e e e e e e e e w [Music] [Music]
welcome everyone to the March 27th 2025 meeting of the chadam zoning board of appeals 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 at the chadam zoning board of appeals is being conducted in person and via remote participation every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings provided for in the order anyone that would like to listen to this
meeting while in progress may do so by calling 508 945 4410 conference ID 84857 529 pounda join the meeting through the link on the Microsoft teams uh posted on the agenda this is a live
broadcast and simoc cast on chadam TV but despite our best efforts we may not be able to provide real time access we will post a record at this meeting in the town's website as soon as possible in accordance with Town policy the public may speak to any issue or business item on the agenda during the
meeting when recognized by the chair first we're going to start with a roll call of all board members Mr V uh David h v and I approve of this format policy simple I approve the format Lee hubby I approve of the format Steven D debor and
I approve as Randy podes as do I if any citizen or n non board members are participating via the call please make sure that we can identify you with the last digits of your phone number and uh your name if possible the first we
proceed with the hearing notice will be read by staff s o' on my right after that you can present your appeal or your application your your rep all your representative will do it anyone in favor of the um matter will be asked if
if they'd like to comment then I will read all the correspondents after that we'll see if anyone has any questions all would like to vote I mean would like to um have uh an opinion against the application and you'll all be allotted
up to five minutes to do any of those comments next we um let the applicant rebut any testimony we'll direct questions to anyone present the board we close the public hearing after that that and at that point just the board
deliberates we will not um be getting comments from even the applicants Attorneys at that point unless somebody on the board would like to reinvite them back in which is happen seldomly um then we usually vote on the appeal at the end
of deliberations all votes are taken by roll call and at the end of the meeting we will close with a verbal confirmation and note the time of adjournment with that I believe we have meeting minutes Paul yes we have minutes from our
meeting on February 27 2025 I'll move to approve those minutes as published uh Dave V seconds and votes yes Paul votes yes I vote Yes Steve votes yes and Randy votes yes as well first application that
we're going to hear is 25-5 David Patterson and Elaine M Patterson owners of property um actually I'm G to just make it known that the first one is continued and we actually are required to read out the the uh the
whole um advertisement so that's application 24-1 140 Sarah application number 24-40 Cynthia Waters Carol William F Riley Esquire PO Box 707 shadam Mass 02633 owner of property located at 48C
Miss Lan also shown on the town of chadam assessors map 1A block 20j LW X10 the applicant proposed is to change alter or expand 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
then it is located 14.5 ft from the southerly a butter the proposed dwelling will be non-conforming and it will be located 14.5 ft from the southern Leo butter where a 15t setback is required the existing building coverage for the 10 dwellings is 9,12 ft
11.2% and the proposed building coverage is 9,200 63 ft 11.4% or 10% is the maximum allowed the lot is non-conforming in that it has 10 dwellings where one is allowed the lot contains 81,500 zoning District a special permit
is required under massger Law chapter 4A section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw this was continued from January 9th 2025 attorney Riley welcome and thank you for letting us know about this well that uh uh thank you madam chair as I
indic at my correspondence some time ago a member of our team is not available today and uh so this matter has been already rescheduled by uh the uh Central Permitting coordinator and now we're going to make it official so
Paul to gr reest continu to April I'll move to Grant the requested continuance to April 10 2025 um Dave V seconds and votes yes all votes yes I vote Yes Steve votes yes yes do I it's unanimous congratulations thank you very much all
right next we have 25- 005 and that is uh 312 round Co Road Sarah application number 25-5 David T Peterson Elane M Patterson uh owners of property located at 312 round Cove Road also shown on the town
of chadam assessors map 8j block 39 lot c288 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 comply with all Bulan dimensional requirements of the bylaw but is considered a
substantial alteration and under the second except Clause of section 6 of Mass General Law chapter 4A such substantial alteration requires the grant of special permit the existing building coverage is 1,890 ft 4.7% and the proposed building coverage is
2361 ft 7.7% or 10% is the maximum allowed the law is non-conform in and then it contains 3,915 ft where 60,000 ft is required in the r60 zoning District a special permit is required under Mass General Law
chapter 4A section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw welcome oh hello I'm uh Pat Costello general contractor for the Pattersons Dave the owner is here um yeah so we understand that this
when this house was built the 30,000 squ ft uh lot made it conforming but but that's been changed to 60,000 necessary now and we're looking to add this 13 by 17 one-story bedroom Edition on the back
of the house the house was currently a three-bedroom house but there was one very small like 7 foot wide bedroom that's uh be it's going to become a laundry room and uh and a bathroom so we're just looking to keep it three
bedrooms by adding this pretty modest uh 13 by 17 um bedroom the height of it's like 14.8 feet uh it's at the rear of the property nowhere near any setback problems here
um the lot coverage I think the what you said was 4.7 I'm not sure if that's correct it might have been 6.1 originally because I think we had two plot plans but anyway the the proposed lot coverage is 7.7 so it just went up pretty small
amount we we currently have an an approved building permit we're renovating the house we've we've done the extension on the garage on the left side so we're just looking for the the you know permission to build the bedroom on the back of the house there um I
don't know does anyone have any questions for me so generally people go through the criteria why don't you just pick the ones that are that are applicable um if you want me to run you through them I I can do that does that help uh sure yeah so basically you think
the site is adequate for this addition oh sure yeah it's it's it's a very large lot um it's there's a bank pretty much all around the bank uh all around the three sides of the the property and and it's compatible with with uh neighboring
structures absolutely yeah and and the extent of the proposed increase of the noncon non-conformity you said already that it was slight very slight yes yep and uh suitability of the site um is um is adequate in your your opinion with
regard to natural environment and slopes and vegetation absolutely yes okay any impact on scale sighting and Mass on the neighborhood view no not at all I don't think anyone could see this addition unless you walked around the back of the house right right and there shouldn't be
any impact on traffic and safety no not whatsoever and you're all set with sew Bridge which I can tell by the health um letter and uh and the visual impact on the neighborhood well actually that's not even uh applicable so yeah sounds like we've done a job here with that and
uh at this point I'll ask is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application if so please make it known seeing nobody anywhere wishing to do that um I will now read three
correspondences one is for my health agent and the other two are from Neighbors that are in favor so our health agent tells us that she reviewed the plans to renovate and it's acceptable uh to the health division that's received by Judith Georgio today
3:25 no wait a minute Tuesday 32525 and then we have a note from the the people that live at 303 round Cove Road which is Nancy to chinsky and she says she's responding to the uh submitted application for 312 and and
they support and have no objections then we have a note from the people that live at 328 round coov Road named Michael and Cindy Tumi they also wrote To Us on March 8th and say that they support the the application and uh they say it
complies and they have no problem with it is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wishes to a ask a question or uh and then if everybody could shut off their devices I know it happens it actually just happened to me even though it wasn't supposed to um so is there
anybody here on Microsoft teams wish to speak against or has a specific question if so please raise your hand seeing none so questions from the board Dave V I have no questions Paul I have no questions no questions no
questions all right Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations Dave sson votes yes Paul votes yes I vote Yes Steve votes yes as do I okay deliberation Steve um I think it's a nice project it's all within the the um the U
setbacks and everything else and I don't think it's going to be seen from the from the street I would approve it and Lee I totally agree um it meets our criteria and um it's modest and no way uh detrimental to the neighborhood and
Paul I agree with my colleagues Dave as do I and I I actually miss spoke when I said it's not a big increase on nonconformity there was no increase on nonconformity I apologize for that okay so um so with that Paul I'll move to approve the application as submitted um
and um I assume you're going to continue working on the property from where you are now oh yeah we we've been trying to get after this as soon as possible right um we're kind of at the stage of the project where we're we're ready to do the addition now in the back and
complete you know the siding and roofing all right um then and you've been able to keep your vehicles and so forth off the road and on the property that'll be continuing yeah everything's on the property that's true then I will move to approve the application with the condition that all construction activity
and vehicles be contained on site or at a naing property with the permission of the property owner I think that may be the only condition we need uh Dave um seconds and votes yes well all votes yes I vote Yes Steve votes yes as do I it's un
congratulations thank you all right and just for the the process can we immediately start working I think you should just check in with the Building Commissioner about all those rules or on the website of you know and yeah I know we had it so the answer is no you can't start tomorrow okay I think it was part
of the original permit but we'll check yep get it straight okay thank you thank you all right now we're going to go over to 40 Bay View Road Samir and Mary jayall and uh that's 25- 7 application number
25-7 Samir and Mary jall 59 Smith Road northb Mass 01532 owners of property located at 40 Bay View Road also shown on the town of chadam assessors map 3C block 53a lot E3 the applicant proposes to change
alter or expand a non-conforming shed on a non-conforming lot via the replacement of the shed the existing and proposed shed will be non-conforming and that it is located 6 ft from the road where a 25t setback is required the lot is non-conforming and that it contains
10,900 Square F feet where 20,000 ft is required in the R20 zoning District a special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of protective bylaw welcome just state your name if you would um good afternoon my name is Sam jwell well
welcome thank you um we're proposing we have a a shed on the property right now we bought the property about 4 years years ago we're doing some uh renovation we've been doing renovations on it ever since uh we're moving um permanently to the address and um the shed is as you
can see in Fairly bad repair I've always already had to replace the door entirely because the wood is starting to rot and it's breaking um so what we'd like to do is just replace it with another non-conforming shed approximately the same size 8 X 12 um and um on exactly
the same side there aren't unfortunately the the property itself is non-conforming and we can't get a spot on the property where we can be more than 25 ft from the road it's a corner lot it's the corner of Bay View and Circle Drive and so we're uh um we're a
little constrained by where everything can go um if you wouldn't mind I didn't do that little list if you wouldn't mind oh no that's okay and I don't even know of this one really you're not getting any closer to anything it's the same spot does anybody here on the panel think that we need to go through uh the
criteria for this no seeing none so um we're going to see if then is anybody on Microsoft teams or in the audience that has a problem no that actually wants to say vote in favor of this wants us to vote in favor is there anybody that would like to speak in favor seeing none
I have one note from Judith Georgio our health agent from March 25th 2025 and she has no issues with the uh with the shed location and is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wish to speak against this
application or has a specific question no questions from the board Dave V I have no questions no questions no questions Steve has no questions nor do I Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations give each
seconds and vote Yes Paul vote Yes I vote Yes Steve votes yes as do I okay deliberations da V um well this is a um a nice Improvement I it's going to look much better than sheds that's there um
it's certainly not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood in any way shape or form uh meets our criteria happy to support it very good Paul I agree with Mr V and Lee I agree as well so as do I as do I okay Paul I'll move
to approve the application as submitted the with the condition that all Construction ity and vehicles be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the profession of the property owner and David seconds in vote Yes and Paul vote Yes I vote Yes Steve votes yes it's unanimous I vote Yes as
well thank you for coming thank you very much have a pleasant evening thank you now we go over to 50 hallway Street and this is uh application 25- Z8 Sarah app
application number 25-8 50 hallway Street realy trust care of Mark edti 445 West barnable Road austerville Mass 02655 owner of property located at 50 hallway Street also shown in the town of
chadam sucessors map 17c block 35 lot 17 the applicant proposes to change alter or expand a non-conforming exterior mechanical system Appliance on a non-conforming lot via the addition of an additional Appliance the existing exterior mechanical system
appliances are non-conforming located 7.2 ft from the West tra butter the proposed generator will be non-conforming located 6.5 ft from the Wester Lea butter where a 15t setback is required the lot is non-conforming and that it contains 6,26 Square ft in the
R20 zoning District a special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5 be of protective bylaw is there anybody here mark zti online yes oh very good hello thank you
for coming yep my name is Brian I'm representing Mark very good tell us about the uh so the client is asking it's just a 20k generator that we're looking to install
next to the um air conditioning units and right now the one you have is 7.2 feet from the west of leab butter and you want to get a little bit closer 6 well the units the air the air conditioning units are um the 7.1 and
we're just looking we'll be about a foot closer just because of the distance we need off the house for the generator okay so the generator will be a 6.5 um I don't think we need to go through the criteria on this one either necessarily but we can if anyone has a
problem with that no seeing none okay is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application please make it known no one wants to speak in favor I have one letter from the Conservation
Commission considering of the location of the of the um application and that was uh received on March 4th 2025 the Conservation Commission um said the project was given a -2 determination which is actually a good
thing so it does not need to be conditioned to meet performance standards under the wetlands protection act that concludes our correspondences is there anybody here or on Microsoft teams that wishes to ask a question or
speak against this application seeing none questions from the board dve I have no question Paul um I have no question I would point out I guess that the application checks off an application for a variance when
in fact as I understand it it's an application for a special permit it is for a special permit correct thank you I have no other questions no questions Steve has no questions nor do I Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations D seconds and votes
yes all votes yes I vote Yes Steve votes yes and as do I so uh deliberations Dave uh it's it's a perfect location on the lot for for the for this piece of equipment uh and certainly not
substantially uh detrimental the neighborhood in any way so we'll support it Paul yes I understand it can be conditioned by the uh Conservation Commission so um I don't see a problem from our Viewpoint um I I think uh
clearly is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and Lee I I agree with my colleagues yeah I think that you know the neighboring house is quite a distance from the lot line so um I don't think this is going to have an effect on them so I would support you know and I agree and just
for anyone listening why didn't they need a variance because they already have a structure that is 7.2 which is already you know um not far enough away so you get to ask for a special permit when you're all already closer than the laws provide for so that's why they
didn't need a variance otherwise this might have been a different conversation okay so with that Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations uh David done we did that yeah we already did that all right I'll move to approve the application as submitted uh dve seconds and votes yes
on that well all votes yes I vote Yes Steve votes yes as dowi unanimous thank you sir have a nice evening great thank you you too Brian can you just provide your last name for the record please yeah anos thank
you thank you bye okay now we are going to be at 16 windmill 25-9 attorney William Riley in care of
Jane uh Chandler application number 25-9 Jane K Chandler care of William F Riley Esquire app box 707 chattam Mass 02633 owner of property located at 161 Mill Lane also shown on the town of
chadam assessor map 16a Block 19 lot H3 the applicant seeks to enlarge extend or change a non-conforming dwelling and a non-conforming lot via the elevation of the existing dwelling and the construction of an addition and deck the existing dwelling is non-conforming and that it is located
5.1 ft from Windmill Lane 23.2 ft from the southwest leab butter and entirely within the coastal Conservancy District flood plane elevation 13 the proposed elevated dwelling will be non-conforming and that it will be located 5.1 ft from Windmill Lane where
a 40ft setback is required 21 ft from the southwester a butter where a 25t setback is required and entirely within the coastal Conservancy District where a 50ft setback is required the existing building coverage is 1,315 square ft and the proposed
building coverage is 1,447 square ft where 2800 ft is the maximum allowed the lot is non-conforming in that it contains 0o squ ft of buildable Upland where 20,000 ft is required and contains 29,500 ft of land area 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 5B of protected bylaw attorney Wy welcome oh thank you very much Madam chair uh Bill Riley on behalf of the Chandler
family uh who do you have with you I'm gonna get there all right I just don't want to be rude I just don't know the woman's name I'm I'm a today by Allison alesi who's the architect who made the modifications to the structure and David Clark is here also he's the
engineer on the project so principally this project was to elevate the house out of the flood plane uh as a part of that uh they wanted to make a couple of small additions and so I'm going to ask Allison to explain what the goals of the
applicants were and how she accomplish them oh great do we want to look at drawings or I can just talk oh thanks the the goal of the project though as as B mentioned um the existing Foundation is in the flood zone and when the
clients um purchased it it did not pass inspection so they knew that when they purchased the home that they had to put in a New Foundation well it turns out that it's not that simple at this site so we're in the femo flood zone and we're required to raise the house approximately the main house is RA is is
being lifted over 4 feet 4 fo2 and 3/4 I believe it is um and then in the process of doing that we we thought it would be nice to add a few modest additions so we're adding 130 square fet of a kitchen area on the first floor you see that um
with the metal roof um piece that's jutting out and we're also proposing um a new 90 sqt Dormer it's a shed Dormer that you see facing the water side so that's on the back of the historic house um there are several different layers on
this house and I don't need to go into all of the details but because we're in the FEMA flood zone all three pieces the original historic Cape the connecting piece that we're showing with solar panels and the windmill all need to be lifted out of the um FEMA flood zone so
when I said that the historic house is Lifting Up 4 foot2 that's true the other pieces are at different levels so they're lifting up a little bit more and all the goal is for all of the three to be coper so just wanted to to explain that um we did go to the historic board
and they didn't love um some of our material choices so we have additional drawings as well so this is what we proposed initially and the historic folks really wanted us to see um they really cared about the windmill and they wanted to make sure we differentiated
the materials between the windmill and the lower portion which is the FEMA portion so you can see a little slightly different thank you for showing the updated drawings we see the historic um windmill lifted up and then we see some um vertical siding below that
um I think that's what I wanted to say but I'd be happy to answer any questions if there are any thank you we'll get to that Mr Riley uh there's also uh a small deck added on the water side that puts us a couple of feet closer to the coastal
Dune but other than that I'll be happy to run through the criteria please so adequacy of the size of the site in terms of the size of the proposed use um we're only adding as Allison said
132 square feet uh to the footprint uh the principal aspect of the project is lifting the building up so I think that the U the addition uh is in an area that uh doesn't quite meet the
setback on the North side south side of the properties excuse me uh but we've actually U increased the distance uh pardon me so right now it the building is
23 feet from the sideline and as proposed with the new uh addition and the in the steps it's 21 ft from the uh sideline the um uh the deck on the uh the beach side
is canel everage so there's no supports going to the ground so I think that uh considering the design we think the site is adequate for the proposed use compatibility the proposed structure with neighboring properties again we've
attached you know a third page that shows uh the gross floor areas of the other homes on Windmill Lane and uh as luck would have it we are the smallest house on the street and our increase in size we're still the
smallest house on the street in terms of gross floor area that might be because we don't have a basement maybe the other ones do I I don't know but anyway that's the so we think we are compatible with the neighboring properties the increase in uh
nonconforming nature we're increasing living area on a non-conforming structure under the branch for decision that's an increase in the intensification of the non-conformity uh and we are going two
feet closer um to the sideline where we currently are not compliant and we're moving two feet closer to the coastal Dune with the deck although there's there are no supports from the deck so there's nothing on the ground
moving closer suitability of the site well we're we're in the flood plane and the uh uh and so what we're doing is elevating the structure we're not U changing the grades in any significant
way and so while we're surrounded by Coastal Dune the uh there's no Wetland vegetation or steep slopes that would be affected by the construction impact of scale sighting a mass on the neighbood visual character
so really the main major change is the elevation of the structure which is just done to bring it into compliance with the female regulations the goal of the female regulations is to move buildings out of the flood plane in the hopes that uh if
they're left there in the event of a storm U the structure might be damaged and cause damage to other buildings and property or uh people in the neighborhood so the goal of FEMA is to
get the buildings out of the flood plane uh to make the situation safer for everyone that's the major change so the um we think you know the modest change to the building with the 132 square feet that
Allison's added uh for the challenge to have a modern kitchen is really insignificant in terms of impact on the neighbor uh in the neighborhood so I mean you know you know so we think that you know our
use is compatible with the neighborhood no impact on traffic flow and safety no impact on uh litter and all our utilities are adequate so we believe that our proposal is not substantially more detrimental uh to the neighborhood than the existing structure thank you
very much is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wish to speak in favor of this application please raise your hand oh ma'am please head up to the microphone if you'd like to speak in favor you have up to five minutes I don't think it's going to take that long to speak in favor
but just state your name um Kim Chipman 21 Little Beach Road so we are direct Butters to this property um and we've looked at the plans and we're confident that when the project is finished the
house will look great um and our only other comment uh is to request that if approved uh that the board consider uh just placing restrictions on the work that's performed in the summer months we
do that routinely so yes okay um then that really all I have to say okay very nice very good thank you anybody else wish to speak in favor only in favor seeing none um I will read the
correspondences we have a note from Christina Basset on March 20th 202 five she is the um Department of uh historical commission staff liaison she tells us that they received the plans
and um the bottom of the windmill has shingles to the ground on your plans and the CHC signed off on the plans showing vertical siding and shingles the CHC discussed them doing a stone or brick
and they came back with vertical siding they found the home to be historically significant but the changes did not Material diminish the home's historical significance so they did not impose a demolition delay next we have a note
from let's see who is this from oh this is the same see this is all historical yeah keep going anything else oh yeah so and then we have our usual note from our health agent she tells us on May
23rd um 2025 that the health oh the Board of Health approved the variance um that was actually May 23rd 2023 um so that was already done in the past so they can
have four bedrooms and the site plan and plans to raise the building uh meet FEMA requirements are are and are appropriate um and the board also states that the property is deed restri restricted to
four bedrooms meaning the Board of Health okay next we have a note from conservation received on March 4 2025 and they tell us that the project will be conditioned to meet performance standards under the wetlands protection
act no problem with that um I already went through the um the historical so I think we're all set and anybody here on Microsoft teams wish to speak against this project I has a
question no okay questions from the board oh do you need any rebuttal Mr no no I didn't think so okay um so they just so I'm understanding because it's not a deal breaker for me either way but you did so
you after the the historical commission's comments about the the boarding rather than the shingles on the lower part of the windmill is what you're presenting to us well what what happened was we went there they
indicated that they wanted to show uh Have Allison make a change so that the windmill as it existed would still be shown as a separate structure there was a
discussion about brick which of course is very EXP expensive uh and Allison came up with vertical sighting they didn't they didn't say it had to be brick they just said we want you to show that there's a difference that keeping the original windmills separate and that's what
Allison came up with okay and and I mean I'm for me personally I I think I I could go either way I think they both look very good uh and then the only other thing I wondered Allison was um did have you planned
where to put mechan where you're going to put Mechanicals uh on on this structure that's a good question they won't be on the ground because of the re they have to be elevated above the the that's right so there um there are some small decks I think they'll we'll try to
locate them on those decks if we have to it would be a wallmounted system away from um but I'm sorry we haven't got that far but we have a couple of decks on two different sides I think we could look certainly not going to be within a setback so that You' need back and it
can't be on the ground so it's it's going to be one of those decks okay yeah great thanks okay Paul um just to clarify um on the site PL there's an indication that the uh
proposed Ridge uh will be 32.6 feet uh but uh at another location on the site plan it says the New Foundation The Ridge will be 31 9 is do you know which one the ridge is actually going to
be D you want to come up what's the question again Paul I think I think at the bottom leftand corner it says proposed and it indicates the uh proposed Ridge elevation is 32.6 but up uh right slightly above
there it indicates The Ridges elevation 1.9 we we can't find that um we're going to put it on the screen right underneath right underneath where it says existing bedroom four bedroom dwelling where is it again
uh d right there 31.9 there and and down below it's uh 32.6 right well we'll have to ask the engineer to explain welcome Mr Clark like to take a
stab at this the plan that's that Mr Riley has shows 32.6 in both spots but uh there was a plan revision um if you can pan down to what that revision was at um not sure
why can't too yeah I I I think what happened was um we had the first floor higher and uh Sarah came back and said that uh you can't raise it more than what the bylaw allows which is 2 ft um so we changed it
in one spot and didn't change it on the other so that that's why the plan we have in front of us is the original plan it says 32.6 it's 31.9 it be 31.9 yeah okay very good thank you David any other questions
BR well just so I understand it so uh it's incorrect that the on the one that's more towards the middle of the page it is going to be 32.6 or it is going to be 31.9 it's it's 31.9 3.9 31.9
31.9 okay all right um I don't have any other questions Le questions uh my only question is just just for curiosity um the the garage and
the door into the basement I wouldn't call it a garage oh it's not okay well whatever the space is I can describe it better any any access to the to the first floor from in there or is
it you have to come out and go up the steps oh from to the lower level the only access is from the outside from that door and the overhead door that you see there from the outside there's no access from the inside inside okay all right just out of curiosity thank you and Steve I have no other question yeah
and so just to clarify which design do you want for the windmill which are you applying for cuz we have both and I my understanding is that we don't even have jurisdiction over the you know that issue the vertical sighting you want the vertical sighing yes okay very good
diplomatic today well I mean that was one request that historical commission made was they wanted us to continue the show yes yes the original Windmill and they thought that if we ran
the shingles all the way to the ground know it wouldn't be the original windmill so and so you're deciding to comply with that yep that's good so you're exercising your discretion you don't have to but you are very nice okay with that um
well close the hearing and move into deliberations yes I've got it I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations uh Dave V seconds and votes yes PA Paul votes yes I vote Yes Steve votes yes as do I okay deliberations
Lee um I I think this looks great I think that um you know because of where it is you have to comply with FEMA you've got to raise it up I like the fact that you're not changing it a whole lot I think the addition is going to be a nice addition um so I I I think it's
meets our criteria I think um it's going to be it's going to be very nice and um a nice addition to the neighborhood and I I have a cue from our Building Commissioner who would like to be part of the deliberations yes sir I just want to make one comment um they're going to
be elevating the structure that doesn't remove the structure from the flood plane it just puts it on a FEMA compliant foundation with compliant floor elevations just a minor Point yes thank you and uh Steve deliberations um
well I agree with Lee I think this is a nice project it looks like a very complicated project um but I you know as necessary as it is I think it I think it would be nice yeah and Paul yes I agree with my colleagues I
think the only suggestion I would make is that we revise the site plan so that that bottom leftand side says 31.9 yeah and David V deliberations yeah um it this looks like a really good project I mean it really
honors what's there uh it um named Chandler rings a bell in that neighborhood they own the property next door I know and by the and I very and I very much like the job that Allison did with the house next door and and this is
also really nice this is going to look really well in a fit that's probably why she got the job um yeah so I don't have anything to add I I like it a lot I'm looking forward to seeing it when it's done and uh with that Paul I'll move to approve the application as submitted with the
conditions that uh all construction activity and vehicles be contained on site or at neighboring property with the permission of the property owner that between June 15th and September 15th no exterior construction will be allowed no work should be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8:00
am and 5:00 pm only thank you Dave seconds and votes yes all vote Yes I vote Yes Steve votes yes as do I it's unanimous congratul ulations thank you very much all right
lastly we have Damon and Lisa harell application 25- 010 66 a Thelma Drive care of James norros and Sarah will read the application application number
25-10 Damon and Lisa Herold care of James M Norcross Esquire peel boox 707 chatam Mass 0263 3 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 extender change a conforming dwelling on non-conforming lot be 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 except Clause of
section 6 of Mass General Law chapter 4A such substantial alteration requires the grant of special permit the existing building coverage is 1, 159 ft and the proposed building coverage is 2,441 Ft or 2,900 ft is the maximum
allowed the law is non-conforming and that it contains 9.87 ft of Frontage where 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 5B of the pro protected by law welcome attorney Norcross third time a CH perhaps we hope so uh thank you very much Jamie norcros representing Damon Lisa harell uh Lisa harell is here this uh this afternoon in the back Damon harell is participating remotely uh we
were here back the beginning of December um so as opposed to uh a full presentation it seems like it probably the best use of time I'll just go through the changes please do that okay thank you so just a a real brief overview um again we were here at the beginning of December uh with a uh
different design uh primary objections raised from board members at that time uh related to overall gross floor area and um Ming of the structure um there are also as you probably remember a number of neighbors who wrote in and spoke in opposition uh following the
December meeting the Heralds had numerous conversations with their neighbors to discuss uh the concerns they raised relative to the project this included two Zoom meetings with the Harolds and a large number of neighbor neighbors and attendance uh one of which was uh the Heralds had their architect come to discuss changes and concerns
with the neighbors uh subsequent to these meetings the Heralds and the design teams made several changes to the prior design which we believe are quite substantial and Sarah's uh beat me to the punch so on the left you'll see that's from the prior design on the right is the current design so first
change number one uh previously there was a bedroom uh and living area above the garage that has been removed moved on the left hand side you can see that uh results in the removal of those Dormers uh that also results in the height of the garage has been lowered by
about two feet overall and the pitch has been changed as well um Sarah if you don't mind going to the next slide please so uh again the left is the prior design the right is the current design and so this is the North and South
elevation so the two side elevations and so by removing um the room above the garage it creates a another which we think a substantial change to the structure so previously where you had um the connector uh it's so because you
need to access the garage space you had the connector that went all the way across here that's been removed uh the Dormer is gone the connector's gone uh again the garage which essentially went to almost the same height as the house previously in that design has all been
removed the windows have been removed and that effects uh we would suggest significantly both the North and South the side elevations on both sides by removing those elements uh from the structure uh the height as I mentioned the garage has been reduced by about 2
feet in height the house um the larger portion of the structure has been reduced by about uh 14 Ines uh just about over a foot by further uh reducing the grade on the structure so that has been brought down as well uh one thing I'd like to mention and U I'm sorry
Sarah if you don't mind going back to the um front elevation so as the board knows in chadam you uh measure the height by average grade plane which is you take the average from the four sides and figure out what that is and then you determine what your 30 feet is as to how
high the house can be um our height right now is uh 27 feet and change just over 27 fet and that includes the the rear slope as part of the gross uh uh the the um grade plane ele grade plane calculation which as you've heard on
prior presentation somewhat skews the overall All Height numbers so I did want to point out that if you're standing in front of this structure uh at that elevation and that grade the height of the structure is just about 24t and it's also worth mentioning that the street
elevation is about 6 to8 feet higher than where the house is going to sit so meaning if you're standing at the street looking down at the structure which is uh the garage is 75 feet from the street the house is another 15 or so feet back from that you're looking down 6 feet at
a 2 4ot tall structure so again I think just to show that it's 27 ft in change is how we calculate the the height um but if again looking at it from the street I think it's an even lower number uh when it would actually be constructed in terms of how you're going to look at it from a visual
standpoint um the overall gross floor area of the home has been significantly reduced uh through a combination of two primary factors the first is the removal of uh the bedroom and living space over the garage garage um that was I think
about 500 ft of gross floor area previously that has all been removed I'd also point out we were previously increasing from four bedrooms to five now we're staying at four bedrooms so remaining with the existing number of bedrooms at the house uh the basement area has been converted a large portion
down there um is going to have a ceiling height below the required height that would permit it to be used as living space so it's just going to be for storage um six foot six or below Mr Harold as you may remember is quite tall about 6' eight so really for them it's
quite unusable other than just using it for storage and so we think that's a significant change in terms of the gross floor area number in the basement as well overall uh our gross floor area for this current application is
4385 ft which represents a reduction of 958 ft from the prior application uh just lastly a couple smaller changes but changes I think are worth mentioning uh the roof pitch at the garage in front bedroom Gables was modified from 11 to
11 over 12 to 10 over2 pitch which not only lowered the uh Ridge elevation but the massing as well and this was a specific concern raised by at least one of the neighbors during their discussions and lastly um and Sarah I'm sorry to ask you again if you don't mind going to the next slide uh for the side
profile um this right this element right here this retaining wall has been removed and the stairs um which we think also reduces massing is seen from that elevation so now you just look through underneath the deck and I think that is again an element that reduces the
overall massing and scale of the project um instead of going through the criteria again because we were here a couple months ago I'm just going to touch on two uh items of the criteria and then we can go along to uh any questions that you may have uh number two compatibility of the size of the proposed structure with neighboring
properties the reduction in Gross floor area brings the proposed house more in line with the gross floor area numbers for homes in this neighborhood while we're still in the larger size for the neighborhood this lot accommodates a larger structure while still maintaining uh compatibility I think I mentioned at the last meeting the Lots on the pond
are generally larger in size than the Inland Lots in this neighborhood uh also the fact that the property buts the pond on one side as opposed to being located Inland uh means that a structure can be larger in size without attracting from its uh compatibility for the property
and the neighborhood overall and then criteria number five impact of scale setting in mass and neighborhood visual character just a couple elements to point out uh the house at the garage section which is the closest and also the smallest portion of the house will be located 75 ft from a Thelma drive and
by utilizing existing grade that slopes away from the street it reduces the H the height and mass of the structure the house is only 5 feet higher than the existing house uh you can't see over the existing house if you go out to the property and so the additional height is not removing a view that currently exists um this project Pro also
maintains The View Corridor on the sides of both house that are there now so again it's two structures on the property now but they it's basically taking up the same footprint in terms of the width with the one structure now and those view corridors along both Sidelines are going to remain um lastly the removal of the room
over the garage not only reduces the gross floor area for the structure but also reduces the exterior mass of the structure and we think this is a significant change both as seen from a Thelma drive and as seen from the North and South elev ations uh on the
property so lastly I know there's still unfortunately um despite my client's efforts um there are um a number of letters in opposition I'd say less than last time so we have made some progress in that regard however and I know um change is difficult um change can be
unpopular but I think ultimately as you know that the consideration is this substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and I think with these changes I do not believe it's substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and I think we've done my clients have really gone to Great
Lengths to work with folks work with their design team to come with something that reduces the massing and when all is said and done I think it really is a structure that is compatible for the property and the neighborhood and with that be happy to answer any questions thank you very much um is there anybody
here are Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor just favor no so with regard to the letters I have 10 I know the health aent agent is not here and I will read hers however
the we have nine other letters is there anybody here that wishes to speak instead of me reading their letter no okay so I will read the nine letters and the one from the health agent um right now so the health agent
tells us on 32525 that she reviewed the plan for the property and it was ordered to connect to sewer and was granted an extension for connection with the condition that it remains vacant the current plan to rebuild and connect to Su is
acceptable okay Madam chair you did you did have one woman who raised her hand oh I'm I I'll get to the questions in a moment if it's a question you don't wish to speak in favor correct okay we're going to get to questions okay next we have a note from Kathy and Michael Fredo
received um let's see March 25th 2025 and they are at 10 Barbera Drive In chattam our neighbors our neighborhood met with the Harolds via zoom on 129 2025 to discuss our concerns we've been waiting to hear back from them on the
modifications and to make sure we're all in alignment however we did not hear back and receive the letter with the new hearing date for the revised proposal we are surprised um and we we want to make sure our concerns were met uh we do
acknowledge there were some changes in the overall square footage the adjustments width depth roof pitch uh are minimal at best the reduction in square footage largely comes from the internal modifications such as removing the bonus room and reducing usable basement to craw space then then
significantly altering the external scale and visual bulk of the home it appears they focused on schol footage and do not take into consideration the neighborhood's concerns of the overall size mass of the home this has always been an issue and we hoped that after we spoke with them they would take this
into consider ation it's worth noting that the newest plan state the measurements of the previous home at 3133 ft which is incorrect the original home was 2382 I want to make sure that this was called out as it's significant the
home's visual mass and perceived scale still appear disproportionately large relative to the surrounding homes our concerns remain focused primarily on the architectural massing and visual Harmony of the pros construction with existing neighborhood Aesthetics and skill our neighborhood does not feel like the
changes have satisfied our concerns which have been voiced at the beginning of the call in December in closing we ask you to please consider the impact of families on a Thelma Drive Barber Drive Wolford Road as well as other homes on the pond that will be faced with this
enormous structure thank you for taking uh concerns into consideration next we have a note from Michael Paige and he's at 9 a Thelma Drive in chadam received on March 24th 2025 thank you for considering the neighborhood's concerns
regarding the proposed construction at 66 of Thelma after reviewing the most recent revisions submitted I wish to provide a continued feedback which I share with several of the neighborhood residents we acknowledge and appreciate the property owners have significantly
reduced the proposed house gross floor footage to uh 4385 which statistically aligns closer to Neighborhood Norms specifically this new size is slightly below the largest home at 4550 and roughly within acceptable
statistical range um with uh 2.16 standard deviations above our neighborhood's average of 2800 however despite these NuMe numerical reductions we remain concerned about the overall mass and visual dominance of the proposed structure the
adjustments and width and depth in root pit root roof pitch are modest and the reduction in square footage largely comes from internal modifications such as removing the bonus room and reducing usable business basement space rather than significantly altering the extent
external scale or visual bulk of the house thus we while the statistical size is now more in keeping with the neighborhood the home's visual mass and perceived scale still appear dispropor proportionately large relative to the
surrounding homes our concerns remain focused primarily on the architecture Ural massing and visual Harmony of the proposed construction with existing neighborhoods Aesthetics and scale we respectfully respectfully request that the zoning board continue to consider
these Visual and Architectural factors in your evaluation encourage additional design adjustments that will meaningfully reduce the mass and prominence of the home to ensure neighborhood compatibility thank you for your attention to this matter next we
have a note from Susan Clifford one 28 Wilford Road on March 24 2025 she tells us she agrees with Michael pagee everything he said in his letter would and I would just add that at a zoom meeting held between the neighbors and
the Harolds we agree the Harolds agreed to meet with us again before submitting their new plans that never happened which leads me to believe there's very little different in the new submission I respectfully request that the zoning board reject the plan for 66
Thelma next we have a note from Allison Coleman and Lisa Bosley from six of Thelma and they tell us that on March 25 2025 with respect to the current version of the plan submitted for a new home on 66 we are writing to express our
concurrence with the excellent letter written by Michael pagee after consultation with neighbors it appears that the changes made to the plans are mostly interior and eliminate bed bedroom and craw putting in crawl space from the exterior neighborhood perspective the
overall mass of the house has changed very little it's still too massive and compared to other houses in the neighborhood if built will change the neighborhood's visual character although the gross square footage in the current plans is somewhat reduced from the last
set of plans still not compatible with the neighborhood properties as it's almost three times the size of the current house on the property and 1.4 and 1.7 times the size of the immediate adjacent
homes 54 and 10 Barbara 2.4 times the size of the house across the street at 63 the house the height indicates in indicated in the proposed plan are just under the maximum height allowed which
also Loom over the adjacent properties which are one in one and a half stories neighborhoods like ours are fast fast uh disappearing in chadam many mourn their loss as chattam becomes more of a town with enormous investment properties that
are barely used allowing 66 ofma to become the first demo in the fall to fall in our neighborhood would be a tragedy it's up to the board to re in this type of overdevelopment in few areas of chadam that have not already been lost to similar out of scale
projects in conclusion it doesn't meet the zoning board's criteria for compatibility and neighborhood character and we urge the board to uh deny the request and uh as approving it would set president that could erode the neighborhood's charm and
cohesion next we have a note from Deborah Nichol 21 Carolyn Drive received on March 25th 2025 this email is documentation of my support for my Page's letter dated March 24 which summarizes the mo most recent
neighborhood Thoughts with regard to the newest proposed structure in particular I'd like to know that our recent call with the Harolds and their design team made it a distinct I made it a distinct point that while we have been using a number of measurements
gross square footage net footage um to discuss neighborhood concerns with this house there is no magic number that would necessarily address our concerns rather one should be able to look at the house and feel that it's visually consistent with the majority of other homes in the neighborhood it's not just
about the numbers that said I agree with the neighbor neighborhood's concern that the home's visual mass and perceived scale will appear disproportionately large relative to the surrounding homes our concerns continue and remain focused on the architecturally massing and
visual Harmony of the proposed structure with existing neighborhood Aesthetics and scale I respectfully asked that the board consider these concerns in your evaluation um design adjustments that meaningful reduce the mass and
prominence um of the proposed tone home um are requested to make it more consistent with our homes in the neighborhood next we have a note received March 25th 2025 from David malow on 88 a Thelma he'd like to say
that he also agrees with Mike PA's um letter and would like to add that applicants didn't seem to really take the neighborhood the neighbors concerns to heart if they did they would have made more of an effort to shrink the mass side size of their home in other
ways than just by reducing usable portions of the basement now we have a note from Joanne Zimmer March 25th 2025 she's at 20 Barbara Lane and she'd
like to go on the record as being in agreement with the letter submitted by Mike pige of nelma drive in chadam and wants the zba uh to know that regarding the proposed dwelling at 66 Thelma Drive
in chatam Joan and Alisa perur from 54 aalma Drive tell us on March 25th 2025 that they're writing in response to the above application which is 25-01 z and our neighborhood our neighbor Mike Paige has shared with us
his letter and um it to your board conveying his careful analysis and opinion opinions we concur with Mike's views it's unfortunate that the applicants didn't come back to the neighborhood residents with their new changes as I believe it was agreed um
that they would do so in December this could have saved them work and expense of new plans which don't accomplish the intended goals the athela neighborhood appreciates the board's careful consideration of this issue and that concludes the
current no okay then I also have uh a note from Lindsay Clark March 25th 2025 I understand the zoning board um is reviewing the revised proposal for 66 a Thelma on neighbor Mike attached a
letter I want to share with the board that board members that we agree with what he has wrote in his letter and we live at 63 a Thelma Lindsey Clark and Brian van y that concludes the letters now is there anybody here with a
question question or wishes to speak against that I have not read your letter if so please raise your hand if you have a question I just yeah you have to wait till you go up to the mic if you have a question you have to go up there state your name we don't bite hi I'm Joanne silver I live in 20
Barber drive I'm just wondering if you have a um picture of the pondside elevation and were there any changes made to it no there weren't any changes made to the pwn side so we didn't do a comparison of that okay we can put a picture of that up though thanks sure yep no changes
made so that makes sense that there was no no uh addressing that um okay so anybody else here or on Microsoft teams that I have not read their letter has a question or we should speak against let make sure there's no one on Microsoft teams I don't think
so just to double check sharing yeah just to see nope okay so now uh any rebuttal uh just briefly Madam chair if I may um and some of the numbers in the letters are incorrect but I don't think it's really necessary to get into that but the
overall I guess theme is that um neighbors felt there was not a meaningful reduction in the mass and prominence of the home and I guess we just respectfully disagree with that um analysis from the neighbors I think folks talk about just the interior
changes but the the changes to the room above the garage is a very substantial change not only are they giving away uh a fifth bedroom that they would be entitled to under the regulations in chadam but that overall impact on the massing of the home is significant both from a Thelma and from the North and
South elevations when you talk about Ming we have a home that's as measured from the average grve plane is 27 ft its closest point to a Thelma drive and we're talking about neighborhood visual character is 7 5 ft away so I don't think we have any issues with massing on
the street I understand our largest elevation or the the the portion of the home that's largest is the rear which looks out toward the pond uh as you may remember from the last hearing my client had drone uh photo taken of homes surrounding the pond and these walkouts
uh with a sort of a two-story element are consistent with other properties around the pond and where is this visible from this particular uh vantage point is visible from the pond essentially and the pond over 100 ft away so if you look at that yeah it's a great photo right there you can see so
there's heavy vegetation where significant distance from the pond and yes it is visible from the Hond from the pond and some home surrounding the pond but in no way do I think the massing is uh overwhelming and based on these photographs uh that of other properties
around the pond in fact I think it's consistent with the homes around the pond so again we respect the opinions we just have a fundamental disagreement that there hasn't been a substantial change and uh with that be happy to answer any questions okay thank you so now we'll do
questions uh Steve questions okay I guess I guess I would like to just verify a few things I think I know the answers to most of them but I just wanted to verify so we got it on the record if I'm looking at the site plan
the to me it appears that the width of the new home is about equal to the combined width of the existing house and garage that's correct okay I don't have the exact number but no but it's pretty close yeah
yeah pretty close um the other thing I wanted to ask you also is um I just want to verify some numbers I'm going off your comparison chart the the uh basement ground floor area is now
about it says 997 ft so about 1,000 square ft of gr of gross FL of the basement I just wanted to verify that that's correct and um have you has anybody developed any sort of landscape plan yet for the
front of the house between the road and the house um because that may help Andrew Gay is on uh the uh Microsoft team Andrew do you have something you'd be able to share do we know that he heard you at
all I was giving a pause sign life we can um if he raises his hand we'll come back to him sure yeah I know he's obviously he's there well no we can't do that from the audience cannot be done you cannot talk talk from the audience no you
cannot all right well we can Circle back with that if Andrew but there was a plan done just because that that might help you know I couldn't find the unmute oh he's I'm sorry I couldn't find the unmute okay we're gonna we're going to just restate the
question I was just asking if there had been any sort of landscape plan um drawn up yet that might um soften the there is the front of the house there's not a planting plan yet because I've been waiting for the um rest of the plan to
develop in order to proceed with the planting plan but I think you have I don't know Jamie do they have the landscape draft plan that shows the driveway no just the David site plan um but I do know Andrew if you could speak
to perhaps some of the trees that were going to be saved as part of that might be helpful yes so um the the PRI previous time that we revised the plan I revised it um such
that we move the driveway to the southern corner of the lot where the current driveway is yeah so so yeah it looks similar to that um I actually drafted that um those walls and everything there
so at the street level if you were standing in the road in directly in front of the middle of the house the elevation there is elevation 66 um so it's only 16 ft lower than the ridgel line and the reason why is
because we have the driveway going downhill um we have a retaining wall that tucks the driveway down low the garage has entered at that level then what we've done that's that's very significant in this particular plan is
the house has been lowered in relationship to to the garage so the whole ridge line is is has been lowered in relation to the floor of the garage you have to step down into the house from the garage
and that significantly brought down the ridge line um the whole house is down is set lower in into the ground than um than the previous vers significantly and that allowed me to re remove the
retaining wall that was otherwise needed at the rear the southwest corner of the house and the reason why we needed it before um partly was um to do with the um keeping the the grade steady around the house but because we lowered the
house it it makes it match the ground much much better in in that regard so when you look at it from the side we no longer have to have a retaining wall holding up the soil behind the house it's just a natural grade now or or U
unretained gray yeah you can see it you can see that now and then underneath the deck is all open there's no there's no skirting underneath the the deck in the back so if you look at the two at the top of the page those those
two um elevations that's significantly reduced if you just look at it you can see it significantly reduced the bulk and was done this was a question site s this is a question about plantings and we are off topic now oh so um gonna okay
I'm going to stop you um I apologize but we're going to do that so yeah I haven't done a planting okay so there there's your answer Lee oh no Steve any more questions go ahead no okay um Lee questions I think I think I'm um all set
with questions right now okay Paul questions let me just see if I understood Andrew was just talking about the ridge elevation being lower with respect to the house but in fact the ridge elevation is is going to be higher isn't it I'm sorry what's the question Paul
Ridge elevation on the new house is going to be higher than the existing Ridge elevation yes it's higher than the existing by about 5 feet I think he was speaking to the prior plan in terms of a comparison it's been reduced okay he was saying that it's lower than it was proposed the last time around but it's
still higher yes it's about five feet higher than what's there now yep and in terms of its location on the lot Visa the existing house um would you say it's about 2 feet goes
back 2 feet more perhaps than the existing house closer to the pond yes that would probably be a good estimate but really it really doesn't go back on the lot much at all when you look at it no not from what's there now no it was just I think it's a little
confusing at times because our prior plan the very first plan you saw it was significantly closer to a Thelma and here it's been more in line with with the existing house the area that I'm trying to get a feel for is when you come up uh on a thma which I've done now a number of
times uh they come up uh Barbara rather excuse me uh um and you look at the lot and they look at the house I'm trying to get a feel for how much bigger it's going to look than
what's there now I realize it's going to be different in design and it's going to be different in width because it's going to be bigger in width uh it's also going to be 5 feet higher um so what are you going to see
when you come over the over Barbara Drive and look at that house toward towards Emer Pond well I think the first thing you're going to see is the garage which is actually significantly lower than the house because that's the portion that's closest to the street um and that's the smallest part
of the structure I mean there is if I was drove by there again as well today and there's significant vegetation along the property lines as well so I mean I don't think it's there's probably be some visibility but as you drive by I mean I guess there'll be a little snippet as you go through but I don't
think it's going to be overwhelming and what you are going to see is going to be significantly down the hill on that lot that's going to reduce that additional height in my opinion but when you say it's going to be significantly down the hill it's only going to be two feet different from
what's existing now no I understand that yeah but it just in general it's not like it's at the 25 foot setback I mean the the house is 90 feet from the street what what kind of work are you going to be doing on the site itself in terms of moving dirt or excavation
that is beyond my pig rate to answer that question Andrew is that something you'd be able to answer yes and um as I mentioned before the the the driveway is getting cut into the into the Earth so that it lowers the
the the driveway going into the garage so the retaining wall you see in the middle of the of the plan everything north of that retaining wall is pretty close to existing grade when it's all said and done we're preserving all of
the trees north of that wall the the ones that we're not going to be able to keep is the one that's right there's one really close to the garage and um there there's like two
over there and then we're able to keep the ones that are are nearer to the street the the driveway comes in behind some of the trees but we do have to take out three trees is to make the driveway so inside of the driveway but everything in front of that wall from the street to
the wall is pretty much the same grade and so we'll be able to put shrubs in there and it it the because of the wall it drops down the top of that wall is elevation 62 the driveway is at elevation U the walkway in front of that
wall is at elevation 59.5 so that that's a 30in 30in wall so that the the driveway sunk so anything being parked in the driveway is down low so it's easily screened by just shrubs but we'll we're able to put we
can put trees all the way across that if you'd like you know um and and really screen the house from the road if if that's what people want um and if the homeowners agree to that but we can we can plant anything there to really screen this um certainly the driveway is
going to be well screened because it's also sunk um and and of course we would have Nice Landscaping in front of the house itself we're preserving the trees around the along the north property line um you can see by the contour lines that
um those trees are being preserved um it's a shame my um draft plan isn't there because it has the red x's in the in the few trees that are coming out but um yeah it's it's it can be substantially screened and the same with the southide Jamie uh the only uh the
only house that I see in this area that would look somewhat like this I think is the one at 46 Barbara Drive that you see on the left hand side as you're coming up yes yeah the blue with The Blue Shutters I think is that the is that the
only one that would uh that this would be similar to this in terms of designer size in terms of size and design there's one another one on uh ju just one second we have a idea that might help Paul um
Sarah uh Andrew if you'd like to email me the draft plan real quick I can put that up on the screen okay what email address S Clark chatam d.gov okay I shall do that Paul I think it was um 14 Janette
that would be the largest just structure in the neighborhood at least in terms of gross floor area it's 4500 square ft um I mean I guess the the design is is unique for the neighborhood but I'd say a lot of the designs are are unique in that neighborhood I don't think
there're sort of a uh common pattern in terms of the way the home there certainly certainly a lot of different houses that's correct uh and you mean 14 Janette or 14 Carolyn I don't see Janette I don't see a 14 Janette it's on
the gross floor area analysis that we that yeah the 14 it's on the corner of uh Janette and Carolyn okay all right that's that's still Janette I see okay yeah and and then the only other thing I'd say is I think you'd also in terms of what's the neighborhood I think you have to account for the other homes around the pond is
really part of our neighborhood because at least from the back visual that's what we're comparing to in terms of size and style as opposed to uh other homes that are Inland lots that are just I mean again the the lot the Lots on the pond I think are a little bit different
a little bit unique and by the ones that Lots on the pond are you talking about the ones that are on Aela well Aela and and around Emory Pond over on Old Queen an and um what is it Agnes I mean I guess we're going to look at what's what are you going to see
visually those are the properties you're going to see but not not so much on a Thelma though no I I wouldn't say not so much on a Thelma no I mean there are some homes that are I guess a bit larger in size than the average but not not this type of architectural style now okay thank you I don't have any other
questions okay and uh if we get that email we'll we'll put it up um excuse me can I could I get that email again I'm not getting it right S Clark c l a r k yeah
chatam Dash Ma .g as in government okay okay thank you yep thank you David V deliberations questions I'm Sor questioning still so I I'm going to try
to follow up a little bit with um um uh Andrew um with respect to trees and things I've got the the Google street maps image in front of me here and and I've got you know looking at Dave
Clark's plan and um so it sounds to me Andrew that you're saying that right now where the in in front of the current garage or on the
street side of the current garage there are two trees um it looks to me like you're based on your description that the one furthest to the north which looks to be a little bit more significant is is is planned to remain is that
correct Andrew can you hear us I'm sorry I was sending the email yeah what was the question so I'm I'm questioning you more about the trees because I'm looking at the uh street view um of of this location and I'm
looking at the um the um site plan Dave Clark's site plan and I see some trees indicated on the site plan and me just make sure that we're speaking the same language what I thought I understood you to say was that uh everything basically
all the trees north of the retaining walls that you're showing on the uh uh northeast side of the driveway are the plan is for those to remain and one of those being there are a couple trees existing trees right now they're very
close to the existing garage yeah it's looked to me at least based on the site plan that the tree that's furthest to the north if you will there is is quite a bit larger than the other one is that the one that you think
you're going to be able to save um of those two next to the existing garage yeah if you she just put up the the plan so you see the red X's the red X's are the trees that are coming out so there's one it's yes okay that's
there one red I see close to the garage those are the ones that are that are scheduled to come out I can see that they're within the layout of the of the driveway as shown the new driveway but that other cluster uh up to the north of the of the
entry to the driveway you're the plan is to keep maintain those keep those trees correct cor correct and then what I also believed you said was all the the trees then I'm not seeing the X's up I'm not seeing any X's up oh okay I see the one
next to the existing retel the other trees north of the um retaining wall there are you're planning to to uh keep correct that's correct that's correct okay great thank you that helps me I
mean you know I can get a little better of the visual based on that so the only other thing that I'm I'm or one thing that I'm I'm curious a couple of things one J I was a little aren can you have a garage floor that's higher than the main floor of a house you can nowadays
there's no requirement there used to be requirement to have a 4 in curb yeah that's not in the code any anymore okay great fine and then um the only other thing I'm just so that I for my own clarification you know looking at our
maps and the the town the the maps online um I I'm I'm someone correct me if I'm wrong here I'm going to say what I believe to understand to be the situation because we got a letter from Mr malow at 88 and I'm I'm thinking that
88 is the lot that that his now two lots has shown up there and 88 the address 88 is on the southern half of that is that that's correct that's correct that was our lot we wouldn't be here that's
well no that's true you would have the frontage wouldn't you yeah we would have the so it's about where the sort of the jog I think is the jog is there's a a line separating the two lots okay um okay I don't
think I have any other qu I mean not that I can remember now any thanks all right great so so just for clarification for anybody at home or in the audience so this house is is 5T under what it could be you could have asked for a 30
foot but it's 25 correct uh no technically our from the average grade plane the house is 27 or would be 27 Oh what when I was talking about 24 that's looking at it from in front of the home because the grade drops off so significantly that skews the average so
it's three feet lower than what is allowed correct three feet lower Y and it's no longer the largest house in the area is it it is not no and have you heard anything from the people across the pond and I don't mean England I mean across your pond no that are going to
actually look at this we have not heard any nothing nothing okay and uh let me see and so when you first came here I don't even know what that date was you were asking for a gross floor area of 5696 then you came back with
5343 and now your current house is 4385 with four bedrooms versus five right that's correct so you've reduced the gross Flor year of this house by 1311 square feet yes that's correct okay and
um and the only reason you're even here right is because you you're missing nine ft of Frontage that's correct our lot size in terms of acreage or square footage is actually conforming it's just the frontage and it's even a little bit bigger than it needs to be yeah okay and
uh let's see what else I just wanted to clarify that so everybody knows what we're dealing with here um and let's okay so all that being said um I don't have any further questions Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move
into deliberations I excuse me dve seconds and votes yes all votes yes I vote Yes Steve votes yes and as do I okay deliberations Dave each um well I'll try to be brief um because I think I indicated the last time that that um I
it was something thing that I could support uh and I think that the changes they've made they've made further reductions and and I know there was some there some of the letters kind of didn't seem to feel that those were significant changes I I do think there's
significant changes I mean certainly giving up the the the um room above the garage and changing the the the the design of of the roof of the garage uh I think helps quite a bit and giving up full basement space for
call space um you know I mean you you you tend to use all the space that somehow storage everything else so I think those are significant reductions in made and I I'm not I I'm I'm I don't think and I think and I've
been you know while we're talking here I've been looking at that street view and looking in the street view and and I I think that that that as Jamie has presented I think that this I feel in my in my mind in my
judgment when this project is completed it it is going to be one of the larger houses in the neighborhood but I don't think that it the visual impact is going to be jarring particularly here and I think because
it's down away from the road even with just with those exist they've got existing trees and they've talked about maybe planting other trees if that would make people happier uh I I think helps to uh Offset you know it's not if you're driving down the road you're not like
you know looking that closely at at this location so I don't I can't I can't come to the and and and so the first thing i' I said I was going to be brief I'm sorry uh the I when a a proposal comes to us such as
this one that is designed in and even the first design was say and they've reduced from there that meets the dimensional requirements of our bylaw and meets the the and this blot meets the size requirements and and and
everything else and in this case that lack of 9 ft of Frontage is the reason that we're here and I have to say I in when I'm looking at the those kinds of situations I'm inclin
to to to be maybe a little looser than I might under other circumstances and I and and to me this situation I understand that neighbors are neighbors are still projecting this is going to you know be a horrible thing or I don't think that's going to be the case and I
certainly can't in in in my official position say that this would be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood I I need I have to come down on the property owner rights on this side on this one it really seems to
be important to me so that's the way I feel thank you Steve what's say you um well I'm a little bit torn but uh but because this is going to be the second
largest house in the neighborhood however um if you go by the G gr area um about 20 or 25% of it is is underground because of the Topography of
the land So you you're not even going to see um almost a quarter of the of the floor area um so the part that you will see is about 3,400 Square fet which is not
going to make it look like the the largest house in the neighborhood and I think what Dave was was starting to say is that you know the bylaw is is kind of numbers based and it's within the setbacks it's lower
than the the height that it can be um it's you know far enough away from the from the street it it meets all the numbers of the bylaw um but there are you know 10 or a dozen people in the neighborhood that
don't think this is a good idea and really the only leverage that they have is is whether or not it's detrimental to the neighborhood because it meets all the other criteria of the bylaw that we have to
follow um so although it is a large house um you know there there's not there's there's not much that you can say because it beats the it meets all the criteria of the bylaw so um you
know I understand what the neighbors are all saying I hear them but you know um I I think I would probably approve this just because of the numbers and we so um I I actually agree with Dave and Steve um it it's here before us
because of the frontage and I'm glad it is because I think the process that we've gone through has been very valuable and I think that it has made a difference and while I have heard the neighbors um I think that um what the
owners have done has been substantial and um I appreciate it um I don't think the first design that we were presented with was was um appropriate um for that neighborhood I think it's gotten much
better um it's still a large house um for that neighborhood and that neighborhood is unique and very special um but I think that um you know to ask if it's substantially more detrimental I don't
think so um I also think that the lot next door helps it in some ways it gives it some more space um from a visual perspective so um I I'll be voting in favor of this
one and Paul what will you do um well uh we've spent a lot of time looking at this and uh um I've spent a lot of time going up and going through the neighborhood um and we've had a lot of good input
from the neighbors with suggestions on what should be done and I think that uh as Lee said the process has been helpful uh in changing what was originally
proposed um and when you come to the idea that but for nine feet on the Frontage they wouldn't be here at all and perhaps that first proposal would be what was being constructed um I think the process has
worked uh fairly well in terms of trying to get people uh on the same page and hopefully they will be able to get on to the same page uh but basically I think that they have made substantial concessions they've addressed the
question of the fifth room or bedroom and they've have addressed the question of uh the overall growth square footage uh reducing the size of the Headroom and the basement and so forth and when you
balance the rights of uh the ability to try and do what you want to do with your property it seems to me that they've uh they've made the concessions that were necessary in order for uh for me to vote affirmatively with respect to this
proposal so that's what I would intend to do well thank you and um I I I would just say that originally when the homeowner came um there was a conversation that she had with us uh she told us that um they love the house when
they saw it and they were um practically devastated that they had to make that they had to tear it down and so I think that's sort of not equal to what's happened because if they wanted to keep the house that was there they could have just and then they realized they
couldn't do that they could have built a very similar size house but instead of doing that they built one much larger they want to build one much larger so I think that was in congruent and it caused some dissonance with with the neighbors because they didn't understand
if you liked it so much like that why do you have to build such a such a bigger one and I also don't give credit to when you ask for something of 5696 at the beginning just because you've come down to something that's probably acceptable I don't give credit to that at all all it's like say thanking someone for stop
hitting you in the head you know you should have been do it in the first place so that's a way I look at something like that and you and then also um I do like the idea that they're going to hook up the sewer and that they're going to deal with all the
runoff um and um I think when you come down the street you're not going to really be bothered by this people are concerned about that it looks like a three-story house in the back but my understanding of that back area is that's how it always looks when you have a walk out basement and so there's not a
lot you can do about that um and you know I also think that it's unfortunate when allegedly you tell neighbors that you're going to come back to them one more time and you don't you know you set yourself up for for also some dismay um not that you have to go back to your
neighbors it costs money to have an architect and an attorney and meet and meet and meet um so you know I think enough is enough um at this point and this is something that I would not be able to say is substantially detrimental to the neighborhood but I think although
the process worked it was a little um you know concerning with the things that I had mentioned and so anybody listening to this it's going to come before us you know try to take that into consideration um and just come with something that's reasonable in the first place and you don't put yourself through so much
torture um so with that I would vote Yes Paul I'll move to approve the application as submitted with the conditions that all construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner that between June 30th and Labor
Day no exterior construction will be allowed no work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8:00 am and 5:00 P PM only uh Dave V seconds and um votes yes and Paul votes yes I vote Yes Steve
votes yes as dowi it's unanimous congratulations and best of luck to the applicants and uh hope it all works out so with that um we have a motion to adjourn I think I'll move to adjourn uh Dave V seconds and votes yes Co all
votes yes I vote Yes Steve votes yes as do I and what time is it 5:43 p.m. you like that good night chadam [Music] n [Music]
[Music]