##VIDEO ID:8Fn3h5dsfAc## e e e e e e e e w [Music] [Music] [Music] everyone to the October 10th 2024 meeting of the town of chadam zoning board of appeals pursuant to Governor Healey's March 29th 2023 signing the act of 23 extending certain covid measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting La until March 31 2025 this meeting in the chadam Zoning Board of appe is being conducted in person and via remote participation every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately ass access the proceedings as provided for in the order a reminder persons who'd like to listen to this meeting while in progress may do so by calling 508 945 4410 conference ID 798 324 739 pound or join the meeting online via Microsoft teams through the link in the posted agenda while this is a live broadcast and simoc cast on chadam TV despite our best efforts we may not be able to provide for realtime access we will 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 before I tell you the procedural steps I just ask that everybody shut off any device or Gadget that makes any noise whatsoever um and please don't speak unless and until you're recognized by the chair and you're up at the microphone um first we take a roll call vote of all board members to authorize this type of meeting and we'll do that um starting on this side go around Virginia Fenwick I approve Lee hubby I approve poliy sample I approve Ed Acton I approve uh David H Fe I approve and Randy parash I approve as well next we ask if any citizens or non non board members participating on the call via the phone only please give your name and the last four digits of your telephone number for identification purposes if uh recognized um the hearing notice will be read by our staff um Sarah Clark on my right um then you are your representative will present your appeal or application anyone in favor of the appeal or application may speak for up to 5 minutes and there'll be a clock up there and after that I'll read any and I'll um I'll summarize letters received by the board then it'll be asked if anyone has any questions or has um statements against the appeal after that we will um ask if there's any questions from the board we will close the public he in deliberate and usually we um vote so after all that we'll take a roll call vote to end the meeting and give a verbal confirmation of what time that is um so at this point we have minutes from September 12th 2024 Miss benwick I moveed to approve the minutes dated uh September 12 2024 I second oh yeah good and um roll call vote on that for whoever was here I approve I approve I approve and I approve okay very good very good all right so the first application is 66 with Thelma Drive number 24- 099 application number 24- 099 Damon and Lisa harell care of James M nor cross Esquire PO Box 707 chadam Mass 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 on a non-conforming lot via the demolition of the existing dwelling and 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 40a such substantial alteration requires the grant of a special permit the existing building coverage is 1, 159 ft and the proposed building coverage is 2581 ft where 2900 ft is the maximum allowed the lot 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 in Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5 be of protective bylaw welcome attorney nocross thank you uh good afternoon Jamie narcross representing Damon Lisa herrell uh Lisa is here with me this afternoon in the blackfest in the back um as I'm sure you saw in your packet we received a number of letters that came in this week from Neighbors with concerns about the project so uh we are asking if we can continue our hearing until December 5th uh We've read the letters we haven't had a chance to reach out to any folks yet uh which we would like to do and see if we can't uh work with everyone to address these concerns okay before we get a motion and a vote on that would you like to hear from the board any comments sure on this would you would that help yeah that' be great we know you're going to do a redo on on your project but if that would be helpful that would be very helpful we're willing to do that sure great all right so let's start with Dave V just comments on that yeah I well I you know I spent a little bit of time out there and um before I'd seen the letters and um I had a a couple of things that I mean I I think overall um it's I was looking at it and looking with respect to the size of the um uh proposed house with respect to the others in the neighborhood surrounding neighborhood and um you know noting that the proposal and I'm not sure I'm there may be good reasons for it but it looks like there the proposal is to elevate the first floor elevation by about 5 feet over where it currently is uh with that and the somewhat larger and perhaps somewhat taller size building lead was leading to a 10.4 ft increase in the height from the existing Ridge to the proposed Ridge all of which I think speaks to some concerns with respect to the visual impact uh on the neighborhood and I think that some of the letters from the neighbors reflected that uh I think um um yeah those those were the main things that I was and then on the other hand on the other part of it I will say uh that um I I I think if I'd had to make a decision today it probably would have been uh maybe perhaps in looking more towards the neighbor's concerns but I am also cognizant of U that this is a proposal where it meets all the dimensional requirements of the bylaw and another way to look at this would be were it not for nine linear feet of of Frontage they wouldn't be here at all um so I I try to keep that keep that in mind with my considerations but it's also this is one where neighborhood considerations are important to us so thanks thank you Ed um yeah I when I went out to the site you know I noticed most of the houses in the neighborhood are are are are single story houses but there are a few twostory and I'm not suggesting that you limit yourself to that um it it does meet you know all of the setback and as Dave said it's very close to just being a non-conform I mean a conforming property and you not even being here so um uh I think uh you know it it may be considered perhaps a little bit big for that neighborhood but it's uh it's in in my view it's it's it's close I guess okay thank you Jenny um yeah well I I agree with Mr v um criteria two and five for me um I i' I read the letters from the neighbors and I agreed with almost everything that was said um it's it is non-conforming it it's close to being conforming but that's really irrelevant um I drove around this the neighborhoods the intersecting streets Carolyn Barbara Janette I don't think I saw more than three houses were even two stories you know full two stories so um I think what's being proposed is considerably too large for the neighborhood and Lee yeah I I agree with all my colleagues um it's a beautiful site beautiful view um but it's in a modest neighborhood with modest homes and um although I agree it needs to be rebuilt or renovated um I to struggle with Criterion number two it's the neighborhood and Paul well I guess I will agree with most of the comments that my colleagues have made um I am uh very cognizant of the fact that uh this basically complies with all of the uh standards of the dimensional requirements and um as Dave points out uh but for the lack of 9 ft on Frontage it wouldn't even be here um I did note that there are some larger places in the neighborhood uh coming up Barber drive towards uh towards this property um on the left hand side there's a fairly large house it seems to me um which is to a certain extent out of proportion with some of the other smaller places around some of the comments that have been made I think relate to the question of whether there would be an increase in the value of other properties and how that might affect taxes I don't think that's a relevant consideration for us uh I think that's true with respect to almost any property that we see that's renovated um so um I think that uh I I understand the concerns of the neighbors and um I want to be sympathetic to that but at the same time um people have the property they do have the ability to build and they are conforming so with respect to the changes that they're making so that's what I'm going to think think about yeah so I just I'll just add that I I agree with all my colleagues um we have criteria and um it is true that the value of property is not one of the criteria so um don't feel slighted that's NE never going to be considered and how many letters we get isn't even considered um it's taken into effect in terms of makes us think of what you're thinking but you can have a 100 letters or one letter and um we still go by the criteria and and in this case two and five stand out to me which are compatibility of the size of the proposed structure with neighboring properties it's a lot bigger and I'm not happy about how it looks like a three-story right now um because of that basement being so elevated um it's not um the best look for that neighborhood and also number five impact of scale sighting and Mass on neighborhood visual character including views Vistas and streetcape so we're really glad that you're going to come back and uh hope this was helpful a get a motion Paul continue yes what is the date that uh was being offered uh we uh December 5th okay I'll move to Grant the requested continuance to December 5 2024 uh Dave V checkins and votes yes Ed Acton votes yes jny votes yes and Pa Pa votes yes as do I okay thank you so much have a good day and next we have 24-100 124 Moon cussers Lane and what do you need sir okay okay after Sarah reads the um advertisement we'll to attorney Ford application number 24-100 Elizabeth a senson 2019 trust care of Michael deed Ford Esquire PO Box 485 West Harwich Mass 02671 owner of property located at 124 Moon Custer Lane also shown on the town of chadam accessories map 10A block 4 lot H2 the applicant proposes to change alter expand a non-conforming dwelling on a conforming lot via the construction of an addition the existing dwelling is non-conform and that it exceeds the maximum building coverage allowed the existing building coverage is 3,14 ft and the proposed building coverage is 3,328 squ Ft where 3,000 ft is the maximum allowed the lot contains 29,8 56 ft of buildable Upland in an R40 zoning District a special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 SE section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw attorney Ford welcome uh thank you Madame chair members of the zoning board uh Mike Ford he here on behalf of um the uh Sorenson the owners of this property together with Aaron pimus of uh pimus Savory D Silva um designers and and builders on this project so um before I go to Mr pimus and have him kind of walk you through the uh the proposed new U attached porch um a little bit about the history of this site I think is important uh from your standpoint in terms of uh making judgments on the criteria when uh we get there this is a lot that's 5 2,890 sare ft and um there is just under uh 30,000 square ft of buildable Upland however when this house was built in 2014 it was built as of right it had a little bit in excess of 40,000 square ft of buildable Upland and then the flood plane changes came in latter part of 2014 and as a result of that um over 12,000 square feet of this lot that uh uh previously was buildable Upland uh was no longer buildable Upland um it was quite a dramatic change for this particular parcel and so the house that was built um did not max out the uh loot coverage there was still over a th000 square fet at that time uh in lot coverage um under the 10% and so that's how we end up with this kind of uh you you might say to yourself how did you become non-conforming at 10.1 uh lot coverage what occurred to have that happened well it was the change in the flood plane that reconfigured the buildable Upland on this particular site if I you I'd have the same question well how did the house if it was built as of right um become non-conforming in terms of the coastal Conservancy setback at 47 ft where it's supposed to be 50 same thing it was it had more than sufficient distance from the Conservancy District but when the flood plane changed it did not it became non-conforming as to that so that's just kind of the background of this lot um that I'd asked you to consider uh when I get to the criteria in we go through that um in more detail um but we're here today for uh the porch what I'd like to do Madame chair is to have Mr pimus uh walk you through the design and uh the site plan and then he'll return it to me and I'll kind of walk through in more detail uh the criteria sure good afternoon Aaron paus sa to Silva thank you so we'll just we'll run through um addition here pretty quickly so this this is the uh you can see here this is the existing uh footprint of the structure and then this is the uh the screen Port so it's a single story uh you know small addition that uh just provides an area to basically sit outside and not be attacked by a lot of bugs in the summer um so uh 376 feet um if you go to the next page just this just shows Foundation again here's the um here's the small addition for the screen porch and then there's a also proposed little stair here to get down to the lower level and then the next page and this just shows the single story addition and then the next page is going to show there's no change to the second floor other than there's a roof line but that's at the first floor level so again sing story Edition this just we just uh for those of you if any of you didn't make it out to the site this is a very private site uh over an acre we designed and built this home uh back uh prior to the flood map change and um you know very very private site back there in Moon custers this just shows that uh single story screen porch Edition off the rear and then um the side uh the west elevation here there's that stair and then this is from the uh the driveway side or the North elevation and then from the uh from the East Elevation this is the the side yard elevation there is a they have a a pool out here um that was installed a few years ago so again this just provides some outdoor seating where they can view the pool and see the pool from from the outside while being protect protected that's really the uh the goal as they their family expands and um this is a multigenerational property with uh you know family and kids that enjoy the outdoor space so that uh I think provides an overview but I'm happy to answer any questions anyone has about the the proposed uh structure thank you so if I may Madam chairman I'll I'll go to the criteria uh first adequacy of the size of the site including but not limited to maximum laot building coverage and setbacks as I indicated in my opening uh the s's U over 50,000 Square ft but um under today's flood plane um it has a little less than uh 30,000 square ft of Upland where 40,000 is required and as I indicated in the opening the uh the house is nonconforming now in terms of the Conservancy District being 47 ft at its closest point um the building coverage has also become non-conforming as a result of the flood plane 314 Square ft or 10.1% where 3,000 or 10% is the maximum and we propose to increase that building coverage by 314 Square ft for the porch about a a percentage um on the building coverage um we think the site is adequate it's a generous site and the location of the porch is is U We Believe well placed in terms of um impacts on the neighborhood so compatibility the size of the proposed structure with neighboring properties um I did give the board um on as part of my handout um a table that's attached in the back to give you an idea of the size of the houses in this particular neighborhood all these uh uh Figures were taken off of um the assessor field cards you can see I highlighted 124 Moon cusser um and I try to do as the board I know is interested in terms of massing uh GFA and so the leftand column you'll see the GFA of the neighborhood um we probably fit somewhere in the middle um at 8,188 counting U all floors on the house and um Counting the porch would be 85 um there's certainly some are smaller um but there are some that are larger as well um so we think that um uh we are compatible with the neighborhood given where the location is um we think it's a compatible house you'll see I also put the stories and again uh I took this information from the assessor records um there are probably half a dozen full two-story houses um of which we're kind of one although they list us at 1.9 we're really a two-story house I'd suggest but um that that's how the listing is on the assessors but um there I couldn't find a one-story house in this neighborhood so um as you might suspect so um with respect to uh criteria number two I I think we are compatible um uh with the porch the extent of the proposed increase in the non-conforming nature of the structure or use um the only thing going up is lot coverage and um uh since we are over in lot coverage although U only by a point we are allowed to ask for this and you need to make a finding that it would not be substantially more detrimental and that's the reason I kind of gave you the history of this house U because when it was built it was conforming the lot was conforming the lot coverage was conforming um it became non-conforming by virtue of the flood plane change not by virtue of a vote of town meeting to change the area or setbacks or or coverage and so uh we reasoned um in speaking with our clients that perhaps the board would be amenable to a small increase in the lot coverage in this kind of unique situation where when the house was built there was they left a th000 squ ft of of lock coverage on the table so to speak and um their inability to utilize that U is directly related to the flood plane change in 2014 so that's the history on that that's the only increase in um non-conformity on this site suitability of the site including but not limited to impact on neighboring Properties or the natural environment uh we don't believe the uh this will have any proposed impact on the neighbor properties if you take a look at the map I also attached at the back um you'll see our site which I I highlighted um kind of a panhandle that leads down to uh the river and um the uh uh the the screen porch is off uh to the side of that all these houses are located if you had a chance to get down there um frankly in a situation where they're all kind of set with u privacy and nice settings um this lot has a nice setting and we don't think the the porch is going to do anything um to change that U so uh we think that U uh it will not have a negative impact on views Vistas and streetscapes in the neighborhood or affect the visual character under number five and and the neighborhood the neighboring uses under number six um it'll continue to be residential so there's no change to the use the uh no new sewer system or septic system is proposed um you'll read a letter Madam chair from the Board of Health that they have no problem um with the porch from a health standpoint we don't think it will have any impact on traffic flow safety um or litter um uh or noise the utilities are adequate the formula business and the um lateral extension within the flood plane are both not applicable I'd respectfully suggest since we're not working in the flood plane so that's our presentation on the criteria oh thank you so much is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application please make it known seeing none I will read the one correspondence from Judith Georgio our health agent on October 8th 2024 she tells us that she has no concerns regarding the addition of the screen room and entryway to basement as depicted on the proposed plan Judy next next we will see if there's anybody here our Microsoft teams that wishes to speak against this application or has a specific question if so please make it known no one's here and no one's online that we can see so now we'll go to questions from the board Lee I have no questions Paul no questions Ed um just one question uh the taking the the bulkhead out and putting in the stairs just curious the reasoning for that yeah so um sorry uh clients would like to have more direct access to the lower level um they may at some point choose to add a bonus room uh down there so being able to come down there with kids and have direct access also getting Furniture outdoor furniture in and out and not going down through a bulkhead having that stair makes it a lot easier super thanks and Dav you know uh thanks Mike for your explanation the history I was a little suspicious when I read the 314 square and knowing that this project had come before us uh that it you know so I understand now and uh that was the only question I might have had thank you yeah and Jenny same here that was my question and you answered that yeah and I don't have any questions so Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations Dave each seconds and vote vot yes Ed Ed votes yes Jenny yes well all votes yes as do I all right deliberations Jenny uh well I I think uh Mr Ford did a great job uh explaining what why it was over and that it really isn't over um it's a large lot very private not visible to neighbors um 314 square feet is only 1% of their total buildable upin even their revised buildable upin so um I I don't have any concerns and Lee yeah I have no concerns about this project either I think it um you know the lot's very private as junnie said it's it's a um small addition um I think it's going to be very nice and Ed uh uh no issue um it's interesting I was thinking about if it was just came to the 10% and not another 101 10.1% you'd be here for a variance and almost think uh variants might be uh approved as well given the circumstances and Dave um yeah I I agree with with all all previous it's uh I would imagine that there are times when it'd be very helpful to have a screen porch uh in that setting and and um it's no it's doesn't even look to be visible to any of the neighbors so it's not going to have any impact um it's not substantially more detrimental in any way shape or form so I'll supp all right Paul your thoughts I agree with our my colleagues it's certainly not substantially more detrimental meets all our criteria and I I agree Paul any conditions you think well I guess the question would be when do you plan to do this work uh uh this this season like the off the offseason uh between now and the summer well you're familiar I take it with that access because that's a pretty limited access I think I backed up twice going down there to let people come out which yeah the Moon the Moon cussers yes access yeah yeah it depends on yeah when you uh yeah when you hit it okay um but yeah we you we did build this house down there and you know we we're we're we're comfortable we can do this in a way where it's not impacting we're not going to be doing it wether there during the summer so it would be an offseason project all right I'm not sure I see a need for the standard conditions I'll just move to approve the application as submitted on Dave eight seconds and vote Yes Ed votes yes Jenny Jenny votes yes all votes yes as do I thank you so much andk you thank you and next on the list is 27 blackberry and that's going to be attorney Riley who'll be ready when Sarah reads the application in a moment application number 24-12 27 Blackberry LLC care of William FY Esquire peel box 707 Chad M 02633 owner of property located at 27 Blackberry Lane also shown in the town of chadam assessor map 15D block 28 lot 102 the applicant seeks to modify special permit number 24- 057 granted on June 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 the existing non-conforming garage to remain the proposed in to be located 16.7 ft from the road where 13 is proposed to be located 16.7 feet from the road where 13.8 ft was approved and 25 ft is required and the exterior mechanical appliances to be located 10.5 ft from the easterly a butter where 12.6 was approved and 15 is required the approved building coverage was 1,791 ft 29.1% and the proposed building coverage is 1,780 Ft 28.9% where 15% is the maximum allowed the lot is non-conforming and that it contains 6,161 squ ft where 20,000 squ ft is required in R20 zoning District a special permit is required under masterer Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protected bylaw welcome attorney Riley and Mr Roy nice to see you good afternoon Bill Riley with Rick Roy uh the uh as I indicated before the meeting to the members I I thought I'd just highlight the changes so this you approve this project uh last summer and the uh the changes are very modest spurred on by a comment made by uh Dave Nixon about saving the old shed he referred to it as a garage but it's really just a shed unless you have a Model A and you want to park it in there but modern cars don't fit anyway so as Sarah just read building coverage is going down from 29.1% to 28.9% I think one of the biggest changes that the uh front setback is now going to be uh 16.7 feet almost 17 previously was 13.8 so the building's moving back from the Street Building height is coming down about uh 6 in and the gross floor area is going from 4,667 Square ft to 3,972 sare Ft so I think the changes are all good you can tell by the crowd we have here that there deep interest in the neighborhood so I'll keep talking if you want but I think uh does Rick Roy have anything to say yeah I I wish Dave was here because of course I had to redesign the whole house in order to be able to get get it to work and recoup the square footage that we had used from the garage in the house so anyways we were able to do it so basically the house in its massing is a little bit smaller than it was before so we're heading in an even better Direction so I would think this would be a pretty easy one to approve okay good to know and um is there anybody are you done with your presentation then okay thank you um is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application if so please make it known seeing no one anywhere um I will read the one correspondence from Judith geio our health agent on 108 2024 she tells us she has no concerns regarding the changes to the special permit is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wishes speak against this application or has a specific question if so make it known seeing nobody again online or here that wishes to do so um we'll have questions from the board we'll go around this way Dave vich yep so the the only thing that I was noticed in the in the ad and was just asking about was it looks like there's you reducing the uh setback for the Mechanicals by a little bit what's what's the is is that the case oh I see yeah okay I don't have a site plan in front of me S well it looks like so I mean as part of the change it looks to me that oh there's an existing 12.2 feet and um the uh I know you weren't here when I warned about that so we're going to let it go this time but the proposed is it's off now the proposed is 10.5 that's that's it's not a concern I just wanted to I just noticed that was part of the uh part of it yeah I mean that there were Mechanicals in that setback anyway so we're not really changing anything yeah okay thank you that's all okay Ed uh no questions and Jenny questions that was my question um so are you saying it was uh just the way that it read in the in the in the um I guess the ad it sounded like that was a change but that wasn't a change from the last time yeah it's the if it's on the site plan is a change because I'm sure that there was a mention to it that that Wendy would have changed we are very careful about making sure that we're putting all the proper dimensions on the plan because when they go back to do the as built if we have put it in the wrong place then we have to come back and we don't want to do that yeah so um no that's um I mean I'm fine with it too because you made other changes that were several that were improvements and no questions well yes I noticed Dave's commented the last hearing too and I thought well it' be interesting to see what happens when they come back well now you know what happened yeah okay I have no questions and I don't either so Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations uh David seconds and votes yes Ed votes yes yes votes yes as do I okay deliberations Paul well I I think the changes if anything are for the better and I don't see any reason to say that we should not go with our original uh approval and conditions okay Lee I I agree with Paul I think the changes are um minimal I think it's great that they can keep the garage as well the Jed garage whatever and Jenny agree with my colleagues um the changes are improvements um and we are happy that you're keeping the garage and it uh meets all our criteria so uh no issues not certainly not substantially more detrimental than the original proposal that we approved approved and so I support it and we would have approved it the first time obviously so um Paul I'll move to approve the application as submitted with the same conditions as were on the prior approval thank David second and votes yes votes yes yes Paul Paul votes yes as do I it's unanimous congratulations thank you very much when s's ready we're going to go to 57 cabat Lane 24-104 Michael Ford Esquire application number 24-104 Richard and Andrea caor care of Michael D for Esquire PE box 485 West harch Mass 02671 owners of property located at 57 cabat Lane also shown on the town of chadam assessors map 7B Block 33 LW s49 the applicant seeks to enlarge ex extender change a conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot VI the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a new dwelling the proposed dwelling will comply with all bul and dimensional requirements of the bylaw but is considered a substantial alteration under the second accept Clause of section six of Mass General Law chapter 4A such substantial alteration requires the grant of a special permit the existing building coverage is 1,342 ft 11.2% % and the proposed building coverage is 1,792 Ft 14.9% where 15% is the maximum allowed the lot is non-conforming and that it contains 12,000 Square ft or 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 the protected bylaw welcome back attorney Ford and Mr pimus uh nice to be back Madam chair and members of the board Mike Ford um I'm here representing presenting Richard and Andrea korne the owners of 57 cabat Lane and again Mr pimus is with me PMA sa to Silver uh they're the designers and the builders on this particular um project so uh this is a um uh a raisin replace so to speak uh we seek to remove the existing uh structure and build a new uh house on this particular site um I was struck in the first uh hearing uh this evening um we a couple of members said gee uh the metrics all meet the metrics of the bylaw and yet you're here or they were there uh because of a a lack of sufficient Frontage in this in this particular uh project uh we have um we're meeting all the metrics um height coverage setbacks uh but the lot doesn't meet um the lot area um but I think this is a very different um set of facts than than the first one that you faced where there was a lot of opposition um I think you'll find there two letters in favor on this one and there's no letters in opposition um and I think you'll find if you look at this neighborhood um that the house fits into this neighborhood that's being proposed um not only in terms of its look but in terms of its uh size massing um height um and uh area it fits kind of in the middle of the gross floor area again this is one where I I've tried to come up with a very comprehensive chart using not just the houses uh around us that were of similar size but all of them to give you a flavor of what's out there I attached that to the back of my findings and I'll get into that um in more detail so at this point uh Madam chair if uh he could I'd like to have Mr pimus walk you through the project sure hello again um so Harding Shores just uh assume everyone knows this area um here's just a little aerial of of the neighborhood uh We've we've actually just counting we've done I think nine homes in this neighborhood over the last couple decades we feel like we know the neighborhood quite well um this gives a you know an overview of of what's there the site we're talking about right here is 57 and uh the clients our clients who who purchased the the property came to us asking to design a house that fit in nicely the neighborhood so we've been working closely with them to develop this uh this home for for their family um which they're very excited about and we'll just roll through the the presentation here so this just shows some of the neighboring homes for those of you that didn't make it out if anyone didn't make it out we just have a number of photos so 17 uh cab this is 17 cabit uh right down the street uh 20 25 cabit couple doors down 38 Billings this is directly in front of of 57 48 one down from from 57 56 also in front uh 66 this is diagonally in front we were actually before you about a year ago and permitted a a reconstruction here as well U so diagonally across 49 is you know Nickerson which is the street over so this is a couple houses over 52 is on the corner of Nickerson and Billings 44 uh one house up from that 39 Nickerson which is uh couple houses down as well 34 Nickerson uh one house up from 44 24 which is diagonally across from um cabat Lane or directly cost and then 12 Nickerson which is one up from that 70 cabit which is kind of diagonally across the street to the uh to the north west from our our property and then this is the house directly next door so this is next door to uh 56 front back and then here's the uh the home where we before you um this afternoon so you can see it's a kind of that's you know been expanded over the years Dormer kind of has been added on both sides and uh it's uh you know it is quite dated now um here's the site the existing existing site and then proposed as Mike uh shared we we do meet all of the the requirements setbacks uh coverage suptic system you know fits right in the front here um and uh everything um you know everything fits within within the requirements the zoning parameters proposed uh lower level and then first floor you can see a relatively compact first floor this client did choose to do a garage which most of the homes in neighborhood don't have garages because they are smaller Lots uh this client chose to have a garage that does does kind of eat up if you will some of the living space but they did want to have a place to to put a vehicle and store things so there's a one car garage kind of tucked in the front so that that does take you know take some of that living space you can see it's a pretty compact um first floor small bedroom and then a second floor with basically sleeping and and uh you know one room over the garage so pretty compact uh home they did take advantage of that lower level which is you know really the foundation right so building out the foundation to have some additional uh space for for family and kids but above grade uh it's about a 3,000 foot structure so proposed front elevation which uh we feel you know fits in we drew on a lot of the different details within the neighborhood the shingle style um shutters you know arches architecture that's very consistent with what you see in the neighborhood um we've we've pulled into this this design and uh just a side elevation there's that there's that garage you know tucked in you see you know pretty compact but it all it all works and then the rear this is the water side um side the face with water I should say and then this is the other side elevation from the East we also did a rendering uh this shows uh we we rendered in the the proposed structure so that's that's the proposed structure there we wanted to do is you can get a view of it within the neighborhood so you can see how it you know fits in in terms of material shingle style that's great thank you for zooming it shingle Style with the shutters um streetcape the streetscape yeah really kind of consistent with what with with with with what you see and and we wanted to we did that for our client and fig we'd share it share with you all as well um and then we did one from the from the water as well even though you won't see this unless you're flying I guess or you you're up in a drone but just kind of helpful to see how it fits in within the neighborhood as attorney Ford shared before you know this is a neighborhood that's that's developed over the years um and has kind of a consistent theme now of shingle style you know story and a half two story some even some even more than that home H but this house is really a you know story story and a half story 3/4 with the with the Dormers um and uh you know we feel you know fits in well hopefully you all feel the same you can see you know Red seedar Roof white seedar sidewall um you know same same kind of looking feels the rest of the neighborhood so we thought it was helpful to show that and then this is just another one that shows this is the house I I mentioned before 66 Billings we we were before you about a year ago had this one permitted uh as well um that's not yet built so it hasn't yet been built but that was permitted about a year ago um and this is kind of diagonally in front of of 57 so we just figured to show kind of what the future um view from the air would look like for what it's for what it's worth and uh yeah I think that's that but happy to answer any questions um anyone has thank you so if I may Madam chair I'll I'll uh go through the criteria uh with the board um first the adequacy of size of the site including not limited to maximum lot building coverage and setbacks so the lot is under sized as I indicated but it is uh uh if you look at the table it it fits within the lot size of most of the Lots out there um at 12,000 Square ft um we think it's adequate because uh taking the 12,000 Square ft uh we meet the lot coverage um and the setbacks um so there isn't any um any non-conformity being created here in terms of the new structure other than the fact that we are on a non-conforming lot compatibility the size of the proposed structure with neighboring properties I think we tried to give you that uh feel um when we took you around the neighborhood um up and down Billings cabit and U Nickerson and the other lanes uh that are in there and um uh we we think that at uh a footprint of 1792 and uh if you look at my table because I know you're always interested in the gross floor area and we took the three floors there 141 um is what we would end up um we think it's compatible with the neighborhood again if you look at the table um we didn't find in in the immediate area around there and I try to take uh as many of them as I could um uh only one uh one-story house and that's on the other side of the street from us at 52 cabit but obviously I did include that to show you that that's probably the smallest one I found built in 93 um and that's at 1500 um uh grow square footage but I think that's kind of now out of keeping with the rest of the this particular neighborhood which is all two stories or uh 1.75 or or thereabouts so um we'd suggest that the board could make a finding uh that this is in keeping with the relative size of the other structures in the immediate neighborhood and as a result under number two is compatible the extended proposed increase and non-conforming nature of the structure of use there isn't any increase in any non-conforming um uh structure or use um we are however seeking to build a new house uh on an undersized lot but in terms of the metrics of non-conformity um there isn't any here that are being created um four suitable site uh including not limited to impact on neighboring Properties or on the natural environment um groundwater um uh again given the visual that we tried to give you um today and hopefully that you got out there and took a look we don't think this is going to have a negative impact there's a two-story house in front of this one between this one and the water there's a a large two-story house to the right of it there's a store there's a two-story house that will be built per the special permit that we showed you um on the right hand View and another one on The leftand View along the beach so um we don't believe this is going to impact the neighborhood in terms of visual character um we don't think it has uh a negative impact on the views and Vistas we tried to give you that one street shot of that PSD created for the clients to kind of give them an idea as to how it it fits in um compatibility to proposed use with neighboring uses I don't think that's really an issue here they're all residential adequa a method of sewage disposal a new septic system is proposed uh for the site uh um the chair will refer to a letter from the Board of Health in which they indicate that the new house is proposed to be constructed over the existing system and therefore a new system uh needs to be designed well it's shown on our site plan we understand that uh the design will be submitted to the Board of Health for their review uh and approval uh no impact I'd suggest on traffic flow safety noise litter uh the the utilities are adequate and um uh 11 and and 12 are not applicable here so that's our um that's our position with respect to um the criteria for your consideration together with the chart attached uh with some additional information to help you in making that judgment call one thing I I didn't mention is um there is an increase in height here um we're going to end up at 292 I tried to give you as as many of the heights of the structures as I could and the way I could give you so many of those uh directly is I could I found the permits and looked right at the permits and that's where I got the uh you know 29.6 28.9 28.8 29.6 and 28.6 um I couldn't get the height off of the ones that have not had a recent permit so I just said not available but I'd suggest to you that um uh two out of the three of those are two-story homes so um um they they're as high as a two-story house so uh I tried to give you that chart in terms of trying to help you come to some conclusions with respect to U the height because I know that's uh always a consideration for the board when there's a raise and replace uh here I think there's a strong argument that can be made that while it's a a large increase in height with this structure um that its gross floor area um um and its height are compatible with the the surrounding neighborhood I think you have two um letters in favor um that you'll refer to Madam chair one of them and I can wait uh and address it after you read that letter if you want um one of them raises a question about a fence yeah right and so all I can tell you on that is uh Aaron reported that to our c as soon as we saw it he's reached out he's made contact with 67 they're going to work out something on the fence we'll get to I'll let you you know we we we'll revisit that okay just so that sounds like the right crystal clear okay anything else no thank you very much for your presentation uh is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wish to speak in favor of this application if so please indicate the hand up no hands are up I will read the three correspondences one is from our health agent Judith Georgio received on 108 2024 I reviewed the proposed plan for this property the proposed dwelling will encroach on the existing septic system no septic flow increase is proposed application and plans for the new system will be required prior to approval of the building permit next we have a letter from Michael and krie froli on October 8th 2024 they tell us that they're right in support of the proposed construction project on 57 cabet Lane which is being undertaken by their neighbors Andrea and Rich corthorn after reviewing the plans for the project I believe the proposed design fits nicely with the character of our neighborhood the project is well thought out and appr we appreciate the care that has been taken to ensure that the it complements the surrounding homes and Community I have not had any concerns regarding the proposed construction and feel it'll be a positive addition to area and neighborhood I hope the town will support this project I as I believe it will enhance our neighborhood thank you for your time and consideration and they're at 44 Nickerson Lane next we have a note from Jim and Lillian mcel from 67 cabit Lane received on uh September 30th 2024 they live at 67 cabet Lane which ab buts the subject property have lived there for over 30 years support the request for for a special permit described in the notice having done it teared down and rebuild theirselves on our current property we understand the undersized lot issue we're pleased that all other requirements are in compliance with the chatam that which chatam allows we do have a few minor requests for consideration we are full-time year round residents and such I will it will be the only AB buts who will be around for the entire project construction can be noisy so we ask the cont contract does not commence work um prior to 8:00 a.m. and end at a reasonable hour we have maintained a rail fence along the property line with the former property owner rail spelled r a i l that type of fence um equally sharing any maintenance costs we assume the fence will be retained our utilities are underground with the control box in close proximity to the lot line we asked that there' be caution during construction in summary we support granting the special permit is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that has a question or wishes to speak against this application seeing nobody anywhere that wants to do that we'll go with do you want um attorney Ford talk about the rail yeah just just to tell you that we had uh we sent that letter when when it came in um to our clients yeah I can speak to I can speak to it I I just I just spoke with our our clients he actually has been in touch um with the next door neighbor since that letter yeah that was a while ago they were just in touch last weekend and had had a very good conversation um our client's committed to working with them on the fence we totally understand about the utility box and there willon not be there won't be any issues there and then he also discussed just work times I'll mention this now we've committed uh to all the neighbors that we've been in touch with we've been in touch with many of them because we know many of them that there would be uh no out side summer work which is a typical condition we've done in that neighborhood so everyone understands that um in terms of the 8 a.m. request in the off season we did suggest that typically people get to the site around 7:30 get started sometimes a little earlier dat the neighbor said he understood that they just didn't want people starting super early in the morning so we we committed to working with them on on the offseason work as well and being respectful uh you know of them being there so not not a 8 am. start but not an early morning start we said 7 7:30 is what what our what our client discuss with them so we'll discuss those yeah we can so I just wanted to share what was discussed is 7:30 in the offseason no summer no summer outside work and then the fence will be taken care of and the utility box will be respected and we'll see what Paul and the board recommends and we'll take it from there absolutely all right so at this point um I think I'm at did I already do no is there anybody that wish to speak against this application or has a specific a question no you did to rebuttal questions from the board uh Paul um I don't think I have any questions this neighborhood has been going through transition over the past 15 to 20 years and all of these houses have been growing bigger and and uh nicer uh very nice uh I miss driving down Billings Road and seeing stately Wayne Miner but uh in the D place but uh I think it's going well so I don't have any other questions all right Lee um I just have a question regarding the septic tank that will be under the driveway correct yes and the driveway material will be shell or rock some type of perious material yes right right um it's a it's a big space that driveway is there a reason for the the size of the driveway uh I I think it's really just to navigate getting so you have to navigate getting in and out of the out of the garage for one so that requires a little more room um if we go to the site plan so it allows again you if you have a car in the garage actually use my high-tech pointer here if there's a car in the garage to get out of here you you need enough room to back out and do this so it allows for a car to do that while still having room to park a couple cars this neighborhood Hood if you've been through it's not really a neighborhood where Works be parking off the site like there's not street parking so we try to provide parking where folks can park vehicles on the property and not end up flowing out on the street so that was the intention you know you can fit a couple cars in the driveway and then still have room to get a car in and out of the garage that makes sense that's uh that's the intention thank you that makes sense thank you um let's see Jenny questions um I do have a couple questions um so may maybe this for you Aaron the average grade for the existing is 222 and the average grade for the proposed is 232 why is that a foot higher so couple things the the current grade drops off in the back right here a fair amount so as as expect you're aware the way the grade Works your grade plane calculation so the intention is to have the grades slightly increase here around the structure so that the directly adjacent grades off the back are flat there'll be a Terrace area out there right now the there's a bit of a hole right here you can see this drops down to 22 here yeah um so that's coming up by you know I guess a couple feet so the 24 carries off here which is what which is why the great plane adjust up slightly so there's a bit of a pick up on the back that brings it all up by a foot or so well that's kind of why I was asking because it does seem when you go and visit on site that it is higher I me you're you're saying it's the back I really technically call that the front because that's the water side right okay so um the the uh so it does to me the elevation already looked higher than the house in front of it which is in front down on Billings yeah on Billings so actually the one it's 56 Billings I think yeah so what drives sighting is you know largely right you have your street elevation so you want to you don't want to be down too much from that because then then you have drainage issues right so it's relatively consistent from the street and then really the only adjustment was just right here was bringing that out a couple feet so from the street is it it's not going to be it's not going to read that it's a foot taller than the street okay no no the adjustment was that it's a little confusing CU again with the gr you're taking average yes the gray plane comes up in the back is what's is what's happening yeah and yeah so it's not going to it's not going to lift it's not going to look like it's sitting out of the ground taller okay so Mr Ford said it's quite it's taller and it's quite a bit taller it's 9.3 feet taller than the current house which is a twostory house is that yes but a very different design home right so like a cape Style versus you know this client did not want to do a Gambrell right so a Gambrell you end up with more mass but not necessarily as much height right so to have a pitched roof yeah you end up with more height but you end up with more of what looks like so our client was more interested in having what reads more like a story and a half house as opposed to a two-story so when you do that the height is taken from the peak right so yes it's technically higher from the peak but the roof mass is lower if that makes sense right cuz you're bring you bring the scale down by bringing the roof down I I don't think the existing house is two-story it's kind of a one story with an old long Dormer along it and the Dormers are offensively flat on the uh I think we have a picture I understand and I there that's the yeah I I it's just going to be significantly taller than what's there and and to the point I was making about the grade it's already a little bit of a higher elevation than the home homes in on Billings in front of it and the two the homes that are behind it on cabit on the other side um or in front of it however you want to um they are both listed here as the Height's not available but I know I know by driving there that they're pretty they're not tall they are old their homes now we have been I will say we've been in touch with many in the neighborhood because we've we've got to know the neighborhood very well um I understand you know what you're what you're sharing and it's c a you know different design home a larger home but we have reviewed with the neighbors and you know they no one had no one from what no one that we've discussed yeah with this you know this project has had any concerns about that I would I would share we've been pretty outen is it fair to say that it's going to look 10.3 feet taller from Billings I think that's a tough question to answer maybe yeah because that's based on average that average grade it's an average grade it's because it's a gr the grade grades are a gr it's a grade plane calculation yeah so it's grade divided over a plane that exists and it does still drop off a bit in the back it will look it will look no taller than you know like the house part of the reason we did that streetcape shot is it will not look taller than many of the homes that are directly adjacent to it so this house next door mhm will frankly probably look taller than it will I mean this house is a bit closer to the street and it's certainly uh that's 29.6 you know it's so it's taller yeah that's that's 67 the house diagonally across the street here on the corner is also taller so it relative to his neighbors it will not look I I'm not arguing that there are a lot of houses as Mr Ford has put together here and you can see too I I just was questioning you know one one last thing I'll make about the height the house in front of this house the water side is 56 Billings which is 26 feet tall yes so they're just very fortunate that they have you know that's the that's a difference that's a nice lower height these of the others um that that's all I had thank you okay questions we already went through qu Lee and Jenny and no questions Ed no questions and Dave uh no I I have no um I don't have any questions either so I will go with Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations uh dve seconds and votes yes Ed votes yes J yes all vot yes as do I all right deliberations um let's just go back to Jenny and let her finish all of her thoughts I know I kind of got it you know I I don't love how tall it is um but I I I I think it's detrimental to that particular particular part of cabat Lane but is it substantially more detrimental I can't say that it is because there are as they have as Mr pus and Mr Ford have pointed out several houses that are um you know very tall so okay deliberations Lee um yeah I I uh I think that um I think I think it's a great looking house I think the style of it makes it look taller than it actually is um I mean it is still tall but I think it's the style um but I think it's it's very nice I um I don't I think it meets the criteria I certainly don't think it's going to be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood um that that's what the neighborhood is so I think it'll fit in nicely I'm not voting today but y if I were I would vote to approve it all right Ed you're voting you going to vote um uh I think you know that's a very desirable neighborhood uh people are are improving their houses in that neighborhood there this one's being improved to sort of fit with the rest of the houses in the neighborhood so I don't have any issues um with the project I think it's going to fit in nicely and dve yeah well I you know it's so you know thinking with respect to an earlier application and various areas in town of of neighborhoods and changes of neighborhoods and things like that and this neighborhood has been in in transition for quite a long time and you know maybe in the early days there were there was a an uproar but I don't remember anything like that I wasn't on the board at the time um certainly this is one that's is definitely further along in being re redeveloped from the original there actually still some some of the old houses are still left and spots you know and they don't and everything seems to work pretty well together I would say in my judgment uh architecturally um I think that um the question of the height I mean it is you know it's about 10 feet higher than the existing Ridge but I I also as Aaron points out that the existing house well you might call it a story and a half that the pitch on the Dormers is is really shallow it doesn't look good particularly um so the there's a need to increase the height uh to a certain extent anyway just to meet to overcome some of that this style is shingle style is is this sort of a in my view a pemus and savory take on Shingle style type things with fairly steep pitched roof and all it it's an alternative to as as Aaron pointed out you know a Gambrell it seeks to achieve some of the same things but to me Gambrell does it in a sort of a more muscular way if you will you know um whereas this has a little bit softer to some degree all uh any anyway I don't have it certainly fits it's not substantially more detri in the neighborhood in any way shape or form um and also I think you know as as far as the perspective or the view from the houses on Billings I don't think people on Billings are paying much attention to what going on up the hill behind them necessarily and generally when they're looking out the window but um so I all in all I think it fits well it meets our criteria and not substantially more detrimental and support it all right Paul I I agree with Jenny I think the the design does make it appear even taller than what actually is happening there I think the perspective that you gave us going down the road uh showing how it fit in with the other houses helps that a great deal uh I would agree you can't say it's substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood U so I will approve it yeah and I think the way the design of the house is it's broken up so it's not Mass plus height altogether and when we see that a lot of times we bristle but this is an attractive professionall looking design that just has some tall Eaves essentially and uh so I I would be and I I really appreciate your your Prof professional um application and everything that you've provided it was exemplary so I'm going to vote Yes so Paul talk about conditions yes I will uh I'll move to approve the application uh on the condition that uh all construction activity and vehicles will be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner um and I'll divide up our next conditions so between June 30th and Labor Day no exterior construction will be allowed and no work shall be permitted on the weekends and the construction activity will be between 8:00 am and 5:00 P PM only um that's during the summer time June 30th the labor day and that prior to that time frame construction activity would be between 7:30 a.m. and 5:00 P p.m only okay is that consistent with the representations you've made yes okay uh yeah Dave V seconds and votes yes and Ed Ed votes yes Jenny votes yes all votes yes as do I it's unanimous congratulations thank you all have a good evening thank you you too care we have one more application looks like and that it's going to be 82 Kent Road application 24-13 it's attorney Riley and Sarah is going to read the appli application number 24-13 David Parish and Elizabeth parish care of William F Riley Esquire appeal box 707 chadam Mass 02633 owners of property located at 82 Kent Road also shown on the town of chadam assessor map 12j block 23 lot G3 the applicant seeks to enlarge extender change a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot be the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a new dwelling the existing dwelling is non-conforming and it is located 34 ft from the road where a 40ft setback is required 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 gender Law chapter 4A such substantial alteration requires the grant of a special permit the existing building coverage is 1,831 ft 5.6% and the proposed building coverage is 3,269 Ft 99.9% or 10% is the maximum allowed the lot non-conforming and that it contains 32859 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 5B of protected bylaw attorney Riley thank you um thank you good afternoon Bill Riley on behalf of David and Elizabeth parish Mr parish is uh participating remotely as is uh Charles Krauss who is the architect this is a situation where uh talking about neighborhoods that are changing so we've done a lot of houses down on coill road and Kent Road uh recently and so this is one of those the um they're at the top of the hill and so the the uh the design as you can see is sort of an upside downouse so that the Living Spaces and the viewing areas are on the second floor uh and the bedrooms and most of the bedrooms are down on the first floor uh that leads to sort of maximizing the height of the building uh I think that if you've been out to the S I'm sure you have been you know that the lot itself is very heavily treed uh most of those existing trees are going to remain uh so we think that even though it's a tall house uh that the U it's going to be difficult to see from the road first of all you have to look up that's tough to do while you're driving but I think that the the uh in this setting on this property uh this is an appropriate house so we here before you uh like the previous hearing uh the building as design complies with all the dimensional requirements of our zoning bylaw but the lot uh which was developed many years ago uh has only 32,000 square feet and so that's why we need the special permit so the the um what I'd like to do is ask Charles Krauss who's the architect uh to go through the design uh parameters that he worked with the parishes on uh to come up with this particular design Charles Charles are you with us yeah are you muted there we go can you hear me now yes Charles Krauss cross Associates um so when we looked at this design we we took a look around the neighborhood and the context and David is also built in the neighborhood um trying to to design something that's contextual has the cape feel um looking at a gambell side to side with some Gables in the front that bring that the lines down to a one-story level try to keep as close to one and a half Story look as we can get um using leaching oil shingles to get that silvery weathered look uh Western red shingles on the roof um try to keep you know in keeping with like Bill set a transitional neighborhood uh the scale of the house seems to work with the neighboring properties and um that that's pretty much the exterior Bill also mentioned that's coming upside down house the bedrooms on the first level and the the main living spaces up [Music] above that's kind of the design of nut nutshell okay thank you very much Charles the U we also have David Parish online he's the owner of the property and he's going to go through the uh U planting plan which is shown on the of the first page of the original handout if you've all seen it yes there you go oh uh David go ahead and introduce yourself and yeah hi can everybody hear me yes oh great um I'd like to thank everyone for their time uh my wife Elizabeth and I currently have a place in South chadam and we're looking to build this home on Kent Road to give us a little bit more space for the kids they significant others and with any luck grandkids at at some point in the future uh also looking to spend more time uh down at the cape as we start looking towards retirement uh I am a residential home builder uh primarily in the Metro West Market of Boston and U really looking forward to building a new home for ourselves here the proposed sighting of the home essentially sits over the footprint of the existing structure in my opinion uh tucks in nicely on the back of the lot uh I would note that the existing structure does not meet the roadway setback requirements on Kent uh and we are correcting that based on our proposed plan uh we'll be utilizing a complimentary mix of materials for The Hardscape and the driveway area there'll be a number of Fieldstone walls uh blue stone Terrace to the West blue stone walkways in front line with Cobblestone and the driveway materials will be Crush crushed sea shells Cobblestone and ideally uh a minimal minimal amount of asphalt uh I think the idea is to have the entrance aesthetically pleasing but also provide you know a high level of functionality the easterly side of the lot that buts Cove Hill has a number of substantial mature plantings that will be maintained to provide screening as you come in on Cove Hill uh there are a number of very large hydranges pitch Pines Evergreens uh paper Birches and some large Oaks uh I think it's fair to say that the new home as proposed will be difficult to see when coming in on Cove Hill giving that that existing vegetation and the fact that the road elevation is about 15 ft below the building envelope the southern lot line that abut 511 Cove Hill will'll be planting a combination of through thig green Giants and emerald green abides along that line uh and this will provide some nice privacy along the back side of the house and and the Westerly lot line will be doing something similar uh but will likely stick with the emerald green so that the overall look is a bit more controlled uh and this will create a nice visual and provide a buffer between uh 82 Kent and the Neighbors at 73 and 23 Rover run outside of uh some of the extensive plantings on the lot lines for the proposed project we'll also be planting a number of specimen trees and bushes to complete the overall plan uh the plan schedule that's noted on this plan is really just a starting point for us and we'll be looking to expand that quite a bit um I suspect we'll be looking at 30 to 40 Evergreens for the project and a few hundred deciduous shrubs perennials and grasses and and overall uh I think it's going to be a great project and my family is super excited so um with that I'll I'll hand it back to Bill or or take any questions yeah thank you very much David So a couple of things I'd like to point out we measur the height of the building from the grade plane and the as you look on the U uh the site plan uh the grade plane on on the proposed side of the site plan is 45.4 and the uh top of foundation is U 47.2 so in other words the uh before you really start to measure the house uh you know you're starting from a point that's 2 feet below the top of the foundation to measure the the uh the height of the house so you're measuring it from 45 when on top of foundation is 47 so just like you you know keep that in mind when considering the the height of the structure in terms of visibility of the project project from the street if you look at the site plan you notice uh that the lot line uh is a substantial distance away particularly on the North uh east corner from the actual paved Road uh I mean it's I didn't measure it but uh you know 20 or 30t and if you've been there you you know there's many very mature trees in that area so that we think that terms of the visual impact that this Project's going to have on the neighborhood which is so important uh both to uh the parishes and to the neighbors is going to be very much uh screened uh from uh the streetcape so I would like to keep that in mind as we go through the uh criteria here the so as they pointed out the design utilizes some gambrells on the ends uh but the front of the house has the uh a pitch Roof Dormers and again although you know we're at 299 ft I think 29.8 ft of height uh we ask you to keep in mind that we're starting two feet below the house and Charles has used I think these front Dormers uh and the rear side Dormer to help bring the roof down they didn't want to have a roof deck uh thankfully it's not a Koopa and that so the top railing of the roof deck has to comply with the maximum height so that is the that is the height point on the property is the is the railing around the roof deck um so the the actual Ridge is a couple of feet below that and I think that's again that's important for you to keep in mind the um on the third page of my handout um I went around the neighborhood primarily uh the houses between us and and the water uh although with some of the other houses uh and calculated the gross floor area and so our our proposed gross floor areas is 6,732 square ft um 51 which is a building right behind us is 8457 square feet 38 as you come up the hill on the right if you notice that is over 9,000 square feet of grow floor area um to be candid I was really surprised when I started doing these calculations um we have 15 Cove Hill Circle which was approved by this board couple of years ago which is 8,500 Square ft more or less then we have 14 corfield circles just under 6,000 square feet gross floor area uh 73 which was just approved a couple of years ago although it's 5193 if you remember the lot this is a a lot that is more like a cliff going down to uh rers Cove in fact we'll be in we've already filed uh to rebuild a dock that's at the foot of the cliff um so although it's one of the smaller houses at 5193 gross floor area in terms of its impact on the lot uh it uses a significant portion of the Upland on the lot so I think that uh in terms of uh question one is the site adequate for the proposed structure we believe the answer is yes because we meet all dimensional requirements of the current bylaw the current house doesn't meet the sideline setback uh for the garage but we've corrected that the you know compatibility the size of the proposed structure with the neighboring property ianes the uh I think that reviewing the gross floor areas of the structure shows that although uh we are bigger than uh a bunch of the one directly in front of us the others around us are actually larger and so we believe that we are compatible uh with the neighboring properties and actually you know as we just talked about in the previous hearing um you know there are some original houses still in the subdivision which were built back in the 50s and are quite small um but we don't think that our project has a negative impact on them because those are properties that uh you don't drive by our property they get to they're all much closer to Route 28 um extent of the proposed increase in a non-conforming nature of the structure or use um the only non-conformity as I mentioned before is the lot is less than 40,000 square fet the new home is consider considered an intensification of the non-conformity because we are increasing the living area on an undersized lot sort ability of the site including but not limited to impact on neighboring properties around the natural environment including slopes vegetation Wetlands groundwater water bodies and storm water runoff well we do have a concern about slopes and storm water runoff and that's something that uh uh Mr Paris David uh if he's going to be running the construction or whoever the contractor is is going to have to be uh certain to make make that the storm water generated on the site is uh controlled on the site is not allowed to get off onto the uh onto the street impact of scale sighting and Mass on neighborhood visual character including views Vistas and Street Scapes again I think that the uh because the house itself is um not going to be very visible we don't think it has any significant impact on the streetcape uh just like if you if you drive in there today uh you can barely see the existing house because it's set back we're actually going to be further away from the street and we have David's planting plan which is going to provide greater shielding uh and certainly uh more it's obvious that the current owners of the property or the previous owners really weren't paying attention to Landscaping in their yard that everything's kind of overgrown and and uh uh just sort of wild uh David has come up with a beautiful planting plan that provides not only screening but real Beauty uh to the neighborhood I think that I think enhances everyone so the so the building is large it's not as large as some of the others in the neighborhood but because of the sighting up at the top of the hill it really doesn't have any impact on the streetcape or anybody's views or Vistas so I think that the um uh where the design is I would suggest similar to the other newer buildings that have been built uh I didn't realize gray shingles were a thing all the all the neighboring houses have gray shingles and these will have gray shingles as well I guess they the David explains to me they're all dipped and the these shingles will ultimately weather but they'll weather uh in a very similar manner so that uh the color will continue to be consistent um compatibility of the use with neighboring uses it's a single family residence and a single family neighborhood uh we believe a new title 5 system is going to be provided we don't think there's any impact on traffic flow and safety or noise and litter it's an existing four bedroom house this is a four bedroom house as well adequacy of utilities and other public other public services they're very much uh adequate and 11 and 12 really are not applicable so that' be our presentation thank you is there anybody here R Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application if so please raise your hand I he no I think I hear an echo no seeing no one um on that I will read the one correspondence from the health agent Judith Georgio received on 10 9 2024 I reviewed the proposed plan for this property a floor plan for the existing dwelling is required to con confirm the existing four bedrooms in the property the property was given a variance by the Board of Health to transfer with the existing cess pools condition that it remains vacant until the new dwelling is constructed a new septic system must be constructed as part of the property Redevelopment is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak against this application R has a specific question seeing nobody I will just bill did you want to um respond to anything about Board of Health everything's going to be fine no because it needs a new septic system so okay very good um okay so questions from the board Jenny Mr rile have a couple for you um I think I heard you say the roof deck um needed to be the highest point so so what's what he said was the railing and the roof deck is the highest point and it and so it had to be below 30 feet above average gr plane yeah okay so what's listed here is 29 feet 9 and 5/8 in is the top of that railing not the top of the ridge that's correct the ridge is a couple of feet below that okay and I thought you said I mean that is a roof deck like a it's not just a I thought I heard you say that that it's there's not a roof deck but I must there is a roof deck okay that's what I the rail I apologize if I well at first I thought maybe it was just decorative but it looks like it's a going to be a roof deck okay that that's I I must have misheard you um can you repeat what you said about cons you said consideration of the gr plane at 45 keep in mind top of Foundations 47 you repeat what you were saying there yeah so if you look uh at the uh the site plan for a minute yep and you look at the elevations shown in the site plan so the elevation uh next to the house uh on the south side is 48 mhm uh and then 46 elevation so the ground between the house uh as you move over towards Camp Road is dra between 48 and 46 so say 47 feet right the but the grade plane from which we have to measure the house the height of the house is 45.4 so that it is three feet almost below the grade of the of the house on the South Side so that you know so so we're measuring it's like it's like you were measuring me from the floor instead of from where I'm standing that's that's the point I was trying to make I mean okay I'm not this tall okay okay so so the house isn't that tall either you know I mean the Charles is here you can tell you how tall the building is going to be from top of foundation to the ridge um it's not 29.9 ft okay is um so while we're looking at the site plan if you go down to the northern side the lowest point down at the bottom of Cove Hill Road which you do see the house a little bit even through the trees um is 22 so my point is it's very high up on a hill that's correct um and is it the highest do you know is it the highest point in that whole neighborhood well driving around it certainly felt like it yeah it's conceivable over Cove Hill Circle yeah I drove over there as well that's we approved the zoning board approved that a couple years AO ago and that rises up quite a bit also I didn't I didn't check the height but uh if this isn't the highest point it's pretty close to the highest point okay that's all I had yeah okay um Le questions uh yes just one question the on the first floor the room on the right is a sun room it's just it's not marked it's a sun room okay um and then there's a deck above that yes and then there's a deck over the front the front por porch and a roof deck right okay thank you Ed questions uh no questions and Dave questions yeah um yeah bill I I feel compelled to try to straighten out a number here um the plan indicates that the the the ridge is not a couple feet it's 8 and 3/4 in below the railing at the top it's close close yeah 2 feet to8 and 3/4 I just felt compelled to mention that is that correct I don't know so how tall is the house that is correct is it okay good is that what you were asking really I don't really have a concern about it I just thought for accuracy's sake uh we would try to nail that down yeah thanks I think that's all I have thanks so I'm sorry are you saying then that the height of the ridge not the deck is 29 one or two is that what you're saying well I didn't try to do the math well so they're showing what they're showing is the the um 299 and you're saying minus 8 and 3/4 I think our Building Commissioner knows the answer so let's just go stra go ahead I didn't do the ma but your approximation is correct right it's said the building height is 298 measured to the rail because it's a required thing it's not ornamental and then the ridge is 8 and 3/4 in less than that so that would be uh roughly 7 two or something of a foot below the 298 so just over 29 to the ridge the only question I had was access to the roof deck myself okay um why don't you ask that how are they accessing the roof deck build do you know I do not let's ask the Builder Builder yeah hi it's um there's going to be a set of stairs that go up from the second floor there's going to be a continuation of that stairwell and then there's going to be a roof hatch that opens up onto that deck as proposed thank you I was just concerned whether or not we were going to have some other projection of above that the railing the guard rail around that deck no no we will not okay uh questions Paul I think you're the one um yeah I thought from Bill's demonstration that the house wasn't going to be any taller than he was standing right there but I guess that's not it okay I have no other questions you know my family's famous having short legs and high foreheads so all right so just to clarify I'd like to ask the Builder and and the Building Commissioner about the measures for runoff did did first The Building Commissioner uh J Briggs did you have any concerns or you square with the how the runoff is going to be managed well they should control the runoff I don't see any drainage proposed on the site plan but at the time of the building Perman issuance who would be looking for that and the building the building we'll end up we'll end up we'll end up putting in a number of concrete structures um and then we'll have drain leaders as well and all of that will be control and we'll we can include that um with our permit application great that sounds acceptable yes okay very good and so just to be clear the height of the house in feet for Lay people it's 29.8 when you're talking about the highest point no apparently it's 291 291 no Building Commissioner please they got the building height correct at 298 because we're measuring to the high highest part of the structure it's not always the ridge It's usually the ridge but in this case it happens to be the guard rail around the roof deck and that is I think what I 29 okay all right I thought you meant the ridge I apologize no I said the highest point so okay so the highest point is 298 and the regular part of the ridge would be 29ish just over 29 okay okay everybody's clear on that then just want to make sure okay um um I don't have any other questions Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations Dave V seconds and votes yes Ed Ed votes yes yes all votes yes as do I all right deliberations Dave v um well I don't um um I think it's a good-look house I think the way that it's um cited uh is I I reluctantly agree with Mr Riley's assertion that it's not really going to be uh a stand out because it's it's at the top of the hill where it is and and if you're driving anyway around there I think I would like to believe that most people would be paying more attention to the road rather than what's up the hill um but you know there may be people walking dogs Etc but I I think it's a a a reasonable proposal I don't think substantially more detriment on the neighborhood at all I think um um the you know the we're getting you know there's a little bit of leeway to the maximum height uh but we have a professional builder and they'll they'll know to make sure they don't they're not going to exceed that accidentally uh hopefully and um so I'm not concerned about the you know they're pushing the height limit too much um I think that um it's um I think I I it's a fit for the property I do and I'll support it okay Ed um yeah I I believe they they sort of took elements from the neighborhood the Gambrell the the a frame and um put those components in into this house I I believe Mr Parish built the house right behind it the new house right behind it which is yeah that's correct which is a a very nice house um I think it'll fit in with the neighborhood it um there certainly the new dwellings in the neighborhood are are are similar to this similar in size similar in height in fact a few are much larger um I mean the height is getting close to our 30 um but I believe it'll fit in uh you want to be careful if I remember correctly uh another Builder came back to us in this neighborhood with a oh yeah a house that was that was before your time I think I remember somehow well I know but I did I did have a conversation with Mr Parish where I pointed out that there's no coming back that if the as built shows the building is over height you got to reduce the height of the building I've already explained that to Mr Parish so um uh you know I would I would support the project yeah very good uh Jenny yeah I agree um it meets the setbacks meets coverage agree with Mr V the sighting is much improved the the new U citing of the new proposed it's a large lot um it's a very nice proposal I was concerned about the height being three Ines from the maximum on such a high point of the neighborhood but um and I I I still have some concerns about that because I think it's going to be look really really tall being at the almost maximum height allowed in chadam on such a high elevation with respect to the neighborhood however agree that a lot of the homes in that neighborhood are large and I think it will fit in y um I agree I I love the sighting of the house I like the fact that they switched or they relocated the garage I think it looks really nice um it's a substantial house um but this is a site and a location a lot and a neighborhood that can handle it so um once again I mean it meets our criteria criteria especially one two four and five um so I I think it's a good project and Paul yes I think the the uh the lot itself and where it would be sighted up high really hides it to a large extent from uh the height issue so um I think it certainly will not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and I agree with one two four and five adequacy of the size of the site um including but not limited to the maximum water building coverage and setbacks it's compatible with the size of the proposed structure with neighboring properties suitable for the for that area um and it has no negative impact on scale sighting and mass in the neighborhood um I I support it I it's um a nice spot that's very private and he the Builder is for wared about the height so he needs to worry about it not us so um so i' support it Paul um I'll move to approve the application as submitted with the standard conditions that all construction activity and vehicles shall 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 shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8:00 a.m and 5:00 P p.m. only can I can I address those please yes please the um given the location of the building site uh a substantial distance from the road plenty of room for for the building there uh Mr Parish just finished the building next door where of course unfortunately didn't have to come to zoning so he worked right through the summer so are you trying to say you don't want to have to keep your trucks on site no no no he'll keep the trucks on site we want to work during the summer time oh that's you want limitation limitation no work before in the summertime no work before eight no work after 5 no work on weekends all right let's see what the board thinks of that Jenny what do you think in this area um I mean it's a large lot I I think it can support it and um yeah I I I would be okay with it the noise do you think is well there the weekend we all commented on how private it is so I I I think it could work what do you think Lee you're not going to like it I'm not I'm not voting today but I like those summer conditions I think it's really important I think it's a neighborhood where you do have a lot of people that are there only in the summer and um I I'm in favor of the summer conditions and what do you think Dave um well I I mean not knowing any more of the history but given that he's done it next door we're done with the work next door through summer and um I'm I'm going to nobody is presenting that that neighbors objected to that or had any problems with it anybody has the department heard any complaints or anything that that you're aware of maybe not from um the last project that Mr Parish did that I'm aware of we do occasionally get complaints about people working on Sundays uh but when I get the complaint it's Monday morning and the incidents already passed but uh anyone that does experience uh contractors working on Sundays they to call the police excuse me the police department they enforce that yeah not just for special permit but for any job in town no work on Sundays or holidays and I'm aware that Mr um Riley was asking attorney R was asking for no weekends in the summer anyway right that's correct yeah they'll work on weekends they're seeking to limit the hours but seeking to be able to do exterior work work in the summer yeah in this situation and and with that history I I think it's a um I think it's a a risk that we can take I I think that you know it's once they get up there and they're working up there um it's it's not it it's kind of above everything else that's going on in the neighborhood um so uh I I I could support doing it that way that's two in favor Ed um you know as long as the uh vehicles are restricted to the property or permission from the other neighbors I'm fine with that as far as noise uh I look at it differently than everyone else I feel like we should spread the noise out throughout the whole year and not just subject the summer residents especially being a year- round resident yeah okay so you're okay with that's already three so Paul just for the sake of argum what do you think well I'm trying to I'm confused at this point what is it that you were objecting to bill on the standard conditions they want to work on weekends PA no no no I'm sorry they want to keep exterior during we want to be able to work Monday to Friday between 8 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. through the summer months so you you want to be able to do exterior construction yes and uh you want construction activity still between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. that's right nothing before 8 a.m. nothing after 5:00 p.m. and no work on weekends so it's just the exterior construction being uh turned off between June 30th and Labor Day correct that you object to right objects to yeah and uh what's what's the occupation like uh in this neighborhood at that location as far as I know the petersens live their year round but they're write down on the water uh 73 Jessica go they're part-time uh I think all the all the residents there are part-time uh some of the houses closer to Route 28 uh might be year round M but the the part-time people are really the people we're talking about between June 30th of Labor Day right well I know but they all just built their houses too so so they don't need quiet anymore no they first of all it's not that noisy oh I seef at this point is that what no you think about it when where's the noise when you when you tear down the old house you get big machines digging a cell hole all right let's not get lost in this okay all right there a lot of noise there's a lot of banging no not anymore banging making a new house is banging no they use nail guns now okay that's even pop pop [Laughter] pop I just don't think the noise is that bad all right you're doing a good job for your client Paul what do you think well um it's already three people that have said okay so so if I said okay it' be four is that what you're saying and if I didn't say okay it would still be three it would still be three I think we go with a majority on type of thing okay all right um well I will uh I'll eliminate then the uh 2A section no exterior construction will be allowed on June 30th between June 30th and labor day we'll delete that section okay okay and Dave V seconds and votes yes Ed votes yes yes all votes yes and as why it's unanimous congratulations thank you very much yep okay so that thanks everybody we just need a motion to adjourn I'll move to adjourn uh Dave V seconds and votes yes Ed votes yes jny votes yes pa pa votes yes now as to why what time is it 4:59 p.m. all right good night chadam [Music] w [Music]