take it from the lowest point um on the on the lot if it's in the flood zone if it's a standard lot and that's not on the flood plane you can average the grade so we would have had a little bit more room to work with so we had a number of issues that we had to deal with to try to get a workable house and like I say the house was in such bad condition that's why we didn't oh Gordon I think they've uh she's happy with the answer thank you yeah well oh no sorry if you're not you definitely ask another one yeah I wanted because you were mentioning the the ceiling heights were inadequate in the in the renovation idea as well as a number of other things I heard that yeah we kept ceiling Heights at the first floor is eight is is we did increase that to 8 ft which is not an unusual height the second floor is only 7 fo6 okay and that leaves a minimal amount of height left to put any HVAC equipment we have to have the utilities out of the basement right now the furnace is in the basement yeah we had to we lost a um pretty sizable little space on the first floor for utility room because we had to put the furnace and the water here and you know the utilities pretty much in the center of the house up in the first floor so okay I hope this answer the question yes thank you it you did thank you pleas questions did I ask you oh yes I'm sorry Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations uh Dave seconds and votes yes Dave Nixon all votes yes JY votes yes as do I okay deliberations Jenny we'll just go right back to you okay well kind of where I was going with my questions was to try to reconcile this I mean this is proposed and this is existing and it's hugely different and then I'm looking at the numbers are not that different and so we are talking about 5T in height because of the plane which is why I asked about the possibility of renovation because that's really part of the issue is the height that you need to have your sealing Heights um at 8 feet first floor which is what I think I heard the architect say and 76 on the second floor is not outrageous um but I am having a hard time reconciling that because I um do not think it fits this particular uh proposal fits in that neighborhood Steve deliberations uh well you you know again we're we're we have a neighborhood of you know pretty um you know tidy kept Cape Cod style Ranch houses and um you know sort of traditional uh Cape houses and um the design of this I don't want to insult anybody but it's awful as far as I'm concerned you think the M are you talking about Ming basically um I I don't this house doesn't fit into the neighborhood whatsoever I don't think okay um so I think it's detrimental to everything that's around it all right and we're goingon to go right over to Dave Beach for another aspect of uh ideas well I I'm sorry to I I need to elaborate a little bit on on that to some degree I so overall and I and and and I think that the neighbors concerns are reflect this I'm sorry this house does not fit the neighborhood it doesn't fit the neighborhood and um it's so it's in so first of all it's the the upper pitch of the roof is three and a half in in in 12 which is pretty shallow if under normal circumstances now I understand they have to meet the the thir requirement from the the lowest average or lowest grade but that's the condition that they need to meet and they have made the decision and not an unwise decision to elevate the first floor level above what they need to do in order to meet the requirements of the code they've added an extra foot and a half or so um and I don't think that's necessarily a bad idea but the the overall effect of this house is this is a two-story house a full two-story house with some appli basically applied um rakes and and and some things on the uh exterior to help break it up and make it appear to be a Gambrell but it's really visually for it looks a little bit squashed down it which it is and it's a it's basically a full twostory if you look at the dimensions of the second floor and the first floor they are the same so those walls the the the Dormers if you will on the second floor are are in the same plane as the walls on the first floor and um you know sometimes that can work and it's a it's a tricky thing but if those rakes if those built out Eaves are not substantial enough in appearance then it looks like a two-story house that's been tried to look like a one and a half or one and 3/4 also I don't think having those the the the those decks um the size of those decks the extent of those decks the deck on the back fine but the front of the house it just adds to it adds to the visual impact of it and I can't I don't go all up and down that street and that whole whole neighborhood and I don't see anything that this is that I could say that this relates to uh and so for that reason um I I I can't support it Ed deliberations um if you were voting if I was Voting I have to say I agree with Dave um I think there is a way to you know take some of The Hideout uh you it's in the flood plane so you're not allowed to put any utilities in the basement uh if your if your hbac is going to be on the first floor I don't think you need to put duck work in the basement you can simply run it up the walls put it in the ceiling and there's a foot you can reduce right there um in addition the the applicant should should speak to the neighbors and and should you know have their input uh I agree the the decks on the front of the house are are not in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood so it wouldn't have my vote as well all right David Nixon yeah I'm not going to uh belabor this uh the three individuals who spoke before me said at all actually four four okay four now we'll go to Five we and then we'll go to Paul after that I'll I'll be I'll be very brief as well I I agree with Dave be um the mass is Criterion number five it's the mass and I I think it's it's the height which unfortunately is um because of the flood zone but um I think the the porches on the front I think it adds to the mass I think the two-story garage adds to the mass and um I'm not voting on this one but I would have trouble supporting it Paul yeah I agree with the prior comments so criteria five um the applicant says there will be no negative impact on neighborhood visual character there will be negative impact on neighborhood visual character and it will be detrimental substantially sub detrimental to the neighborhood so I don't think this design fits at all with anything else sits on the street Mr Norcross um uh hearing that we asked if we may uh withdraw without prejudice please sure I'll move to Grant the requested withdrawal without prejudice David second and vote Yes and Mr Nixon you vote Yes for withdrawal without prejudice I do all vote Yes yes as do I um thank you so much all right does anyone need a break or we just plow through the next two we'll be next application is 70 High Point Drive 24-17 William G litfield Esquire application number 24-1 127 70 High Point Drive realy trust care of William G Lichfield asquire 330 or Road North chadam Mass 02650 owner of property located at 70 High Point Drive also shown on the town of chadam assessor map 13k block 21 lot r29 the applicant seeks to enlarge extender change a conforming dwelling in a non-conforming lot via the partial Demolition and construction of additions the existing dwelling and proposed addition comply with all bulk and dimensional requirements of the bylaw but is considered a substantial alteration and under the second accept Clause of Mass General law chapter 4A section 6 such substantially such substantial alteration requires the grant of a special permit the existing building coverage is 1,668 Ft 8% and the proposed building coverage is 2372 ft 11.4% where 2850 ft is the maximum allowed the law is non-conforming and that it contains 20731 ft where 40,000 ft is required in the R40 zoning District a special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5 be protected by law welcome Mr LV thank you madam chairman members of the board Bill Lichfield here on behalf of Rich Zabo who is uh still here uh the homeowner has remained uh with us also tonight is Karen Kempton you have had a lengthy uh afternoon come evening but I thought I might start by asking Karen to give you a brief view of the architecture involved and then I'll go into the criteria if that's acceptable sure the relevant criteria would be great uh would you like me to go straight into that yes yes okay Karen won't be offended and she'll be available to answer any questions uh as to adequacy of site including building coverage and setbacks we have a typical Riders Cove Landing Halfacre lot with very low coverage at 8% and a modest house which meets all dimensional requirements if you approve the special permit that will remain true the site is adequate for the replacement of the addition on the North and a new one on the east or rear side primarily primarily in a hollow at the end the rear of the lot as Sarah has shown there with coverage of 500 square ft less than the maximum allowed and still meeting all setback requirements as the compatibility of size on the third page of the handout we have the relevant numbers up and down high point and also in the back on W Wentworth we have one of the smallest Footprints of adjacent properties where 2850 square fet is allowed it is compatible if you approve the special permit it will remain compatible a major portion of the addition is at the rear while increasing living space uh it's reasonable parenthetically Richard's mother has some health issues and will be uh living with them as well uh Rich didn't plan on retiring quite so soon but after the length of this hearing he may be down here sooner than planned and in fact the zos do plan on having this as a year round home but the coverage uh living area and gross area numbers will remain compatible and it meets all dimensional requirements as the extent of increase in non-conformity there is none this is a Borland hearing the law is non-conforming but everything that is proposed it does meet the current requirements uh is the suitability of a site there are no environmental issues no Wetlands or environmental uh aspects to consider as the scale sighting Mass Fus and Vistas mass is not really applicable to what's there now which is some 70 70 feet back from from the street it's without impact in views and Vistas it has little if any impact on streetcape that will remain true if you approve the special permit Karen has provided an appropriate and simple design which is complimentary to the house with the shed dorm on the street side the larger portion with the garages at the rear and is shielded by the house and vegetation on the east and south sides as well it's without impact on streetscape and there's no change in views and Vistas as the compatibility of use it's residential eventually year round uh adequacy of water and sewer we have Town water a Title 5 for four bedrooms the health agent has had a had a question about the floor plan and we have addressed that by providing a better and more legible plan of the existing house the other criteria are not really at issue what is an issue as you know is whether replacing the somewhat awkward North Side uh wing with a more traditional addition on the North side and constructing new living space at the rear above the twocc car garage and doing so in a manner which is completely compliant with the dimensional and bulk requirements of our bylaw whether that is substantially more detrimental of the neighborhood than the existing conforming house on a non-conforming lot as expanded will still only be at about 80% of allowable coverage the additions will have minimal impact on streetcape the visible portion is 75 or 76 ft back from the street and the garage addition again is hidden behind the house the gross floor area and living area comparable uh rare that you've had three neighborhood associations comment uh you had two neighborhood association comments earlier today I'm pleased to say that the writers Co Landing Association has reviewed the plans and has written a brief letter in support of them so I think that you can as have some other neighbors so I I don't mean to rush through it and again I know Karen would be happy to uh speak to the plans but I know you've had a long night and given the criteria and those plans I think that you can find the proposed additions which meet all zoning requirements will not be substantially detrimental of the neighborhood in fact will not be at all detrimental I thank you and thank you is there anybody here in Microsoft teams that wish to speak in favor of this application if so please make it known seeing none I will read all the short notes oh we do have one okay I'm sorry online we have Doug that would like to speak Doug online hi um this is Doug flood I'm at 55 Wentworth and we're a Butters behind the property and we support the zabo's application great thank you thank you for joining the meeting um is there anybody else who wish to speak in favor no okay very good um we have a note from Judith Giorgio um she's our health agent she reviewed the plans if you just shut that off whoever's online um I reviewed the plans to renovate and add an addition to this property it appears that the dwelling will maintain the existing four-bedroom layout however clear plans of the existing dwelling are needed to confirm and that was on 11:27 2024 next we have a note from L PC land planners uh from Connecticut let's see what this is I've received the notice of public hearing above reference item and I wish you to know that my family and I oh I see it's 85 Wentworth Drive Elizabeth Ash I apologize um I have no objections to your granting the special permit as a neighboring landowner I support the application and we have a note from uh Arnold lovering Thee the president of Rus Cove Landing Association 166 Oldfield Bend they tell us on 124 2024 that they were provided and they reviewed all the information and they believe the project is an enhancement to the neighborhood and they fully support the application then Clyde Berg stresser Esquire um and Renee from 67 Wentworth U tell us on 123 2024 they reviewed the plan to renovate um and they believe the project is an enhancement to the neighborhood as a director buet to the rear property located at 67 Wentworth chadam my wife and I so totally support the application have owned and occupied our property for 40 years been very active in the chadam association over that period and I've discussed the project with neighbors and they believe that it'll be enhancement as well then Bruth and Kathleen Everett from 82 Highpoint Drive tell us on 122 2024 that they've reviewed the plans and they believe the addition is an enhancement to the neighborhood and the neighbors are all supportive that concludes the the uh notations that we got is there anybody here in Microsoft teams that wish to speak against the application or has a specific question seeing Zero none questions from the board are there any seeing none Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations David second and votes yes yes all votes yes jny votes yes as do I okay deliberations I think this is a great project I mean this is a very good example of um uh addition renovation that makes sense in this neighborhood so Steve I I think it's a good project it U you know kind of puts the front of the house on the same plane and removes that little bump out whatever that was and um I think it's a nice project and Jenny love this house and I um I think it's going to be even better it's a thoughtful addition great Plans by Karen meets our criteria and Paul yes I think it clearly fits into the neighborhood with these changes and it will not be substantially more detrimental David Nixon I agree and Ed Acton uh meets our criteria and David and I agree as well all right great as do I Paul I'll move to approve the application as submitted uh in terms of construction activity and so forth I think this may be an an occasion where the seasonal limitation is not required having said that I haven't spoken with vir directly about it but he has a very good relationship with his neighbors so if they have any concerns I think we would not do summer construction we're not going to start until probably mid a it will be a uh Labor Day construction post Labor Day would be acceptable all right all right I'll I'll I'll suggest that we approve 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 June 30th and Labor Day no exterior construction will be allowed no work will be permitted on weekends and construction activity between 8: am and 5:00 P PM only uh Dave be seconds and votes yes David Nixon yes all votes yes any votes yes as do I it's unanimous congratulations thank you very much all right last but not least one more try for Mr Norcross if it was baseball it'd be pretty good tonight but Hall of Fame numbers but all right so this is going to be um application 24123 application number 24-1 123 Stephanie Jordan ha revocable trust Stephanie Jordan hay trustee care of James M Northcross Esquire PO Box 707 Shadow Mass 026 633 owner of property located at 7 cranberry null also shown in the town of chadam assessor map 14f block 82 LW F 17 the applicant seeks to enlarge extender change a conforming dwelling in a non-conforming lot via the construction of an addition the existing dwelling and proposed addition will comply with all bulk and dimensional requirements of the bylaw but is considered a substantial alteration and under the second accept Clause of section six of Mass General Law chapter 4A such sub such substantial alteration requires the Grant of a special permit the existing building coverage is 1,57 ft 9.7% and the proposed building coverage is 1,344 Ft 12.3% where 15% is the maximum allowed the law is non-conforming and that it contains 10,927 ft² or 20,000 ft² as required in the R20 zoning District a special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of protected bylaw Mr Mr attorney Norcross thank you good evening uh Jamie Norcross representing Stephanie ha who is uh participating remotely this evening um this is a very modest and tasteful uh 270 odd square foot addition to the existing home uh the goal is to create a little bit more living area on the first floor as well as a home office space on the second floor um we are here because the project excuse me the lot is non-conforming uh it's an R20 Zone it's only about 10,900 Square ft uh the addition will meet uh all dimensional setbacks uh it will still be over 40 feet from uh excuse me from um that's actually Blueberry Lane uh on the left there uh we're well below the height and we're well below the uh building coverage requirement um if you'd like I can go through the criteria or no all set thank you I always check with the uh chair that's fine if he's comfortable I'm comfortable excellent all right so uh is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wish to speak again no in favor of this application please indicate no one's here and I don't see anyone online I only see the we do have the applicant that would like to speak um I would just like to note that prior to the hearing several weeks ago attorney n cross did submit written findings to the board members that were emailed to them and are part of the record great thank you s yes very good and um ma'am did you want to speak in favor of your own application um yes if that's okay sure um we have been homeowners in this neighborhood since 1983 and um this small addition would really help us um have more um living space and it I'll be able to have the laundry on the same floor as uh where the kitchen is now and we'll be able to renovate the kitchen which is original to the house and the house was built in 1979 so um so we're really looking forward to being able to make these modifications so thank you sure thank you and um we we're happy to that you um stayed online for this long thank you um all right so anybody else wish to speak in favor no um I will read the one letter from my health agent Judith Georgio writes to us on 1127 2024 that she re reviewed the had plan to renovate and the addition will add septic flow to the property it won't uh and it won't encroach on the existing system it's improved for three bedrooms the new office must remain open to the common area and expanded hallway on the second floor the property is registered as a three-bedroom short-term rental in our database okay to know is there anybody here on Microsoft teams who wish to speak against this application or has a specific question there is no one here I will note that and I don't see anyone online that wish to speak against or has a question any questions from the board at all no see none I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations if each seconds and vote Yes yes all votes yes yes as do I okay deliberations uh David V uh a refreshingly modest proposal uh that I can easily um get behind it's certainly not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood uh it meets uh all applicable criteria and we support it all right very good and Ed I I agree and David Nixon I want to send Jamie home with something positive well thank you very much yes PA yes I agree with Dave and Dave I agree as well well done I think it's a great project I love the um idea of getting the laundry up on the main floor and the kitchen renovated um very modest increase in coverage increase um in Gross floor area I I think it's a great project and meets our criteria okay and uh as do I Paul I'll move to approve the application as submitted uh what about your construction activity and so forth uh Jamie do you see any need for conditions not particularly I mean it's a pretty small addition so I imagine once they get started it's going to go up pretty quick in terms of tight to the weather um Stephanie do you know when you're planning to start oops sorry sorry about um I I really haven't had that conversation because we had originally hoped to start earlier um until we ran into the special permit process so um I would hope that he could do it in the spring it isn't a very large um addition I'll move to approve the application as submitted Dave V seconds and votes yes I vote Yes all votes yes jny votes yes as Dwight it's unanimous congratulations and uh before we conclude our meeting I'm going to say that I'd like to nominate uh no I'd like to appoint a nomination committee I understand that requirement and Dave V would you accept that nomination I would I would AC along with David Nixon you're have the committee all right good luck and uh let's see a motion to adjourn I'll move to adjourn Dave V TS and votes yes Ed votes yes yes all votes yes yes Steve votes yes yes and what time is it 7 p.m. very good oh Sarah a run on the head good night ch n [Music] [Music]