##VIDEO ID:8ljtbnLx-7Y## e e e e [Music] [Music] [Music] I don't have the audio on oh here good evening everyone this is the the January 23rd 2025 meeting of the chadam zoning board of appeals pursuant to Governor Hy's March 29th 2023 signing of the acts of 2023 extending certain covid measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law until March 31 2025 this meeting of the chadam zoning board of appeals is being conducted in person and via remote participation every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the pro Pro seedings as provided far in the order a reminder people who would like to listen to this meeting while in progress may do so by calling the phone number 1508 945 4410 conference ID 415 692 293 pound or join the meeting via the Microsoft teams link on the posted agenda this is a live broadcast and simoc cast despite our best efforts though 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 or business item on the agenda during the meeting when recognized by the chair I'd ask you to turn off all gadgets that make any type of noise if you would and um procedural steps we take a roll call of all board members first then we ask if any citizens or non-members participating in the call please give your four digits of your phone number for identification purposes the hearing notice will be read by staff which is Sarah Clark on my right you are your representative will present your application anyone in favor of the application will be asked to um um present what whatever um they want to say and they have up to five minutes to do so and there's going to be a clock that starts ticking when you start talking um the chair may I will read or summarize all letters received by the board and then anyone against or with any questions will also have that five minute time limit the applicant May then rebut anything that they've heard board members will then direct questions to anyone present we uh he further information close the public hearing deliberate and usually we vote on the application all votes taken by roll call and at the end we will end the meeting with a verbal confirmation and note the time of German um voting today will be Dave V David Nixon Paul simple Lee Hy and Virginia Fenwick and at this point um we're going to do a roll call vote starting with David Vach that approved this U form of meeting yeah David H Fe and I approve this form of meeting David S Nixon I approve PA C sample I approve Lee Hy I approve Virginia Fenwick I approve and Steven D dor approves and Randy p I approve as well it looks like we have two sets of minutes if I'm not mistaken Paul yes I will move to uh approve the minutes of December 12th 2024 does anybody have any comment no I I'm dve V second in votes yes yes all votes yes Lee votes yes JY votes yes and I vote Yes as well and then December 19th uh December 19th minutes I'll move to approve those minutes as published comments I was absent from so can you second it anyway I'll second anyway okay and David Nixon I vote Yes all votes yes Lee votes yes Janny votes yes and I vote Yes as well okay that takes care of that our first two applications are going to be requests for um continuances I believe first one is minglewood homes 13 Captain n's way represented by attorney William litfield whenever s is ready she will read the advertisement application number 24-16 minglewood Homes care of William William G litfield Esquire 330 Orleans Road North chatam Mass 02650 owner of property located at 13 Captain Mills way also shown on the town of chadam assessor map 11c block 5 lot h13 the applicant seeks to construct an elevated stairway Landings in kayak rack under section 4 a3a of the protective bylaw the lot contains 57 ,500 ft in the R40 zoning District a special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 9 and Section 8 d2b of the protective bylaw this was continued from November 21st 2024 welcome attorney welcome attorney Lichfield thank you madam chman Bill Lichfield here on behalf of minglewood as Sarah has indicated this proposal relates to stairs on a coastal uh bank and for f to allow for further review by the Conservation Commission we would respectfully ask this matter be continued until March 13 a date suggested to us by Sarah does anybody have any comment or concerns no Paul I'll move to Grant the requested continuance to March 13 2025 uh dve seconds and votes yes I vote Yes all vote Yes I vote Yes I vote Yes it's unanimous thank you next we have PA mild Ford care of William F Riley I believe represented by attorney Norcross 52 depole Road when have ser is ready application number 24-34 Paula Mildred Ford car William relli Esquire appeal box 707 chattam Mass 02633 owners of property located at 52 depole Road also shown on the town of chadam assessors map 2B block 36 lot 20 the applicant proposes to change alter or expand a non-conforming dwelling and a non-conforming lot via the construction of additions and a deck the existing dwelling is non-conforming and that it is located 14.6 ft from deeple Road where a 25t set back is required and 12.8 ft from the EAS butter the proposed addition will be located 11.2 ft the from the EAS Lea butter and the proposed deck will be located 4.7 ft from the Easter Lea butter where a 15t setback is required also proposed is the removal of two non-conforming sheds the existing building coverage is 1,330 ft 133% and the proposed building coverage is 1,484 sare Ft 14.5% where 15% is the maximum l the law is non-conforming and that it contains 10,871 ft where 20,000 fet 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 protective bylaw this was continued from December 12 2024 welcome attorney Norcross thank you uh Jamie Norcross representing the Fords um this matter was continued from your last hearing for some revised plans uh specifically for some changes to the deck unfortunately the plans were not done in time the architect has completed the plans they've been sent to the surveyor now to put them on to a revised site plan so we'd respectfully ask for a continuance until March 13th um we should have no problem getting the plans submitted well in advance of that date does anybody have any comment no seeing none Paul um I'll move to Grant the requested continuance to March 13 2025 dve V seconds and votes yes yes all votes yes I vote Yes jot votes yes it's unanimous thank you thank you very much of course third we have uh Elizabeth narian for 129 Pine n AB also represented by James Northcross Esquire whenever Sarah is ready 24146 application number 24-1 146 Elizabeth nerian care of James M Norcross Esquire PO Box 707 chatam Mass 02633 owner of property located at 28 Pine Avenue also shown in the town of chadam assessor map 5c block 45 LW s39 the applicant seeks to en llarge extender change a non-conforming dwelling and a non-conforming lot via the demolition of the existing dwelling in shed and the construction of a new dwelling the proposed dwelling will comply with all dimensional requirements of the bylaw but is considered a substantial alteration under under the second accept Clause of section 6 of chapter 4A such substantial alteration requires the grant of special permit the existing building coverage is 983 ft 13.9% and the proposed building coverage is 1,55 feet 14.97% where 15% is the maximum allowed the LW is non-conforming in that it contains 7,45 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 again attorney no Ross um we've had this before so if you'd like to just go over the highlights the changes and um we have you know noticed that you've listened to our comments which we appreciate sure absolutely I'll just do the um high level changes if I may just introduce steveen Liz n Jeran are here along with their Builder Chris Childs um so we were here back in September uh the main concerns raised by the board were relative to the height and design of the proposed structure uh the Nigerians and Chris work to address those concerns concern so we provided a couple visual aids um the first main change is the height of the house has been reduced by 3 feet uh it was 29 and a half and now it's 26 and A2 um for height so we've come down quite a bit on that item uh the design has changed quite a bit as you can see this would be the front elevation that would face um Pine null and um as you can see we've added a dormer um which helps in reducing the scale uh on the right hand side the the the bump out there instead of going all the way to the ridge that's been reduced in height as well coming off the roof line um there was also the bump out on the leftand side that went uh essentially two stories before that's been reduced to just the one story bump out so we think um the cumulative effect of these changes reduces the massing concern that was raised last time and um certainly is compatible with the neighborhood um Madam chair if I may I'll just touch on a couple of the criteria and absolutely move along to questions um just to highlight again we included our analysis with the applications um but just to highlight a couple of the items and this is a rendering that was done by Chris's office as well and so this would be the elevation that you just saw that faces uh Pine null um number one adequacy of the size of the site um just to reiterate we meet all setbacks we meet the building coverage we're three and a half fet under the height requirement so I think it's certainly adequate um what we're proposing for this site uh number two comp ability of the size of the proposed structure I would suggest it's compatible um the gross floor area numbers it's been reduced slightly u based on this redesign on the second floor so we're just over 3,000 square feet um obviously a thousand of that's the basement as well um and then if you go through the looking at the comparison that I I compiled from the neighborhood I found about I think 10 homes in the area on my list that have gross floor areas between 2500 and 4,000 squ ft so I think at just over 3,000 were um compatible with the neighborhood in terms of size uh lastly number five impact of scale sighting and mass I think the change in height the change in the design the Dormers all have the effect of reducing the mass and the scale that was a concern raised by the board at the last meeting um we think it's um now very appropriate in size and scale for the neighborhood certainly not out of um not out of compatibility in that regard um so the chair and just to summarize we don't believe this is um substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and we hope the board is uh in likes the changes that have been made thank you is there anybody here are on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application please raise your hand seeing none um question women reading the corresponden is next and there is only one from our from our health agent I have reviewed the proposed plan for this property a floor plan for the existing dwelling must be provided to confirm the existing three-bedroom layout the second floor office must maintain an open half wall into the stairway and the den must have a 6-foot cased opening I will require the property to be restricted to three bedrooms prior to approving the application the full Foundation must be 20 ft from the septic leeching area that was received on January 2125 from our health agent Judith Giorgio and that concludes the correspondence now is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that has a question or wishes to speak against this application now's your time seeing none questions from the board Virginia Fenwick no questions Steve uh What Becomes of the shed it's in the back doesn't look like it's on the property it's we're going to have to move it over onto the property line okay across the property line okay very good thank you Lee no questions well no questions David no questions no questions and I have no questions either yes Sarah has a question so Jamie the shed um even though it is non-conforming now it would need to for an our 20 zoning District since it's only 64 Square ft if they were to keep it within the road setback um that needs a special permit okay that wasn't advertised otherwise it would need to be 25 ft from s sound view 25t from Pine null and 5 feet from any a butter setback uh we will move the shed in a location that complies with the setbacks okay well I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations Dave each second much yes yes all votes yes yes yes it's unanimous uh deliberations Dave V uh nice job really n the the difference uh it it addressed our concerns and fits this new proposal really fits the neighborhood well uh and I'm happy to support it certainly not substantially more detrimental and it's it's a real Improvement David Nixon I'm very pleased uh sometimes it takes a long time to get to something that and I do hope your clients are pleased yeah old enough for the house to turn 75 years okay cuz it it looks great yeah so they are pleased as Mr V said no way is this substantially more adental to the neighborhood and I'll be voting is yeah well I agree with the previous comments and Lee I agree as well but just want to mention that I love this rendering it really helps a lot y and Steve yeah I I think it's a good job um and it's a great looking design and I think it'll be an asset to the neighborhood and Jenny yeah I agree with all my colleagues you you said I that we made we listened you did um you made a lot of changes I think it was very well done um and you said I hope the board likes it I do like this um meets all of our criteria and i would support it yeah and I feel the same way I think the thing with me last time was that you were trying to go over the coverage and uh so that's kind of a red light and it was very tall and skinny and now you know it looks great thank you for listening and the process worked Paul I'll move to Grant the application as submitted I think probably our standard conditions would apply uh and that would be all construction activity and vehicles will be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner that between June 30th and Labor Day No Ex 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.m. only Dave seconds and votes yes I vote Yes all votes yes I vote Yes Jenny votes yes it's unanimous congratulations thank you very much all right moving right along to 36 old Mail Road represented by attorney William G litfield the rosi Family Trust Fund application 4-1 145 application number 24-1 145 The Rosy Family Trust Fund care of William G litfield Esquire 330 Orleans Road North chadam Mass 02650 owner of property located at 36 Old Mill Road also shown on the town of chadam assessor map 14i block 31 lot AC3 the applicant proposed to change alter or expand a non-conforming dwelling and a non-conforming lot via the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a new dwelling the existing dwelling is non-conforming and that it is located 15.8 ft from the Westerly of butter the existing exterior mechanical system Appliance will remain non-conforming located 21.9 ft from the easterly a butter where a 25t setback is required the proposed dwelling will be non-conforming in that it will be located 15.8 ft from the Wester Lea butter where a 25t setback is required the existing building coverage is 1,452 ft 12.1% and the proposed building coverage is 1,799 square ft 14.9% where 15% is the maximum allowed the lot is non-conforming and it contains 12,000 sare ft where 40,000 ft² is required in the R40 zoning District a special permit is required under masterer Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protected bylaw attorney litfield welcome good afternoon thank you very much members of the board Bill Lichfield here on behalf of Sean and an rosi who are uh right in the front row uh with us also today is bernardet McLoud uh their designer with whom you're all familiar Sean and an have owned this house for the last 10 years or so and they are um despite their youthful appearances although perhaps because they share the chair's passion for running uh they are thinking about retirement and they are looking to make some changes to this house uh they would like to replace the existing somewhat curious looking structure there now which was originally built around 1945 and it's been added on to a couple of times with a classic Bungalow and perhaps Sarah might be even more useful for the board if you would be kind enough to bring up the elevations uh that I sent to you the you know thank you that one I think gives you a better idea of what is proposed I know you deal with plans all the time but by the same token a two-dimensional plan doesn't have uh the the feel uh that is proposed there I can't guarantee that there are going to be Hy ranges uh but that is the essence of what is proposed uh and that particular design is evocative of a house on Cedar Street uh cross street rather uh red Madden's old house on cross street uh which you actually approved some changes to to make it look that house right there thank you Sarah I could just sit down and let you do this you're doing it much better than I uh but that is the uh the Madden house that you approved for a client of mine 15 or 16 years ago and uh they asked bernardet to design something uh that would fit uh into the neighborhood and give some them some additional space one of the more remarkable uh aspects of this end of old Mail Road is that with I think maybe one or two exceptions this is and has been a yearound neighborhood uh historically it's been a neighborhood of Carpenters and fishermen and some retirees and several Town employees in fact the house that is proposed to be replaced was owned when I was growing up uh by a sergeant on our Police Department although I was fortunate not to have known him in his professional capacity it uh but an and sha want to build something uh of an appropriate scale uh something that fits into the neighborhood so they spent a considerable amount of time talking with their neighbors and working with bernardet to design a home that would work for them and for the neighborhood and I think they've accomplished that goal I know you've got uh an agenda that is somewhat lengthy so I won't go on at length instead I'll go into the criteria as to adequacy of site including building covered in setbacks the neighborhood was developed long before zoning so all of the lots are non-conforming there are a couple now that are conforming but they're a result of recombination of some old Lots uh unlike most of them and as Sarah indicated in the hearing notice we are compliant as to the current Street setback and in fact are setback almost 50 feet from the road but we have a sideline non-conformity clearly the site is adequate for residential use as it has been for almost eight eight decades I think you can approve the special permit based on a finding that the site is adequate for construction of the replacement house a dwelling for eventual retirement which is still compliant as to the street setback as to height and as to coverage now I know you looked at the site plan you said coverage of 1799 Square fet where 1,800 Square ft is the maximum allowed Ry on Wilcox uh the engineering side of R Ryder Wilcox in addition to uh bernardet was the first firm to re to be cognizant of what we'll call the cornerboard issue so they aim high uh we don't ever want to come back to you for a variance by exceeding the coverage by six or eight or even one square feet uh the actual coverage should be approximately 1,665 Square ft in addition we are going to shrink the depth of the port will bring it a little bit further to the South it won't extend quite so close to the street not that it's close anyway but we're going to reduce the depth of the porch by about 6 in that will further reduce give us about 16 square fet of extra wiggle room for coverage so we're not nearly we don't propose to be as close to the maximum as we are requesting in the legal ad so there'll be some additional safety margin in that regard as to compatibility size we have a lot which is typical sort of in the mid-range uh as to footprint among the smaller as to gross floor area and living area if you approve the special permit the height remains as do the coverage height and coverage both remain below the maximum and the house will remain compatible with the neighborhood while the size increases the coverage gross floor area and living area are still lower than some of them there's a house almost next door that's almost 18% in fact and that the numbers are on the third page of the handout as to the extent of increase in non-conformity Sarah read the the existing non-conformities there is no increase in nonconformity we'll retain the Westerly side setback at 15.8 feet and we have a air conditioning unit which is 21 or 22 feet but it's pre-existing non-conforming but there is no increase in non-conformity if you approve the special permit as a suitability of site impact the natural environment site is clearly suitable for the existing house it is also suitable for the reconstructed house it is without impact on the natural environment I know you all went out there in anticipating a potential question we would like to retain the existing pine trees which are quite tall I can't speak to the physical ability to do that with construction but the intent is to retain them if that can't be done we'll be doing considerable Landscaping after construction itself and we'll replace we be putting in some replacement trees if the Pines can't be saved as to scale sighting Mass views and Vistas the existing structure which was originally a small half cape has seen several additions and has that curious spiral staircase going up to the second floor deck which I doubt is used to view the rear of my office but somebody built it years ago and there it is that's going away none of those aspects are known for their their distinctive architectural style uh if you approve the special permit as shown there uh the sighting is essentially unchanged and that front elevation again is modeled on something that you approved on cross street some years ago the neighborhood itself has no unified architectural style uh there are houses and and garages and barns of all all sorts of style uh but I think you can find that that is appropriate we have considerable neighborhood support as the chair will read and I don't know if it was in your original plans that were provided to you but we did make some changes to the elevations we eliminated a couple of Windows on the east side thank you Sarah um our neighbor to the east is is a mutual friend and Sean and Anne talked with her and she felt that thank you she felt that her privacy would be improved if we removed the windows that were formally sort of overlooking her house so those are gone uh we have we've made changes in response to Neighborhood suggestions at the outset and that one since the plans were developed the house will be larger but it's compliant as to coverage and height it's important I think to note that the top of the foundation the measurement from the top of the foundation to the ridge is 26 fet in change it's not the 29.3 it's because that we're on a null that the grain plane average makes us appear higher than it will be it shows us at 29.3 which is still below the 30t limit but in reality the you know a tape measure from the top of the foundation to the top of the ridge is 26 ft in change there are no views and Vistas involved except maybe if you went out in the backyard and you looked at down at Spring Hill Road and that's not our problem it's you know it's legally it's in a butter but we don't really have anything to do with a Spring Hill Road neighborhood they don't have any views of us uh I'm not sure it goes under this category or otherwise but the historical commission has reviewed this as well and did not find the existing house appropriate for or did not impose a demolition delay as to compatibility of use there will be residential use and importantly there will eventually be year round residential use which is a good thing for the neighborhood as the adequacy of sewage and water we have Town water a Title Five for three bedrooms there will be no change the board of health has no concerns not withstanding a glitch in the comment letter about the condominium um I asked Sean and and an if there was something in my backyard about which I was not aware no there's no condominium as you know from having been out there it's a single family residence who just a glitch in the Board of Health comment no traffic flow and safety issues no noise and litter problems and all utilities are there what is that issue is as you know is whether the proposed new house compliant as to coverage and height without any increase in non-conformity and with significant neighborhood support will be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood the petitioners again worked long and hard with their neighbors to uh design something which met the traditional smaller if not unified scale of old Mail Road houses that would provide them with some additional room for their retirement but that would be in keeping with the neighborhood they saw and liked the Bungalow on cross street and designed with Bernadette's guidance a house to Fit U their needs while echoing many of the architectural details of that other house parenthetically of the nine nearby properties the current structure is just one of two that are not currently multi story so putting on a second floor is entirely normal for this neighborhood we worked with the neighbors to develop plans which were acceptable to them starting with an Outreach last fall again one neighbor requested a change which we were happy to to accommodate recognizing that the house sits on a null uh and the grade plane average calculation would make the House appear taller than it actually is we made certain that the neighbors on either side the East and West sides were both supportive their lots are lower we talked to them about that they were satisfied they are the chair will read letters from them there one other AB butter with as much standing as anyone else who did not write because I don't think he wanted to have a letter from me but I'm an AB butter and I'm in support of The Proposal as well uh in light of the criteria and the plans and in this location I think that you can find the proposed Bungalow setback 50 ft from M Mail Road is not substantially detrimental the neighborhood be happy to answer any questions thank you very much is there anybody here are on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application if so please raise your hand seeing none I have seven letters to read first one from Judith Georgio our health agent written on 12125 she reviewed the pro proposed plan for this property and the plan will not increase sewage flow at the property next we have a note from Kathleen Edwards submitted on January 21 2025 I am Kathleen Edwards and I live at 62 old Mail Road I support the application for the of the rosies to demolish the existing structure and construct a new home I feel the new house will fit in with the neighborhood we'll use the same footprint it's attractive in design I also understand they have listed listened to neighbors concerns and made adjustments to their plan as a result that makes me confident they will also be responsive as the project continues next we have a note from the uh Community Development Center uh the historical commission staff Lea on and that is Christina basted the CHC found this home to not be historically significant in the month of December 2024 that arrived on January 3rd 2025 next we have a note from Mary Ellen and Peter Mazen owners of 25 26 old Mail Road in chatam and they tell us on Wednesday January 8th 2025 that they are the Westerly abiders of the property at 36 Old Mill Road they reviewed the proposed construction for the property in this application and are fully in supportive of it the proposed structure is in keeping with the size and style of other homes in the neighborhood the footprint is similar to that of the existing structure and does not increase the extent of non-conformity with setback now we have a note from Barry and violet dlay uh written on January 19th 2025 my wife and I are year round residents writing to support the petition for a special permit to construct a new home at 36 old Mail Road we live diagonally across from the street at 41 our understanding is that the plan to build a new home and then they plan to retire and become full-time residents we believe a new home with full-time residents will enhance our neighborhood we have experience in our neighborhood with Airbnb and that's the last thing we want to see happen to this property our in our opinion we don't see any uh we don't need any more properties that are dormant during the months six months of the year a new home that offers the rosis a comfortable place to live and his occupied year round will benefit everyone in addition we'll be offering our driveway and off street parking to the rosies as their Builders um can use that so there's not traffic on the road we hope the board will support the proposal next we have a note from Debbie Harwood January 19th 2025 uh she tells us that her husband and herself live at 101 old male and a writing in support of the proposed uh new home they feel the design and scale is very appropriate and it'll be a nice addition to the street Mary bows tells us on January 21 2025 that she lives on 42 Old mail and is the and is the easterly butter of the rosy proper at 36 I want to say that I am support of their project to remove the existing building and construct a new building the new house will be within the footprint of the existing and in keeping with the other houses in the neighborhood that concludes our correspondences is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wish to speak against this application or has a specific question seeing none questions from the board Steve um I have no questions Lee I have no questions Jenny uh I have a question about the height Mr Lichfield so um I I think I understand what you're saying they're on a null so they are um so you're saying in your narrative here that the height of the structure of the house is 266 but it's reading it's going to read as 29 almost the maximum within a couple 8 Ines of the maximum because of the elevation under the grade the required grade plane average calculation and bernardette if you want to come up and join me if I could Madam chairman uh because bernardet designed the house but my my understanding from bernardet is that we are 26 feet and change from top of foundation to Ridge which is not how we calculate height in chadam no and we're 29 we're 293 when we calculate it that way below the 30 foot limit we did actually consider the possibility of regrading of lowering the lot entirely of course the neighbors didn't particularly nobody requested that but we did consider it because of the height the engineer uh at Bernard's firm Stephanie sequin advised that we would have a problem with water runoff and things like that by lowering it so we did consider it uh again though all but one of the other houses on the street are one and 3/4 or or something the assessors call 1.85 stories I don't know what a one 8210 story house is but all but everybody all but one other is that uh the the actual height uh above the existing Ridge elevation is increasing by about 12 feet from the existing Ridge to the top of the new Ridge is about 12 feet higher right okay but if if the lot was flat if the lot was flat and didn't drop off on the west side it would be 26 ft I think 3 in tall but because the way that you do the grade plane you have to go out 20 feet in each Direction and that's the only side where it drops off so everywhere else it's it's elevation 66 it's flat all the way around the house and on that one side it drops off and that's what brings it up to 29 because you have to do the average ma'am could you just identify yourself ber de McLoud from Ryder and W Cox thank you so that's why it reads 29 in in other towns you only go from the front you don't count you know where it drops off we're we're here yeah so it's just that that's how it reads so could you I didn't see it in your plans if I missed it I'm sorry um the ceiling Heights the ceiling height on the first floor is 9 ft and the ceiling height on the second floor is just 78 and2 and the second floor has no bearing on how high the roof is the roof is sitting on top of this of the you know first floor ceiling and because it's a bungalow yeah you know and it's a nine pitch so if we reduce the pitch it comes down but it starts to get really squat right yeah the rosis have agreed if you guys want to to reduce the ceiling height on the first floor by 6 in that would bring it down 6 in so instead of a 9t ceiling which everybody wants these days they would have 8 and 1/2 ft okay so that would be 6 in lower if that you know if that satisfies the board okay thank you that's all I have Paul questions uh I have no questions David Nixon questions know my questions had to do with the height and certainly the two of you have answered them uh I would like to ask our uh building commissar if he has any further comment on Heights and scenarios like this I think Jenny nailed it okay yeah no it makes sense to me I know what they're saying the null I mean we measure from grade plane it's not ideal but that's how we do it right so from the top of foundation to the ridge is nice to know but it doesn't really doesn't really mean anything to me thank you and David V well I don't think I I don't think Bill could answer this but I I was just curi I I'm curious as to what that existing roof deck what it what what what it had to offer but uh I'm sure you can't answer so I can because I designed it you do okay B A de what 15 years ago there were two men that own that house they I knew them I know them yeah extremely fine pianist absolutely I wasn't sure the house was big enough for a piano but it may well have been David Mr Beach that the piano was up there I don't know but I never heard yeah no anyway that was I had no other questions other than that thanks okay uh everybody got questions yes Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations uh Dave V second and votes yes yes all votes yes I vote Yes I vote Yes all right deliberations Lee what do you think um I think that I um like this a lot I like the design not that that is one of our criteria but I like um how the design um breaks up the mass of the building um I was originally a little concerned with criteria number five the scale and the mass but I think the way it's designed um the facade the front of the house looks nice and it just doesn't it doesn't create um a mass issue for me um it meets the criteria and I will support it all right very good Steve your thoughts um well I I just want to say I like the the house that's there now maybe s some of the additions that have been put on but I think this is a great replacement for that um this a very nice design these the picture that you supplied helps a lot because it was kind of difficult to tell um exactly what it was going to look like from the from the rough engineering drawings but this is great I think it's a I think it's a very nice project good luck okay DAV what do you think oh I I'm um I'm very much in support of this I I I very much like the design I think it's a u nice choice and and great job burn a dad I I kind of wish we saw more design I mean we see a lot of things com for us proposals and in some ways I wish we saw more like this one it's really a nice design so uh based on that and the i i and when I you know of course looking at the design and looking how much of the ridge uh how much Ridge there actually is what approaches the 29 foot 29.3 feet from the grade plane I I I don't this is not going to read as a tall massive structure in that I in my job judgement anyway I I'm not concerned about the height I I appreciate that um I I don't and I don't think that them giving up six inches of ceiling height on the first floor is going to significantly visually reduce that in a way that's that's that's I think necessary so I'm I'm fine with it the way it is I think it's a really nice um solution to um replacing the structure that's there so uh I'll supporting it okay thank you David Nixon deliberations initially I was concerned about the height but I think your explanation to vernets um has satisfied me that it is not going to loom up there as I thought maybe it would and uh to what Dave was just talking about that would only affect the height of your Christmas tree that that's all the six inches is going to do um so uh I appreciate the offer but I don't think that that is necessary in this scenario it often is but not today perhaps Jenny um so I agree I think that the design does mitigate the mass um thank you for the offer and the explanation about the extra six inches I don't think six inches will make a meaningful I think the co the benefit to the to the applicant and the homeowner uh I don't think it's worth um I was concerned about the height because that lot is elevated and all the other abutters do drop off but they've all written in in support I mean I think except for maybe I don't think we heard from um 50 the neighbor behind but um maybe I missed that 55 um so you know I listen to my colleagues I I think um what Lee said about five I was a little coming in here thinking criteria five the mass um but you know Dave V is is our um kind of our resident construction guy so are you um and I I think the design of this house and I also appreciate that you're modeling it after this iconic Cross Street house I I I I think that's great so I think the design wins over and I I'm not concerned about the height and Paul well I Echo the same comments that my other colleagues have made I had some concern about height uh I actually think that the rendering that's provided here is not helpful because I think it makes it look gigantic uh and massive uh I think what was better uh representation of it was the shot of the house on crry which I think is more appropriate for what we're actually looking at here uh so I think uh it meets our criteria it's certainly not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and I like it too so so um Paul I'll move to uh approve the application as submitted I think in the neighborhood it probably needs our standard conditions 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 PM only Dave V second and vote Yes I vote Yes all vote Yes I vot yes JY votes yes and that's unanimous congratulations thank you very much all right thank you moving and next up is 46 Bon Hill Lane Kevin Costello trust 2018 and Sophia Costello trust 2018 represented by James Norcross Esquire application 24 -150 When Sarah's ready application number 24-15 Kevin B Costello trust 2018 and Sophia Castell trust 2018 care of James eor cross Esquire poox 707 chadam Mass 02633 owners are property located at 46 Barnhill Lane also shown on the town of chadam accessor map 9C Block 19 lot 35 the applicant proposes to change alter or expand a non-conforming dwelling and a non-conforming lot via the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a new dwelling the existing dwelling is non-conforming and it is located 21.6 ft from the road and 14.9 ft from the easterly a butter the proposed dwelling will be non-conforming in that it will be located 16.7 ft from the road where a 25t setback is required the existing building coverage is 795 ft 5.6% and the proposed building coverage is 278 ft 14.6% where 15% is the maximum allowed the lot is non-conforming and it contains 14,27 ft² where 20,000 ft is required in the R20 zoning District a special permit is required under M General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5 be of protected bylaw welcome back attorney Norcross thank you uh Jamie norcros representing Kevin and Sophia Costello Uh Kevin and Sophia are in the back next to Dave Clark this evening um this similar to my first application is a return to the board uh we were here back in the summertime time uh in front of you with a different proposal and at that time some of the board members are not in favor of the plans um the main objections raised by the board where the street set back to Barnhill Lane as well as the proposed design which had a very large Dormer in the middle of the house um that raised concerns relative to um excuse me massing and scale these are the uh the new plans in front of you today uh the Castell has worked with David Clark to try and move the house uh further away from the street and with their Architects were revised the design of the proposed house um so it's been moved in terms of changes uh the house has been moved back almost four feet further away um from Barnhill Lane um as you may or may not remember from the prior hearing uh because of the ski slope nature of the lot we're severely limited in how far we can move it back um the further back you go uh we then trigger the 30 foot uh height limitation because the slope is so significant and similar to the application you just heard with the average grade plane when you have to factor in the significant uh lower elevation on the back it greatly restricts the ability to move it further back than we have um David uh was able to through the use of a retaining wall that you see on there that wasn't proposed previously on the back and raising the grade a little bit has allowed that uh house to be able to to move back um almost four feet 3.7 feet while maintaining compliance with a 30 foot height uh limitation the um design um as I mentioned previously there was a large middle Dormer that um Extended out over the entire width of the porch and that was a concern for uh several of the members and mentioned that it was just kind of out of scale with the neighborhood out of scale with the street there was uh concerns raised that if you're coming toward the house from the West so if you're coming from Barnhill Road under barill Lane that that middle section would really uh overwhelm uh the streetscape because it was just so large and how far I was extending so their architect came up with what you see in front of you uh now which is the two dogghouse Dormers with the shed dor in the middle connecting um they do not extend out over the porch like the prior design so the scale of those Dormers are much less than what was here previously on the prior application and I think from a visual aspect it's also uh probably more compatible with other designs that you see in the neighborhood from driving around in terms of there's actually a house almost directly across the street that has a very similar uh Dormer structure at 27 so I think in terms of visual character and and compatibility with the neighborhood this design is is a significant Improvement um lastly there was about a 300q foot reduction in the gross floor area as a result of the second level is reduced in size with this Dormer as opposed to the larger Dormer that was used on the prior application um so just briefly I'll touch on three of the criteria excuse me then we can move over to questions number one is adequacy of the size of the site um we meet all setbacks uh we with the exception of the street setback which as I explained uh we are limited in how far back we can move the house um because of the slope uh at the back um but we do meet all other uh setbacks and we are below the 15% maximum building coverage allowed um number two compatibility of the size of the structure with neighboring properties I don't recall and from reviewing reviewing the video I don't think there's a lot of concern about the actual size of the structure in terms of gross floor area numbers I think we're very consistent with the neighborhood um pretty much right in the middle it looks like from those numbers so again I think we do comply with criteria number two number five impact of scale setting in Mass I think these changes the cumulative impact is moving it back almost four feet the significant change of the Dormer and the design uh reduces the scale and and uh Ming concerns that were raised at the first meeting um in terms of height um again it shows it at 9 ft basically the same as the prior application but as seen from the street um the the elevation would essentially be 25 ft because you're at um the slope is so significant so when looking at it from the street it's really about a 25 foot tall house but when you factor in the average grade plane as I know we have to that's how we measure height and Shadow that's where it triggers the 29 ft um but again I think the changes that the costellos have made and I hope you agree are significant and I do think they alleviate the massing concerns that were raised at the prior meeting so with that um we would be happy to take any questions thank you is there anybody here are our Microsoft teams that wish to speak in favor of this application if so please raise your hand seeing none I have three form letters and one letter from the uh Health Department so I'm going to read one form letter and a letter from the health department Judith Georgio tells us on January 21 2025 that she reviewed the plan for the property the plan will not increase sewage flow to the property and she has no concerns about the project and she is our health agent then the form letter says Dear Miss potash I own the property at F 56 Barnhill Lane and I am the director butter for Kevin and Sophia Costello I wrote in favor of their prior application and I'm writing once again to express my wholehearted support for this for their Pro proposed plans I understand members of The Zone board were concern with the impact the prior design would have on the streetscape by significantly altering the design and massing of the second story of the proposed home and by moving the home further away from barill Lane I believe the costellos have addressed those concerns and the home will be compatible in terms of size and design with surrounding homes and the neighborhood in general it's my opinion the proposed house will represent a significant Improvement to the neighborhood and I wish the costellos the best of luck that was from Matthew Evans 56 barill same Allan hbaca from 43 chatville Lane and chadam and also James Dolan and Janice fahe at their address is uh maybe not indicated unless I'm just not seeing it 36 bound Hill Lane that concludes the correspondences is there anybody here are on Microsoft teams that wish to speak against this application or has a a specific question seeing none questions from the board David V I have no questions David Nixon just a comment but I don't like it when I see a two-bedroom house that has a bonus room right that's exactly the same size as the bedroom that's just depending on which way you're looking and that the bathroom is not accessed from that bedroom it's in the hall so the bonus room you know um I just get this bad feeling before you know it do kind of become a bedroom and I know there's nothing we can do about it mhm uh it's that term I wish they'd call it Romper Room or some damn thing you know I mean it just doesn't work for me yeah they have um two children um you know getting married expanded so yeah imagine people might be sleeping in there it's not intended to be used as a three-bedroom but again given the size of their family just feel like having that extra space right uh do you know uh I don't think the seers in the street so do you know when it's scheduled to happen I think it's actually fairly soon David do you Happ to know David Clark Clark engineering my understanding it's about five years years out yeah you can throw a rock and hit the end of the sewer M it it's stubbed onto this road it's just it's two doors down um so it's close but not there yet no cigar yeah yeah unfortunately so I presume gentlemen that when that happens they would apply to have a legal three bedroom is would that be a correct assumption uh we didn't I would assume so yes generally what people do when they have the ability to they're right there so you can ask them but sure is that the plan Kevin yes it is yeah anyway okay yeah yeah I mean it's it's just a fact and I have to live with you so but the of it thank you very much I mean you moved it back you got rid of that problem in the middle it doesn't Lo move in the street anymore uh it's uh entirely different to me and um with Mr clar coming up with that retaining wall that was a that was a great idea yeah it certainly was so anyway uh so I'm very pleased and thank you and your clients thank you okayy Paul questions I have no other questions the uh I had the same hesitation that Dave has about the bonus room but uh I've been asking about bonus rooms for months now and I keep getting the same answer you know nobody knows what a bonus room is but it is there I have no other questions and Lee no questions Steve is there going to be Phil brought in for the back yard I believe so um yeah yes there is um then how high is that retaining wall going to be and what is it what is it going to be con going have David come up and okay answer those if I may the retaining wall can only be 3 ft High because it's within the setback of of a portion of it's within the setback of the abutter so and what is that going to be made out of what how how are you going to construct the wall well we haven't designed it yet okay but um given that it's only 3 ft it um there's a lot of options as opposed to if it was 8 ft of fill so okay good thank you and then is the house the finished house going to be slightly below the level of the road it is like the house that's next to it I think the house correct yeah looks the David's plan shows it's uh grade is going to be 50 at the street and the house it will be 48 so it be slightly down from okay like the house next door exactly okay very good thank you question questions Virginia fenk my questions have been answered thank you okay well I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations Dave sson votes yes I vote Yes all votes yes I vote Yes I vote Yes okay so deliberations we'll start with Lee again okay um well I uh think this looks very nice I appreciate the change in design I think it's um you know really helps with the mass and um I just I think it's much better I I I like the fact that it's moved back from the street a little bit um and I don't think it will be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood so I will approve it and Jenny yeah I it's a tricky lot we talked you know and I we talked a lot about that the last hearing I do believe you've PR presented evidence of hearing and your applicants listening to the feedback that we gave last time I see that incorporated in the redesign um you know I I kind of the concern as well about the bedroom but um I think it meets the criteria um so I could support it and Steve um well again I I appreciate um you know taking some of our suggestions from the last time I think it's a much better design than it was and I think it'll fit uh more easily into the neighborhood now so I appreciate that thank you and David Vach yeah I agree with the previous it's you know it's a it's interesting to see what a that change in the dorm or what a difference that makes architecturally and in with the building is ability to fit in on the street um and um I I I'm not sure I you know thinking about the this issue of bonus rooms and and additional bedrooms and all that I mean I was I was speaking to someone last night and talking about just reflecting on on some of what we see and I I said something effect to him of well I don't know that anybody's compiled any statistics on this but we you know over the course of the time I've been on this board we've seen any number of bedrooms added to houses um well usually it's a bedroom put in an IIA system or hook up the sewer something something's been going on for quite a long period of time and and so in this case I and I and I and I um um applaud the honesty of the applicants and J's presentation that they're anticipating a a sewer hookup an ability to add so I don't really hold that against them because I don't find that to be a a unique situation particularly um and you know I have mixed feelings about about all of it but it's certainly something that's been going on on some basis for quite a while now the bonus room thing is actually a little bit different somewhat you know so you know we we kind of sit in and try to decide how do we how do or you know how much do we and we can express our opinions but I'm not sure sometimes how how much we want to let that affect our decisions with respect to everything else so and I've said I think this is a real Improvement and and I think I indicated I could support it before but I this is a a much improved proposal and and I definitely will support this one thanks and David Nixon deliberations well I think I stated my concerns and they have nothing to do with uh whether it's substantially more tal and on uh just fact and things so I noticed uh today the uh budget that our town manager is coming out should like five or six additional employees maybe one of them can be in charge of uh so where did that term bonus from come from and have a white paper submitted for all of us to read Paul deliberations I think I've indicated that uh I would support the application the first time around and uh I think this is an improvement on that uh so I'm certainly going to support it not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood so if I were voting I would also support it but I do think that when you think about adequacy of method of sewage disposal source of water and drainage number seven and number 10 adequacy of utilities and other public services I think we're well within our our right to question things like that because absolutely point to the criteria and um so we're not shy about doing that and we find in this case it all evens out and uh Paul what do you say I'll move to approve the application as submitted with the standard conditions that all construction activity and vehicles would be contained on site or a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner that between June 30th and Labor Day no exterior construction shall be allowed no work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. only Dave seconds and votes yes I vote Yes all votes yes I vote Yes jie votes yes again unanimous great thank you very much congratulations last but not least 134 po numic [Laughter] cot yeah gwendelyn Jay Lenard and Joseph here's another one schwen Berger senior trustees attorney William litfield and this is application 24-1 147 when everybody's ready no rush application number 24147 gwendelyn J Leonard and Joseph M scharfenberger senior trustees care of William G litfield Esquire 330 Orleans Road North chadam Mass 0265 owner of property located at 134 pimit Road also shown in the town of chadam accessor map 9j block 58 lot c158 the applicant proposes to change alter or expand a non-conforming dwelling and a non-conforming lot via the construction of additions the existing dwelling is non-conforming and that it is located 18.2 ft from the westeria butter the existing exterior mechanical system Appliance will remain non-conforming located 18.2 ft from the westeria butter where 25 ft setback is required the proposed additions will comply with all bulk and dimensional requirements of the bylaw but is considered a substantial alteration and under the second except Clause of section 6 of Mass General Law chapter 40a such substantial alteration requires the grant of a special permit the existing building coverage is 1,943 ft and the proposed building coverage is 2526 ft or 2900 ft is the maximum allowed the LW is non-conforming in that it contains 2445 ft or 60,000 ft is required in the r60 zoning District a special permit is required under master Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5 Via the protective bylaw attorney litfield welcome back thank you very much M chairman Bill Lichfield here behalf of Gwen Leonard who was seated next to her Builder Chris Canon of patriot Builders uh I recognize some of you have some traveling this evening so I will try to be brief uh we are here this afternoon because M Leonard happens to be an artist and I've passed out a couple of uh photographs unfortunately I got them late so I can't provide them for all of you but she's seeking an artist studio and I'm passing out the pictures to demonstrate that the purpose is an artist studio and not a Romper Room uh given the prior hearing I wanted to be able to demonstrate that to you Mrs Leonard has owned this house for the last 20 years and that is exactly the problem right there that which Sarah brought up she uses the the existing room above the garage for both the home office and her Studio as you can see not perfectly but as you can see the eaves are somewhat limiting uh it's hard to stand up there and beyond that uh a home office and the Aromas and fragrances of oil paint are not ideal in the same place so Mrs lonard is seeking some change she's not unfamiliar with municipal government and what you do here having served on the planning board when she lived in the town of Harvard which actually has a population almost identical to ours now that she's had the good sense to come here year round and leave behind the joys of volunteering in town government she wants to spend more time on her passion which is painting uh she's exhibited in many jured shows and teaches an art class under the offices of the Pleasant Bay Community boating group with which I expect you're familiar uh so she's tried to make use of the small area above the existing garage but it just isn't conducive to what she wants moreover as I said she'd like to separate her home office something which many of us have and keep it distinct from her Studio beyond that converting the first floor of the existing garage to a family room would provide better access to a very nice patio at the rear of the house which is now accessible only through this through the kitchen more importantly though she'd like a dedicated Studio without using a garage and with recent weather it's reinforced for all of us as to the usefulness of a garage so in working with Chris Cannon and her a patriot and her engineer Tom Stell she developed a plan which will allow all of that to happen in full compliance with all of the requirements of the bylaw you've been to the state and you understand that the work will be done at the rear of the lot uh with a Prohibition on exterior construction during the summer months uh the front elevation is what you see now from p numat uh the right side frankly nobody really much sees uh the the other side the left side is be where the garage is and you it's also important to note that it's significantly lower than the existing house because of the slope of the lot when you drove down the driveway you know it already slopes down it'll slope down further with the new garage at the rear so as to the adequacy of site all 350 give or take River Bay lots are non-conforming our existing coverage at 8% is at the lower end of the neighboring properties and unlike many if not most we conform to the existing 40 foot Street setback the site is entirely adequate for residential use and it will remain so if you approve the conversion of the existing garage to living space with construction of a garage in a artist studio above all of which will meet every setback height and coverage requirement of the bo bylaw that is it's completely complying as to compatibility of size we have an average lot with a relatively F small footprint in the mid-range of gross Flor area and living area the proposed coverage at 10.3% is 374 Square ft below the maximum it's not even close it remains consistent with the neighborhood the gross floor area and living area obviously increase but still lower than some and and remaining compatible as to the extent of increase of nonconformity we have two lot size on the Westerly sideline there is no increase and non-conformity whatsoever rather we're totally conforming the addition will be 37.1 and 42.2 feet from the sidelines where only 25 ft is required from time to time members of the board comment that they don't like to see increases or significant increases in non-conformity here there is none absolutely none as to suitability of site uh impact the natural environment the site is suitable for the existing house which has been there about 20 years there are no environmental issues the site is suitable for the garage at rear it's without impact on the natural environment I should point out in regard to the natural environment that the applicant Gwen uh proposes to retain or replace as necessary the vegetative screening along the side property line which she planted 20 years ago so she is not she doesn't plan to cut down the trees any more than necessary to trim them for construction because L and cypresses tend to spread horizontally as a scale sighting Mass views and Vistas the existing structure is a very attractive full Cape with Dog House stormers set far back from the road with the garage at rear it has a positive impact as shown there on the streetcape and that will remain if you approve the special permit the sighting and the facade are unchanged conversion of living space of the existing garage with new garage at the rear certainly the house will be larger but it's rather hidden and the scale is in keeping with surrounding properties there are no views or Vistas involved as to compatibility of use there is no change adequacy of water and sewer we have Town water and a Title Five there is no change we changed revised the plans before we even submitted them after Chris spoke with Judy Georgio to ensure that the home office wouldn't meet the bedroom definition we talked or offered to execute a covenant but the Board of Health has no concerns because of the way the rooms are laid out the other uh criteria are not really applicable all utilities aren present and uh there's no art there's no noise and litter involved with painting the issue of course is whether the proposed conversion of a garage to living space and construction of a new garage at the rear which will provide Gwen with significant uh great greater utility for the home for her as the homeowner while meeting all current zoning requirements whether those changes are substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current structure on a non-conforming lot the additional space for their functional home office and I should stressed non-commercial artist studio as well as a new garage I think you can find the proposal meets all of I know that it meets all of our current byw requirements and I think you can find it's not substantially detrimental uh Miss Leonard like others in the neighborhood has dealt with two recent construction projects and while she wouldn't undertake summertime construction anyway we would request that you impose what you refer to as your standard conditions that approval will be conditioned that on the there not be uh any summertime construction similarly again she's uh committed to preserving a vegetative screen along the abing property line the chair will read a handful of comment letters and I know she'll provide me with an opportunity to Simply comment briefly on one of them and I think I'll be able to provide you some reassurance in that regard so in light of the criteria the plans in this location I think that you can find the proposed change is not substantially detrimental and I thank you thank you is there anybody here are on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application seeing none I will read the the notes and one is from the health department as stated Judith Georgio our health agent tells us on January 21 2025 that she reviewed the proposed renovation in addition to the property the dwelling will maintain the existing two-bedroom floor layout the new family room and Studio must remain open with open stairway rails and a 6-foot cased entryways the new addition will not encroach on the existing septic system and she has no concerns next we have a note from let see Edwin Whitaker 827 Riverview Drive received on January 21st 2025 and let's see with regard to 134 um the address on the application I have no concerns with the addition itself as it does comply with dimensional and mass requirements and the existing non-conforming external mechanical system will remain the same as it is now however I did have concerns about the Builder's work schedule due to possible related noise and parking issues that could be associated with the construction for the property addition to be done although the wiers at 827 Riverview are not director Butters to 134 our home is just two houses away from said property my concern came about due to a very unpleasant experience with construction um work nearby our property done in 2024 that had significant impact on personal use of my prop property last summer I don't want my family to lose another summer of being able to enjoy the backyard and deck this resulted last year because the excessive noise and ongoing construction work on intermittent days 8 to 8 including Saturdays and Sundays in addition I was also concerned about possible spill over parking um of construction related vehicles and potential safety and visibility issues as background information Riverview Drive serves 2 to four entrance streets to River Bay a residential Community containing 20 Road Rays within the boundaries um it's heavily trafficked and the intersection of is only a short distance from the major point to the neighborhood entry there is no stop sign and there's a curve that's notable and it's not too far from the number 134 affecting visibility when driving in either direction I contacted Miss Leonard to discuss concerns about noise unreasonable work schul and possible safety issues in our discussion Miss Lenard was able to verify on-site hours of the builders with their regular work schedule being Monday through Friday and their work hours have a reasonable time start 8 to 7 no 8:00 amm um and seven for some specific types of work Additionally the Builder agreed to have crew and Associated Vehicles limit parking on site and Miss Leonard also assured me that in the addition of Studio space was for her private and personal use and not for any commercial type activity as a result our discussions and assurances that she provided above issues to the above issues I have no objection to the special permit this is from edwi Edwin Whitaker By Janice wi taker POA e27 Riverview Drive chat next we have a note from Daniel J Hill and this was uh on behalf of his mother I am responding and this was written on January 20th 2025 I'm responding for the owner of the abing property located at 840 Riv River viw Drive Mary C Hill I am a son and a tenant of our property for many weeks during the year regarding the application at issue we are not in support of the proposed addition to the existing structure our concerns relate to the scope and size of the addition the accompanying noise for construction the prospect of looking at the back of the addition where we where now it doesn't rise above the tree line um it's a substantial change from the existing footprint maybe if we learn more about the project we might feel differently we don't know if the applicant has offer to mitigate the above mentioned concerns of the abing properties in some fashion or not rebuttal thank I don't know if there's anyone who was opposed oh I'll do that sure um thank you thank you madam chairman yeah is there anybody against this application or has a specific question please indicate no thank thank you and I'll be brief M Mr Hill gave me an opening because he said he didn't know certain things so I contacted him I called him and we had a very nice discussion I explained that we would request a condition of approval imposing a requirement there be no exterior construction during the summer uh and I explained that you know like his mother we've had to deal with the noise I also explained that yes will be mitigation because when would like to maintain or install a vegetative screen along her property line and again because of the slope of the lot the garage will will be lower than the existing house I said there were no additional bedrooms uh no change in occupancy non-commercial use and I also explained to him why we're here that all of the Lots in River Bay are non-conforming he thought that because this was an appeal that we' been rejected for something and I I explained the the rather very simple rules under which we operate uh as to why we're here I said that I hope that that was of some help and I would let him you know he could certainly feel free to let me know if there are any other questions or concerns so I think we assuaged his concerns and those of his mother thank you very good um questions from the board Lee I have no questions Steve DOR no I'll go to Jenny and then we'll come back to you then um I had a question perhaps for the engineer about um it it the turning radius for the new location it seems like it's kind of I just wanted you to clarify um there's no issue there with because it's really backing into that corner of the lot I I you may have had the same experience I did when you went down there the first time it's tight now yeah uh I think it actually may be a little bit better but Mr Canon of patriot Builders may be able to respond actually it's Chris child from P build that's okay I KN that so I'm not the engineer I'm the Builder but uh yeah it's it's about the same the the Turning rate the Turning distance is going to be you're adding a little more onto the driveway yeah we're expanding it look at the site plan there yeah so she's got about the same amount of space to back up as she as she did before is the retaining wall um new or is that already there no it's new and it's there because as you see the the currently drops off quite a bit as it goes to that that uh Southeast corner so we've got to raise it up in order to be able to drive down there and and create the driveway and pull into the garage okay thank you you're welcome Steve back to you I was going to ask if there was um any consideration about putting a a dormer or something on the existing garage we did we did think about various possibilities and it it would help but it wouldn't give her the living space the family room that she'd like to have downstairs she only has one daughter doesn't have any grandchildren plans at present but would like to have the opportunity for that so we did think about it but it it doesn't give us what we really need nor would it separate the home office from the artist studio if I may that's sort of a very large blank canvas of roof line on the existing roof and I just thought if you wanted to break that up slightly it might look a little bit better but it's just a suggestion okay Lee did I already ask you yep Paul questions uh no I had the same question that uh uh Jenny was talking about that you know going down that driveway and then trying to get back out again is not easy uh given the uh uh vegetation growth in that area but um I think probably that's an area that they can deal with themselves I don't think see it as an issue for us as such David Nixon questions no questions David be questions uh no questions okay I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations Dave each seconds and votes yes yes all votes yes I vote Yes jie votes yes all right deliberations dve um well I'm I'm in support of this it's certainly not substantially more Dutch metal neighborhood I you know when I read the letters neighbor the neighbors's letter my concerns and things that well you know what they're proposing meets all the requirements with respect to setback and everything else and so I I with due all respect the neighbor I I don't think they're asking for anything that they should feel entitled to you know um and so you know it's not and I don't see that it would be problematic for any The Neighbors anyway I mean the I think it's a it's a nice proposal it it accomplishes what uh she what they'd like to accomplish and um and it's certainly not substantially more detrimental it meets our other criteria so I'll support it oh the only other thing I would say is sometimes it's really handy to be driving a Jeep when you're turning around in a location like that yeah definitely David Nixon no I I think uh in that neighborhood this makes total sense and um all the setbacks taken care of uh I don't think it'll be visible except for maybe someone in the back very mild way uh I believe it should be supported Paul yes I think the setting of the house certainly uh lends itself to this kind of a change and uh it would not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood um maybe I shouldn't be taking my stretch limo down there and trying to back up and around the way uh you can Jeep I I plan to support it maybe have your driver do it for you and Lee what say you I agree with my colleagues I think this is a great idea I think it fits very nicely on the lot and in the neighborhood Steve I think it's a good idea it seems like a nice project and I think that the neighbors concerns um will be addressed um when we when we set our rules so I think it's a good project yeah and Jenny I agree with all my colleagues um and it meets our zoning criteria so I would approve as do I and wa David Mixon one last comment now I understand who owns that new Hummer I saw out in the driveway congratulations Paul uh I'll move to approve the application as submitted with the conditions that all construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at neighboring property with the permission to the property owner that between June 30th and Labor Day no exterior construction will be allowed no work will be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm only Dave V seconds and votes yes yes all votes yes yes Jenny votes yes and unanimous thank you very much conratulations all right well that concludes our presentations for this evening and we'll have a motion to I'll move to adjourn dve seconds and vote Yes yes yes all votes yes Lee votes yes jny votes yes all right we are adjourned at what time is it Sarah 5:27 p.m. how do you like that good night chadam [Music] [Music]