##VIDEO ID:Gif2OtaWEoY## e e e e e e e e e e e e [Music] n yeah [Music] [Music] good afternoon everyone this is the 991224 meeting the zoning board of appeals in chadam pursuant to the governor Hy's May March 29 2023 signing the acts of 2023 extending certain covid measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law this meeting of the chadam zoning board of appeals is being conducted in person and via remote participation every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided for in the order a reminder that persons who'd like to listen to this meeting in progress should call 1508 945 4410 conference ID 1321 0731 149 pound or join the meeting via the Microsoft teams link on the posted agenda while this is a live broadcast in cast on chadam TV despite our best efforts we may not be able to provide for realtime access we'll post the record of this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible we will post uh in accordance with Town policy the public can speak to any issue um on the business agenda during the meeting when recognized by the chair we start with a roll call of board members um to um agree with this form of meeting and we'll start with junor fck Virginia fck I approve just go all the way around Steve dor I approve Lee Hy I approve David as nexton I approve and Randy podes I approve as well we ask if anybody is participating on the call via the Internet please give their last four digits of their phone number for identification purposes and their name um we conduct the meeting as follows staff to my right sir o clock will read the advertisement anyone in favor of the appeal would then get to speak for up to five minutes anyone uh let's see the I will read uh all the letters or summarize them anyone against the appeal or application may speak um or ask a question and there's a five minute limitation on um questions and um opinions the applicant May rebut testimony the board may direct questions to anyone present we hear further information close the public hearing deliberate and usually we vote on the application all votes are taken by roll call and at the end of the meeting we close via verbal confirmation and note the time of adjournment we basically have eight members of our board and as you can see there's only five here tonight um pursuant to Mass General laws the applicants need four out of five votes to to to um Prevail and we have enough people to do that tonight um we have David Nixon who's a regular member Virginia Fenwick regular member we have associate members Steve dor and Lee Hy and myself and with that we will I will ask Virginia Fenwick for a motion to approve the meetings from August 8th and August 15th we can do them both at the same time unless anyone indicates they have a change that they want to make does anyone have a change in either agenda that they would want to make okay so so moved I second that and how do you vote Dave I vote Yes I vote Yes Steve votes yes I vote Yes as do I so um we will proceed with the first application whenever s is ready application number 24068 Friendly nominee trust care of James M Norcross Esquire peel box 7 7 chadam Mass 02633 owner of property located at 23 mil Hill Lane also shown in the town of chadam assessors map 16c block 22 lot 6 the applicant proposes to change alter or expand a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the construction of a partial second floor and an addition the existing dwelling is non-conforming and it is located 18.3 ft from the road where 25t setback is required and 6.6 ft from the Northerly AB butter the proposed partial second floor addition will be non-conforming in that it will be located 10 ft from the norly Northerly AB butter where a 15t setback is required the existing building coverage is 1,525 ft 17.4% and the proposed building coverage is 1,750 ft 20% where 15% is the maximum allowed the law is non-conforming and that it contains 8,743 Square ft where 20,000 ft² is required in the R20 zoning District a special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 six and section 5 b of protective bylaw this was continued from July 18th 2024 welcome attorney Norcross thank you uh good afternoon Jamie Norcross representing Andrew and Kelly friendly um as Sarah just read this was continued uh this first application from back in July um I came in and explained that the friendlies and their architect were working on some revisions to the plans um the revisions resulted in a uh different square footage for building coverage so Sarah ask us to submit a different application which is your next agenda item so as relates to this application I believe the action would be for me to request a withdrawal without prejudice and then we can move along to the second application okay Jenny you move to allow the withdrawal I I yes I move to allow the withdrawal I second that and how do you vote I vote Yes yes Steve votes yes I vote Yes as do I okay that's unanimous next application number 24-11 Friendly nominee trust care of James M Norcross Esquire PE boox 707 chadam Mass 02633 owner of property located at 23 mil Hill Lane also shown on the town of chadam assessors map 16c block 22 lot 6 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 it is located 18.3 ft from the road where a 25t setback is required and 6.6 ft from the norly of butter the proposed additions will comply with road and butter setback requirements the existing building coverage is 1,525 ft 17.4% and the proposed building coverage is 1,910 Ft 21.8% where 15% is the maximum allowed the lot is non-conforming and that it contains 8,743 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 protective bylaw welcome back Mr Norcross thank you good afternoon again for the record Jamie norcros representing Andrew and Kelly friendley uh Kelly is participating today on Microsoft teams and next to me is Leslie schneberger who is the architect uh for the project uh this property was first purchased by the friendly family back in 1979 uh Andrew and Kelly engaged with Leslie uh to develop an addition to the property to provide for more living area in the home um and Leslie's going to go over that um the proposed mon ifications with you shortly um I would touch on that that preservation uh historic preservation has been extremely important to the friendly family over the years and so it was essential to Andrew and Kelly to incorporate changes that would maintain the historic significance and design of the existing home um in terms of non-conformities uh like most of the Lots in this area it is undersized and non-conforming at about 8,700 square feet or 20,000 is required uh with regard to the existing house uh it's non-conforming as it's located 18.3 ft from mhill Lane and 6.6 ft from the north lot line um the existing lot coverage is also non-conforming as at 17.4% where a maximum of 15% is allowed um with regard to the additions uh the proposed on story additions that you see in the cell side of the um site plan that are highlighted in uh with the the black um perimeter um will meet all setback requirements the building coverage uh will remain non-conforming it is increasing to 21.8% so with that I'd ask Leslie to describe the design for you and and then I'll run through the criteria hello Lesley schneberger architect for Andrew and Kelly um the home as you've seen um is a fairly small Cape um very historic and very well preserved uh the priorities of Andrew and Kelly were um most of all to get a safe stare to the second floor it it is still a typical um historic cape with the very very steep stair um after that was um a home office um mudroom kind of space because there's not a lot of room in that house and we have things now um and a second floor bathroom preferably in the primary Suite um as you saw with the withdrawn application we look to do that with as little coverage as possible you could say that was our first um analysis of an alternative um and we found we we withdrew it because we found it was putting a lot of on the existing house um and so we found a little bit of extra space by um bumping out the family room so let me walk you through how we found the the pieces we were looking for um this new stairway we actually put in the location of the existing stairway it took away the small mud room that had been there we created the new SE new mudroom which when you're looking at the drawing is on the far right bottom um it's the extra bump out towards the driveway um the bonus of it is it also makes the house a little warmer a little cooler because it's a barrier before you walk straight into the home um and we did it as small as we could to be in keeping with the house and kind of a secondary element um but still useful um the after the mudro the home office was just was what increased the footprint on the family room side that we had not previously done um the family room is at the back of the property um was well within the building um setbacks and was a great place to be able to expand a little bit further we didn't change the ridge height we're just simply almost if you think of it as an extrusion just pulling it out um to make that extra space the bonus of it that we found is um it really creates a more enclosed Courtyard where they already have a patio so it actually gives a little bit more buffer in that old area where everybody's so close together um and then the the expansion of the roof on the second floor the Dormer um is getting larger and that's where we found the space to put that bathroom I think that is everything related to it thank you great thank you Leslie um going through the criteria uh number one adequacy of the site in terms of size uh we believe the site the size of the site is adequate for this proposal um the addition will increase the non-conforming lock coverage at the property but the size of the combined uh addition is only 385 square feet so it's rather modest in size and as I mentioned the the two main additions are limited to a single story uh as lesie mentioned by expanding the home on the South Side the applicant is able to maintain Conformity with the setback and locate the addition in an area of the home with the most open space uh number two compatibility of the size of the proposed structure with neighboring properties again we think the um size of the structure is compatible with neighboring properties a re a review of the gross floor area numbers for the neighborhood demonstrates the overall size compares favorably with with homes in this area uh again most of which are located on very small small lots and located quite close to one another uh this expansion provides the Friendlies with the additional living area that they seek while still being respectful to the neighborhood and their neighbors number three extent of the proposed increase in the non-conforming nature of the structure uh there is an increase in a non-conforming building coverage as well as a small expansion of the DOR on the north side of the home within the setbacks the two single story additions will comply with lot line setback requirements suitability of the site uh the site is suitable for the proposed project no negative impact on neighboring Properties or the natural environment number five impact of scale sighting and Mass on neighborhood visual character again I'd suggest it will not have a negative impact on neighborhood visual character um the additions on the cell side of the property are largely hidden from view from neighboring Properties by the existing fence and a rather robust uh vegetative barrier that goes around the property uh while these additions will be visible from a segment of mhill Lane uh being only one story in height limits any concern relative to scale and mass uh finally the design maintains the historic integrity and feel of the existing home which will allow these additions to blend into the property over time uh you'll read in the correspondence a letter from the historical commission who found that the additions do not materially diminish the historic significance of the home number six a residential use in a residential neighborhood and therefore compatible number seven have adequate water and drainage a new septic tank as noted on David's plan will be installed as part of the project and comply with B Health regulations no negative impact on traffic flow and safety no issues with noise and litter and the property has adequate utilities 11 and 12 in this case are not applicable uh so in conclusion again we think this is really a modest addition to the property we think it uh provides the Friendlies with the additional living area they're looking for while maintaining um the Integrity from a historic aspect of the property and certainly not substantially more detrimental thank you thank you is there anybody here or on M Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application raise your hand please I see a blinking but I'm not sure if that's a hand raise online um so I'm going to ignore it for now um we we have two letters one from the chadam historical commission and one from the health agent uh Judith Georgio our health agent writes on 9 10 2024 I have reviewed the plan to renovate and add an addition to this property um it has four bedrooms and the proposed addition will maintain the four-bedroom layout a new addition will not encroach on the existing septic a relocated septic tank is proposed and must be approved and permitted by the health division prior to construction then we have a letter from the chattic historical uh commission uh dated on 99 2024 hi Sarah we reviewed the application and found the home historically significant but the changes do not Material diminish the home's historical significance so they do not impose a demolition delay they also reaffirmed that CH the home is a contributing structure in the ndr and the proposed changes do not constitute a substantial alteration so they do not they did not refer this to the Cape Cod Commission that concludes the letters is there anybody here or on Microsoft teams that has a question or wishes to speak against this application please make it known seeing none questions from the board David Nixon I have none thank you Virginia fenor no questions Steve has no questions no questions and nor do I okay uh can I have a motion to close the hearing and move into deliberations um yes I'd like to move to close the hearing and move to deliberation so moved so moved I that and vote Yes and I vote Yes Steve votes yes I vote Yes as do I okay deliberations we'll start with Dave Nixon again well as attorney Norcross has pointed out uh this is a modest change and I think Leslie once again has done a great job of trying to fit it in in a very limited space that seems to be your specialty Leslie good for you hang that out in your shingle right but um I'm very pleased that the owners can get what they're looking for with only what 385 additional square fet and I'm not nuts usually about percentages going up but I understand where this is and so the percentage is somewhat misleading is it detrimental in any way shape or form till the neighborhood the answer is no so I'll be voting as and JY agree with Mr Nixon um my comments are almost exactly what he said you did a nice job uh Leslie with the design Jamie with the with the summary presentation um I think the changes maintain the historic um integrity and I think it's a lovely um home and the and the additions are appropriate uh and I gladly give grace to the building coverage because you know it is hard sometimes to save these historic homes so I U applaud you for that and it's not substantially more detrimental and we'll just keep going around I agree with everything that's been said prior to me and Lee as do I and as do I what they said so with that um are there any um conditions that you would recommend or that you'd like to have or that wouldn't like to have I I mean I don't I I assume you're going to do the uh standard conditions which I think are fine I believe they're looking to get started as soon as possible so they should have it and it's not a very large project so it should be buttoned up by the summertime so that's fine with the uh restrictions uh the usual restri usual restrictions should be does anybody think that we don't need usual restrictions on this or that we should skip that what do you think no I think I think we should we should yeah okay definitely it just keeps things in check particularly with the neighbors being so close you don't want vehicles to end up in the street just by happen stand right yep yep okay so um can I get a motion uh to approve with the usual conditions yeah so um I move to approve application number um 24101 as submitted uh with the following conditions all construction uh activity and vehicles should be contained on site or at a neighboring property with permission of the property owner um between June 30th and Labor Day no exterior construction will be allowed no work shall be permitted on weekends and construction activity between 88: am and 5:00 P p.m only thank you I second that and vote Yes okay how do you vote Viria JY votes yes Steve votes yes Lee votes yes as do it's unanimous congratulations thank you very much thank you okay our next application is going to be nine Pine Grove Road um number 24- 091 with William litfield Esquire and whenever s is ready she will read that advertisement application number 24- 091 the suidan Family Trust care of William G Lichfield Esquire 330 Orleans Road North chadam Mass 02650 owner of property located at 9 Pine Grove Road also shown on the town of chadam assessors map 8B block 8 lot h67 the applicant proposes to change alter or expand a non-conforming dwelling at a non-conforming lot be the expansion of a deck the existing dwelling is non-conforming and that is located 24 ft from the road where a 25t setback is required and 2.7 ft from the coastal Conservancy District flood plane elevation 11 the proposed deck expansion will be non-conforming in that it will be located 6.7 ft from the coastal Conservancy District where a 50ft setback is required the building coverage will remain 2,181 squ ft 14.5% where 15% is the maximum allowed the lot is non-conforming and that it contains 15,23 ft of buildable Upland where 20,000 ft² is required in the R20 zoning District a special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5 be of protected bylaw welcome attorney Lichfield thank you madam chairman members of the board Bill Lichfield here on behalf of the applicants Neil and Cheryl Sullivan who as trustees own the property at nine Pine Grove Road this is a very simple request there is on the uh west side of the property when you first come in on Kea on your left as you know an existing deck and the Sullivans would like to expand it by 4 feet make it 4 feet wider and at the same time they will also be eliminating that deck that's shown in dotted lines up at the top right hand side of that plan where it says remove existing deck so it is a very small change the area shown is there uh right more or less in the middle of the screen proposed 4 foot deck extension so with that's the extent of the request and I'll go into the criteria without further Ado in regard to the plans as to adequacy of site including building coverage and setbacks all of the Lots in the neighborhood are non-conforming to one degree or another we actually have one of the larger Lots but notwithstanding non-conformity as to buildable Upland and Street and Wetland setbacks the site is adequate for the existing house I think you can grant the special permit based on the finding that the site is adequate for the 4ot expansion of the elevated deck which is further from the top of the bank uh than the existing deck and it's coupled as I said with a removal of a separate non-conforming deck at the Northeast side as to compatibility of size uh with the neighborhood as I indicated our lot is somewhat larger and our house is somewhat smaller than most but generally comparable to the others in the neighborhood but of course size isn't really relevant there's no change in the size of the house gross floor area or living area the deck as minimally expanded uh is in keeping with its surroundings and again we're eliminating the other deck on the other side of the house as to the extend of increase in non-conformity there is none we are further from the top of the I call it the top of the bank it is apparently the top of the Coastal Bank but to the degree that we ever get flooding there I think even Mr Nixon high on stage Island will have a problem because a coastal flood coming up from Harding's Beach uh would flood Kima road before it got into that Coastal Conservancy District in any event the expansion is compensated by the removal of the separate deck uh as to suitability of site and impact the natural environment the house was built under prior land use regulations but based on the minimal change involved as well as the change in the Northeast side the Conservation Commission has already heard it and approved it uh as I understand it the order of conditions was already recorded or recorded earlier today as the scale citing Mass views and Vistas the existing hous is consistent with most of the neighborhood are certainly far from massive without any impact on views or Vistas and that will remain the same if you approve the special permit the scal sighting and mass are unchanged the small expansion of the deck will have no impact on the streetscape as to compatibility of use there's no change it's a residential use uh water and sewer are not an issue the health agent is written and has no concerns no impact on traffic flow and safety noise and letter in of course all utilities are present but they're not really applicable to a deck uh so as you know the question is whether the proposed small expansion of the deck without any change in Gross floor area or living area is substantially more detrimental the neighborhood than the current non-conforming structure on a non-conforming lot the 4 foot wide expansion is further from the coastal conservant District than is the existing structure and again as I've indicated a separate non-conforming deck is to be removed moved and conservation has already approved the matter there's no impact on any of Butters in light of the criteria and the plans in this location I think you can find that the proposed Small Change Is Not substantially more detrimental be happy to answer any questions well thank you very much is there anybody here are on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application please indicate seeing none we have two letters one from the Conservation Commission and one from the health department um in that order conservation writes to us on August 21 2024 that um as to the property located at nine Pine gr Grove Road um the applicant has submitted a notice of intent that was heard by the commission on July 24th 2024 the project is scheduled for an order of conditions on August 28th the project will be revised to meet the performance standard of the wetlands protection act um and the town's local bylaw and then we have a letter from the health agent and she has no problems with this application at all and she tells us that on September 10th 2024 and that's Judith Georgio is there anybody here are on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak against this application or has a specific question seeing none questions from the board I have none thank you all right ven missen I have no questions Steve has no questions I have no questions I don't either so can I have a motion to close the hearing and move into deliberations so moved I second and vote Yes I vote Yes Steve votes yes I vote Yes and I vote Yes as well all right deliberations Virginia Fenwick um I think it's a uh makes sense to expand the deck on the uh West with the western side the view of the of the water um and I think it was a thoughtful uh it's a thoughtful proposal and it was a very nice presentation thank you I think it's a good project it kind of squares up that that corner of the house and uh gives a little more usable space and I don't think it's detrimental to anyone I agree with my colleagues yes I was very impressed and I mentioned this to Mr Sullivan about um he and Mrs Solan are great caretakers of this property I mean I didn't even say a gum wrapper or anything anywhere even underneath the deck so when I see that I feel good you know these are people going to do a good job and take care of it so I certainly will be in support of it all right I at this point um can I get a motion I move to approve the application as submitted with um do we need conditions do we need conditions Mr Lichfield I I don't think you do but wouldn't object to them if you impose them and what do you think mron no okay so let's not and say we did with okay so um with no conditions so approve as submitted yes I second that and vote Yes I vote Yes Steve votes yes Lee votes yes as do I it's unanimous congratulations thank you very much thank you okay we're g to move along to one 28 Pine n Road and that's application 24- 093 represented by Attorney James Norcross application number 24- 093 Elizabeth narian car of James M Norcross Esquire PE box 707 chadam Mass 02633 owner of property located at 128 Pine Avenue also showed on the town of chadam assessor map 5c block 45 lot s39 the applicant seek to enlarge extender change a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot be the demolition of the existing dwelling and 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 and 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 983 ft 13.9% and the proposed building coverage is 1,00 55 ft 14.97% where 15% is the maximum allowed the law 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 4A section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw welcome back Mr Norcross once again thank you uh for the record uh Jamie Norcross representing Steve and Liz Nigerian uh the Nigerians are here in the third row with me this afternoon uh we were here last winter I believe February or March um for a variance request for this property for a different design that was much larger um and uh did not meet the building coverage requirement um we obviously did not receive the variant uh so subsequent to that meeting the Nigerians uh worked with their Builder to come up with a new design that would be compliant with uh both the setback requirements of the zoning bylaw as well as the overall uh building coverage requirement and so that's what's before you today um the Nigerians have owned this property for over 25 years uh it consists of an existing three-bedroom dwelling that was built in the 1950s and is in need of substantial work uh the Nigerians are looking to develop a structure that provides for additional living area for their family and result in a home that can be used as they move into their retirement years with the goal of spending more and more time in chadam and eventually relocating the chadam as full-time residents uh given the condition of the existing structure including the foundation uh the Niger Ians determined that a renovation addition was not feasible and that a demo uh rebuild was the best option moving forward um the lot is non-conforming as it contains 7,45 ft or 20,000 squ ft is required uh most of the Lots in this particular neighborhood are non-conforming it was a 1950 subdivision that was developed before the zoning bylaw so you have a lot of small lots and a lot of non-conforming uh houses in this particular neighborhood um the house the existing house is non-conforming it's located 14 1/2 ft from the East lot line where a 15t setback is required there's also a shed that you'll see at the very Northern uh portion of the lot that encroaches onto sound View Avenue currently um the footprint of the existing structure will be increasing by a total of 72 square ft and that allows us to comply with the 15% building coverage requirement of the bylaw the structure will also comply with all setbacks both Street setbacks and a butter setbacks and the height requirement of the bylaw um the height is obviously increasing in this case as um we're adding a second story but the Nigerians have worked to try to limit the overall height with uh 9 foot ceiling Heights on the first floor and 8 foot ceiling Heights on the second floor so going into the criteria number one adequacy of the size of the site um the applicants believe the size of the site is adequate for the proposal while as I mentioned it's a small parcel the proposed structure is really quite modest in size at about a th000 square foot uh footprint and as I mentioned we'll meet all dimensional setbacks including um the two Street setbacks in the North and South so I think this is just worth touching on uh for a moment so this lot uh is boarded on Pineville Avenue on the south and sound View Avenue on the North and so it has to meet a 25 foot setback to both streets so that really shows that the the size of the structure is condensed and modest in size given the size of this slot we're still able to comply with those 25 foot setbacks um number number two compatibility of the size of the proposed structure with neighboring properties uh it's an interesting neighborhood in terms of design and styles it's a mixture of homes with various sizes and styles some of which still date back to the 1950s including the Nigerians uh many of the homes as you drive around the neighborhood have been remodel they rebuilt over the years and there are number there are a number that compare favorably with the proposed house in terms of size a review of the gross floor area numbers for this area demonstrates that the proposed structure is on the higher end relative to the neighborhood but I would note that if you remove the uh basement the gross floor area figure for the proposal is only 282 square feet uh number three extent of the proposed increase in non-conforming nature of the structure or use uh the only increase um is the fact that the living area of the structure will be increasing on a non-conforming lot otherwise the project meets all aspects and requirements of the zoning bylaw and in fact removes the one non-conformity of the existing house which is the setback to the east lot line number four suitability of the site uh again the applicants believe the site is suitable for this project construction work will be completed without any impact on neighboring Properties or on the natural environment number five scale sighting in Mass on neighborhood visual character uh I'd suggest there's no negative impact on neighborhood visual character while the proposal results in an increase in the size of the home any impact caused by that is mitigated by several factors uh first the proposed structure will be located over 25 ft from sound View Avenue and that's as measured from the deck it's over 30 ft when measured from the cornerboard and over 26 ft from Pine Avenue uh I'd also point out that this distance is measured to the lot line however if you look at the site plan there is an additional area of about 68 feet between the lot line and the traveled Road surface of sound View and pine null Avenue that you can see on the plan here therefore as seen from the physical Street as you're driving down the street the setback is even greater um than than the 30 and the 25 ft and there limits the mass of the proposal um second uh the topography slopes quite significantly As you move west in this neighborhood meaning that the property sits on one of the lower elevations in the area um therefore the additional height of the structure is mitigated will not Loom over the streetcape and ab buding properties uh in particular the property to the east is significantly higher in grade um than the nerian property and also contains a two-story structure um there are also uh two or three two-story similar size structures across Ross uh sound View Avenue from this property including 124 sound View Avenue once constructed uh this proposed house will not look out of place with the homes in the immediate area as it relates the ab budding parcel to the West uh the proposed structure again we're talking about the corner board will be set back almost 25 ft from the lot line which is 10 feet more than what's required under the bylaw also mitigating the additional height of the proposal as viewed from that abutter uh I'd also note that abutter has sent in a letter of support support for the project Mr Summers uh number six uh single family residents in a residential neighborhood and therefore compatible number seven the property has adequate sewage disposal Town water and drainage number eight no negative impact on traffic flow and safety no issues with noise and litter and the property has all necessary utilities um so again I I in conclusion the Nigerians have worked really hard to come up with a design that complies with all the requirements of the bylaw it still provides them with all their Essentials on the first floor which is one of the main reasons for their um uh the demolition rebuild so in terms of retirement they're going to have their master bedroom kitchen dining room laundry all on the first level and then there's room on the second floor for their children when they come to visit so again this Fe fits the needs for the Nigerians uh while still complying with all the requirements of your zoning bylaw and therefore I'd suggest uh it is not substantially more detrimental thank you thank you is there anybody here r on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in in favor of this application please raise your hand seeing none we have three correspondences to read um the health department writes to us on 910 2023 I don't know if we have anything more recent than that but she reviewed the plan for the property that was supposed to be 2 oh 2024 then okay and um the floor plan of the 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 6ot cased opening I will require the property to be deed restricted to three bedrooms prior to approving the application the full Foundation must be 20 ft from the septic leeching area then we have a note from Todd Summers April 22nd 2024 he writes to express his approval and support for the special permit and he has known the Nigerians for more than 20 years their prop his property directly AB buts it on 128 Pinel a on the leftand side and he tells us that um it's a very reasonable request it meets all the requirements in his opinion the new house will be architecturally consistent in keeping with the neighborhood size and style he appreciates our consideration on the matter and hopes that we approve it then we have a note from Alexia taxi chos and she tells us on April 30th 2024 she's reaching out to support her neighbors they've been fortunate enough to live in chadam for nearly 10 years their home is located directly in the in in the rear of that of the Nigerians they have been respectful and responsible Community focused neighbors for the entire duration of our home ownership they've updated their desire they've they've updated us on their desire to upgrade their family home to be a residence for them and their family for generations to come we reviewed the proposal and the architectural drawingwings we are in complete support of their desire to secure a special permit we understand that both the town um mandated setbacks and allowable building Footprints um met my husband and I are planning on owning our home on sound view for many years and we plan on moving to chadam fulltime in the next 10 years we believe this investment will continue to improve the value of the neighborhood while still maintaining the commitment to preserve our natural habitat biodiversity and Cham of our street we hope that you will um consider a strong approval of the application that concludes the correspondences is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak against this application or has a specific question seeing none so questions from the board Jenny Jamie I have a couple um can you confirm that the chimney that's shown here on the um the the res you know the renderings the house renderings um is included in the setbacks because I didn't see the chimney on the site plan uh Sarah asked that question earlier it's um Wendy at Clark engineering answered it's TW the the chimney's 25 Point excuse me 25 15.2 feet from the lot line but her understanding is because it's going to be made of brick it doesn't count toward the setback requirement I suppose Jay might be able to tell me if that's right or wrong but that's that's news to me okay well and it either any event it's it's over 15 ft from the lot line so it does comply the chimney that that would mean that that was wrong that's wrong yeah yeah yeah yeah just for the record well Lu yeah but we do um we do still comply with the the zoning requir um you included in our packet and you did the last time as well this gross floor area comparison um I'm assuming that the the number here is the prior number and not the adjusted number which is 3123 correct so the correct number is uh 3123 3123 okay um can you confirm what the box is if you go to the floor plan a56 I it looks like it's maybe framed up to be a closet but the um looks like it's a closet off of the office is that intended to be like a walk-in closet or I'm sorry where you that space right there right there where the hand is yeah Steve or Liz could you you have to come up Steve if you can please just have to introduce yourself yes hi I'm Steve nerian uh one of the applicants um yeah that space is intended just to be a like a storage closet um for you know we're still not retired yet we'll be working a little bit and uh we'll need that space for you know supplies and storage to to assist okay um and then I think Judith I missed the part that Judith is is she putting a case opening over that Den or is that just an open that's going to be an opening and there's no case opening over the office because of the low wall of the St of where the stairs are correct correct she has the 36 foot high half wall okay okay um well one more question is about the the proposed height so you mentioned Jamie 9 ft um first floor 8 fet second floor so that's about 17 ft 294 in is the is the proposed is the ask so is that additional 12 feet is that mostly attic space that we're talking about or I mean give or take a few feet Foundation yeah I mean you you right you can see the first floor is just a couple steps off a grade yeah and then you got the 9 foot structure between the two and then 8ot and then you know empty attic space yeah I mean there's nothing up in the attic really okay just voids you know void space 12 over 12 pitch for the roof is a pretty I mean that's kind of a steep roof I I'm ask I guess my question there is would there be a a consideration of lowering the height um something we discussed it's challenging when you have a a narrow structure which ultimately this is because it has to fit in that box and it's you know it tends to go up and it's more difficult to to lower um yeah and then I think too also if you see the side elevation uh below the front elevation if you were to lower that Ridge while while it would be okay for the front elevation but on the side elevation you really would create a squat very you know very uh you know close to being you know not adequately pitched roof yeah I would afraid if you lowered that Ridge I would really really squat you know really squat oh make it a squat Madam chair the the Builder Chris child's has his hand up he might be able to explain some of this Mr Charles you recognized you might be muted but you are recognize you are muted we can't hear you Mr Charles can you hear me now yes we can hear you now hi Chris Childs patri Builders um yeah I just wanted to on the height the height is measured the the building height is measured from the average grade as well which is lower than the actual grade so there is a little bit of difference there it's about a foot and a half so that you know in terms of when you ask the question about how much attic space is there I would say um um this is approximate but it's probably about 7 ft between the top plate of the second floor and the ridge so it you know again that the the 29 foot4 in is not measured from the actual ground it's measured from the average grade plane okay so it's really not 12 ft that we're talking about giving giving back um but what would you say it would be like if we that that the attic height is um inside it's probably about 7 ft okay so I'd say from the from the exterior say the drip line to the ridge it it might be close to 8 feet okay thank you um Jamie one quick followup question you mentioned something about what was narrow the the you said something about because it's you're talking about the house proposed house correct the house you can't expand out any any further really because we're we're we're set we're maxed out on coverage so to speak so you can't in in terms of you know you widen the house you can lower the roof perhaps a little bit at least from a visual perspective but in this case it's really this is the box we have to work with on the property no I get that but I wouldn't describe it as narrow it's very much a square yeah it's a square yeah yeah yeah yeah I agree okay that's all I I gu to uh to Steve's point about the the side elevation I I do agree that the if you lower the pitch of the roof it's going to make the roof look more squatted and just aesthetically not as appealing as I mean this is already kind of a lower pitch roof because you know because of the building height so uh I making it um a even lower pitch I think would not be as aesthetically pleasing and I one of mentioned one other the thing Jenny um if you if you look at the building height as measured from the top of foundation it's about 27.1 ft so again the lot slopes off pretty significantly to the West so that affects the average grade number and ultimately the height number under the bylaw but if you look at in the middle of David's plan in the middle of the proposed house he's got the top of foundation at 34.3 and the ridge elevation is 61.4 so if you're looking at the actual height of the building so to speak as you think of it sort of in a common sense perspective it's really 27.1 Vis you're saying that visually the proposed house will will look like it's 27 ft not 29 well again the average grade factors in that you have to take in lower elevations on the on the side of the house so it slopes down so if you're looking at it from the street really it's the 27 ft is what the house is going to going to look like if you're looking at it from a foundation to a roof is which is how you know in general you're going to view a home yeah um it's hard it's hard to visualize that I mean when I was looking at the site plan it looks like the current house is 14 ft and this would be almost doubling it in height I mean in 14t additional on top right okay all right that's all I have and Steve questions U I was just going to ask you how you were going to address the concerns from the health agent are you are you taking all those requests that she had into consideration yes so they'll be providing uh floor plans of the existing to confirm as a three-bedroom David's plan does show that there's a 23 foot um setback between the proposed house and the leeching field which addresses her concerns there okay I just want to make sure thank you and Le question um do we have any idea the height of the house to the right yeah I don't think a a survey shot was done to that Ridge I do know that that grade goes up four or five feet and then additionally their first floor is another three or 4 feet above above you see a three or four foot high foundation wall before you hit their first floor and then there are two stories but I don't have a I don't have a number on that okay I was a little concerned about the height too but um attorney norcross's explanation of the 27.1 as you look at it from the street does help me yeah and I think that's why we wanted to keep the house only two short steps up like it is right now we didn't want to we didn't well first of all for for cutting down number of steps but secondly just to not raise the first floor elevation any higher as a starting point you know we wanted to keep it low as possible Dave Nixon questions thank you yeah um to me this isn't answering our problem about the height that we discussed last time so I understand your explanation of the design you presented to us but what would a home that is a story and a half with a dormer due to your plans because from what I heard you and your wife are going to be living on the first floor the second floor is being designed for children that might come to visit you at times from you know and so uh to me this is too much of a house for what your needs are and because of that it's not speaking to my concern about the height so tell me about your thoughts about a different design that would lower the roof substantially y but give you the space on the second floor for family visitations and yet your first floor is going to be apparently what you and your wife want yeah I think so why doesn't that make sense I think because if we did that and we dormered then the uh pitches of the the roof where the Dormers aren't would be cutting into a lot of cutting into all the rooms and they would reduce the room sizes substantially upstairs and they're not large as it is now I mean they're they're they're pretty much bare and Bones minimum sizes for for adequate bedroom and office and that kind of thing and if we had a dormer you know you could create Dormers but you'd have SL slopes of the of the roof cutting into the second floor second floor rooms I think we you know we kicked ideas around I mean if Chris even wants to sort of uh chime in and support that we talked about that a little bit um and it would cut into room the rooms up there I would make you could still have rooms it just wouldn't be the box of eight by whatever it might be that you would have now right tell me about the basement what are your plans for the basement what's going to go in there well right now we're just going to use it as store you know store and I'll have a little workbench down there and that's kind of what our plans are right now we don't have any plans you know you do need storage in these smaller homes you know that that one little tiny shed you see hang hanging over the property line is not kind of not cutting it right now you know so every time I've been out there that ched kind of speaks to me like yeah what are you doing here what am I doing here you know I know I understand that we'll get him across the property line I promise okay well I don't think I have any other questions thank you for your answers so just to just for anybody that's listening at home what's the height of the house now and what's proposed uh let's see the uh the rid height now is uh call it I don't know 14 feet roughly excuse me the height of the the structure now is 14 feet and the proposed would be again as measured from adage grade would be 29 so are those things being equal though well let's just use Ridge elevation cuz I think that's a little let's do that the the existing Ridge is 47 uh the proposed is 61.4 so 14 fo 14t yep and that's all being equal yeah that's Ridge to Ridge no like it looks this way but it's really this way and all that jazz all right so um just want to be clear Y no um and uh what about the shed are you going to move the shed yeah we'll move it or you know I know we have I know there are some sort of setback requirements also for sheds so we'll we'll move that within the region of of sure of those setbacks sure okay yeah um I don't have any more questions can I get a motion to close the hearing and move into deliberations oh Steve has one more question I'm so sorry just have you have you considered lowering the height of the first floor ceiling to 8 feet and the second floor to maybe seven and a half I mean it being a 6'2 person 7 and a half is is a is a very tight ceiling height well that would be the second floor yeah but still it's I'd rather we'd rather not adjust I maybe even eight and8 feet and 8 feet you gain a foot of of Ridge height then yeah I mean if we could we could do 8 feet and then like 8 foot n or something like that and knock it down a couple inches but I really wouldn't want to go less than that you know I mean a lot of a lot of new homes now are first floor is 9t or 10t we realize 10t is not really appropriate for this house um so that's why we chose the 9 foot okay all right oh did the person on line want to say anything else because all of a sudden he got his picture got big yeah you're um well I'll just to add to the the ceiling height in the rooms on the first floor are pretty small as well so I think the the 9 foot height just helps with that you know whe being tall or not it just helps make the space feel a little bigger feel like you have a little more space than you actually do so you know if if it's possible I think keeping a 9 foot would be desired all right thank you if no one else has any other questions I will uh ask for a motion to close the hearing and move into deliberations so mooved I second that vote Yes yes Steve vot yes yes and I vote Yes as well okay deliberations uh lee uh thank you madam chair um so I do I I do appreciate the fact that you listened um at the previous meeting and you did reduce the billing coverage within the uh you know bylaws the 15% um and I and I think that's appreciated um I still feel um I still feel that it it looks a little big for the neighborhood a little tall for the neighborhood um um is it substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood no I don't think so um if I if I could you know really put my two cents in I would be to reduce the height slightly um or redesign to maybe um along the ideas of what Mr Nixon said Dormers or um I mean I've said it before you it's nice to meet all the setbacks but you know sometimes we approve houses that don't meet all the setbacks right well would it be uh appropriate to sir we have to just wait you recognized um did you have a question for this gentleman or is was that in the form of a question um no just a just a suggestion okay I just being very careful with sorry with uh with that all right so um questions from Steve I mean deliberations Steve um well I I I think it's it's commendable that you um you know took the effort to try to get the house in uh in range of the setbacks uh you do have sort of a funny lot there with you're kind of shoehorned in there a little bit um I think the house is a little bit tall um and the fact that it's relatively Square I think it's it's it and its height um I don't know I I I I think there's ways to drop the ridge a little bit you could you could change the pitch of the roof slightly um you could lower the ceiling height in the first floor to 8' 6 maybe and on the second floor to 7 fo6 there's there's ways to to reduce the the ridge height I think that's that's sort of common amongst the board members that common concern um but I do appreciate the fact that you you did your best to get it within the setbacks and and try to to make this as compatible or as compliant as possible all right Jenny well I I I am too but the reason the setbacks was such a challenge is because you have 7,000 sare foot lot that is really the issue um I think that you're trying to first of all let me just say I I'm in support of more space and and of Aging in place I I remember your wife making the comment at the last hearing um so and I see how you have tried to do the things with the setbacks and the coverage and I appreciate that too but you you reduce the height two inches from the last hearing and um my concern with this proposal is the height I because let's let's talk about gross floor area as well Jamie I go back to your chart that you provided there only six homes out of 46 that um have greater uh six homes out of 46 are greater than the proposed gross floor area so so the vast majority so so you're asking for large house Visa the rest of the homes in that area and and for such a small lot 7,000 square foot lot so the reason to me the gross floor area is is only a concern because when you add the height to that gross that extra gross floor area it equals mass so it I'm not really I don't really have that much of a problem with the gross floor area a third of it is the basement um but the the fact that the height is 8 in from the maximum allow in chatam for a lot in a neighborhood that has a lot of small lots and therefore a lot of smaller homes on those lots I think is too high which is why I was asking about the the reduction of the ri Ridge and and attic space and if anything Steve mentioned the reduction of some of the floors I understand you're six feet tall so so I get it but but that is what where I'm struggling yeah and Mr Nixon well miss Fenwick uh has brought out a very important point I think and when I look at the 46 homes that thought what you said was on this list and I look at the six that are over 3,000 every lot every lot is beyond 10,000 so what that tells me is that the that you've designed to put there is simply too large it's not compatible with the neighborhood and what makes it that much so is the full second story so when you when you look at it and you get that full second story then the attic on top of it uh to me it's just overwhelming and overpowering so what am I saying what I'm saying is that I would want to see a plan that reduced probably by a minimum of 3 feet more like 4 feet before I would feel that it was compatible with the neighborhood um you certainly have done a lot about straightening out setbacks and whatnot so thank you very much but this this is to me the most important aspect ECT of what you want to do and whether you follow through with what I said about you know a story and a half and I understand that you don't want to reduce the ceilings okay keep them nine and eight but if you can do something with the idea of Dormers you can reduce an awful lot out of that roof and I would think to get my vote you would need to do that Mr Norcross what would you like to do I just talk to my client for for if I may so really our best bet at this point would be throw out without prejudice and then work on the redesign and come back yeah I guess so we're not we need four out of five so yeah um Madam chair we would ask to uh withdraw without prejudice without prejudice very good can I have a motion to withdraw without prejudice so moved I second and vote Yes I vote Yes Steve votes yes I vote Yes as do I thank you very much and when whenever Sarah is ready we are going to go to 161 old Queen an Road application 24- 092 represented by attorney William lvi application number 24- 092 William and Mara cook care of William G Lichfield Esquire 330 Orleans Road North chadam Mass 02650 owners of property located at 161 Old queenan Road also shown in the town of chadam assessors map 12g Block 17 lot 6 the applicant proposes to change alter or expand a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the demolition of the porch and the conversion of the garage to habitable space Also proposed the construction of two conforming covered entries the existing dwelling is non-conforming and it is located 18.8 ft from the road where a 25t setback is required and 8.4 ft from the southwester butter the proposed setback to the Southwest Alia butter once the porch is demolished will be 9.3 ft where a 15t setback is required the existing building coverage is 1,8 27 ft 11.7% and the proposed building coverage is 1,810 Ft 11.6% where 15% is the maximum allowed the law is non-conforming and that it contains 15560 ft where 20,000 ft² is required in the R20 zoning District a special permit is required under massger Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protected by law Mr litfield welcome thank you very much Madam chair members of the board bill litfield here behalf of Bill and Mora cook excuse me Mr Lille may I interrupt just for a bit certainly and it has to do with the correspondence we've received uh I personally feel there's a letter in there uh that is inappropriate for this hearing and I think you know the one I'm talking about do you think I'm correct or that I'm wrong uh thank you m Mr Nixon if I could Madam chairman uh I found it to be curious uh totally up to the board as to whether you U act on it uh I defer to the board I I thought it was I'll say curious well I don't know how my fellow members feel but it is the letter from the town about infringement into the cemetery and whatnot and I really don't think that's because it doesn't affect what we're being asked for and I honestly don't think it should be something that should be read but I defer everybody okay we'll we'll get to that yeah thank you uh as I said Bill Lichfield here on behalf of B thank you madam chairman Bill Lichfield here on behalf of billore cook and given the large crowd in the room today it may be difficult for you identify who the cooks are uh but they are the remaining two people aside from Mr Ford and I know you know Mr Ford uh Bill and MOA bought this house about 10 years ago Mora is a originally from the community and was able to come back and persuade her husband to come along good sense on his part uh they live here around and as you know from having been out there it is a very small house it is much smaller than it actually looks uh and they also have and have rebuilt a garage off to the side there is shown on the left hand side uh there there is an existing garage appended to the house which they uh proposed to convert to living space Mora is a Pianist and there's a they like to have a piano in there and so forth so they are simply proposing to convert the existing garage as shown there uh to a living space it's not going to be a bedroom or anything like that and we'll talk about that later uh there is that is shown there that's the the view of uh what's there and there's the piano uh they'll have a wood stove or a gas stove in there uh there isn't really room for a bedroom uh they don't have any desire for it we'll get again to the bedroom issues but in terms of the exterior changes there are two which are very minimal uh on the right hand side of the top photograph there will be a very small I don't want to call it a covered entryway just something they keep the rain off your neck when you come out that door and on the main door which is the former garage entry door they do want to have a a small entryway that is the only change in coverage and that coverage is compensated by their elimination of an existing porch uh which is adjacent to Old Queen Anne Road uh you are I've said this before about the zoning board of appeals you get to go places that other people haven't seen uh and this house is an example it's behind a white fence a white Stockade Fence I don't think very many people know what's behind there but when you you go back there you find a very nice lovely little setting and the cooks would like simply to convert the existing garage uh to uh living space so I'll go into the criteria as to adequacy of site including building covered in setbacks the site is adequate for the house built prior to zoning built in 1950 four years before we had zoning not withstanding its proximity to the street into the sideline I think you can find the site to be adequate for these minimal changes with as I I said a reduction in coverage and an improvement as to the sideline setback by removing the uh porch on the northeast side as compatibility of size the neighborhood was created under prior zoning uh the carrent house while not visible is not inconsistent with neighbor nearby properties on the third page of the handout that I gave you uh there is a comparison we have a relatively large l a couple of them are less than 15,000 we are slightly in excess of 15,000 it's one that's almost 21,000 and there's a lot down behind in Wilford Road which is partially wet which is over an acre but our numbers are consistent with uh those in the neighborhood coverage uh is as high as uh as a typo on that last L should be 2.3 on 11 Wilford but that's irrelevant coverage ranges from 2.3 up to 12.9 will be decreasing coverage from 117 to 116 our gross floor area is changing only because of the entryway being constructed on the front of the former garage and the living area numbers show you why we need what we need the existing living area of the house is only 775 Square ft the assessors by the way if you happen to have checked have an incorrect number they are of a mind that there is a second floor of the garage not the one we're proposing to change but the garage on the left there is no second floor there's no Living Spa there's no living space on the second floor that's irrelevant but our numbers are consistent and they won't change so I think you can find that we are compatible and will remain so as to the extent of increase in non-conformity there is none we have three lot size Street and sideline non-conformities and we are improving the sideline non-conformity as to suitability of the site impact the natural environment there are no environmental issues at uh environmental issues in this case scale sighting Mass use Vista streetscape we have a modest but attractive home uh that the cooks have taken very good care of to update uh all again it's behind a privacy fence uh if you approve the special permit scale and mass are certainly not impacted by elimination of the porch or by conversion of the garage to living space there's no effect on streetscape and Views and Vistas are not an issue as to compatibility of use there's no change it's residential uh we're on Town water and on Town sewer the last page of the handout that you have is a letter from the Department of Public Works indicating that we are authorized for three bedrooms for sewer flow uh there's a letter from the health agent which I think was written in error uh they have 8,000 Parcels to consider but it says that we're only authorized two uh for two bedrooms in fact we are authorized for three in reality we have at present one because a former single uh one of the two bedrooms in the main house has been converted to a laundry room uh and there is a bedroom in the garage but no kitchen or anything like that so we only have two bedrooms we only want two bedrooms the music room Den is going to not be a bedroom but if we wanted it to we could because we were authorized for three uh bedrooms under sewer regulations no impact on traffic flow and safety no impact noise and letter noise and litter uh and all utilities are there so as you are aware the question is whether the proposed conversion of the garage to a family room with a piano or music room coupled with elimination of the non-conforming porch and construction of a small conforming entryway whether those changes are substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood we have an unusual location in terms of being behind a fence and not readily visible from anywhere but what is really a small change yielding a reduction in coverage yields a significant increase in living space for the cooks and again it's accomplished essentially on the same footprint uh as small as the change is as I said it's important to them and their continued year round living it's certainly a change which is far less that I think that you could find to be or to have a detrimental effect the neighborhood so in light of the criteria and the plans you can find the proposed conversion of the garage to a den with a decrease in coverage and an improvement as to one of the sideline setbacks in this location is not substantially more detrimental the neighborhood if you decide to uh discuss the letter from the DPW I would be happy to respond to it I thank you very much thank you is there anybody here or Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application if so please indicate seeing none one oh seeing one please go ahead EB you you need to unmute EB if you already haven't unmuted please do so we're not able to hear you yet ma'am or sir just for the record and this is going to be in favor this is the time for in favor um so note that if you reappear after I read the correspondences and raise your hand I will then recognize you I'll take it out of order okay at this point I'm going to read two correspondences um we have one from Judith Georgio our health agent on 910 2024 she received received the plan to convert the garage to living space at the property our records indicate that the existing dwellings on the property are currently connected to Municipal sewer the sewer flow is approved for two bedrooms detailed floor plans of the main house and the cottage must be submitted for a review the new room may meet the definition of a bedroom but further review is needed then we have a note [Music] from Heidi and Phil Hilty and they write to us on August 29th 2024 please use this email as approval for the above reference non-conforming request from William and Mara cook for the property located on 161 queenan road to demolish the porch and convert the garage to habitable space um in addition we support the construction of two conforming covered entries we hope the neighbors will be granted the special permit um and that concludes the correspondence that I'm going to elect to read um EB I'm going to go back to you would you still like to um say anything in favor or at this point you could say something against or ask a question if not if anybody else would like to comment against this application or ask a question either here or on Microsoft teams please make make it known seeing none questions from the board Jenny no questions Steve Steve has no questions no questions no questions nor do I can I have a motion to close the hearing and move into deliberations so moved I second and vote Yes Yes uh yes yes and I vote Yes as well okay now deliberations um Steve um I I think it's a it's a nice project um if it's if it's helping them uh um have a better uh living condition and that's fine uh the room doesn't appear to be big enough to make it a bedroom um and I don't have a problem with this at all and I think some of the uh or the issues that were brought up in the letter that we didn't read or seem to be addressed on the site plan so I think that's not an issue okay David Nixon it's the nicest grass I've ever seen in my life it really is I was very envious and don't know just how to convert that into my Cottage but anyway uh great location wonderful job your clients have done and I'm certainly in full support of what they wish to do than you and Jenny you know this is a great example of big impact with the small changes the whole property it's absolutely an amazing job that you've done um so Charming I uh think that the project is makes sense and I would support it and Lee I agree what a what a special spot um beautiful job it's very private it meets all of our criteria um so I will support it as well okay and as do I um just want to go back just to give EB one more chance because I don't want to be accused of um by anybody of not paying attention to anybody that has a question in the public um so well it in court that you tried your damnest how's that I tried all right that being said um can I have a motion to approve the application as submitted with the usual conditions so moved well can you read the conditions read the condition okay um so uh yes we will approve application number 24092 as submitted with these conditions all construction activity and vehicle should be contained on site or at a neighboring property with permission of the property owner uh 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 and 5:00 P p.m only I second that and vote Yes I vote Yes Steve votes yes Steve votes yes I vote Yes as do I it's unanimous congratulations thank you very much we appreciate it thank you now we have one more application and that would be 24- 094 RNs nominee trust represented by attorney Michael Ford for 144 Chad Harbor Lane whenever Sarah is ready application number 24- 094 RNs nominee trust care of Michael D Ford Esquire PO Box 485 West harch Mass 02671 owner of property located at 144 chat Harbor Lane also shown on the town of chadam accessories map 5B block 1 Lot 10 the applicant seeks to extend special permit number 22- 082 for one year the current expiration date is October 20 2024 the proposed expiration date is October 20 2025 the special permit allowed the applicant to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new dwelling the lot contains 14,400 ft of contiguous buildable Upland where 20,000 ft is required in the R40 zoning District a special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 40a sections 6 and 14 and sections 5B and 82b of protective bylaw attorney Ford nice to see you nice to be here and to be seen Madam chairman Mike Ford representing uh the applicant and uh the trustee of of my trust just walked out Mr Lichfield but uh I'm not sure so if there is a question I'll go out and and get him um the beneficiaries of the trust um uh Josh simber uh and others his family uh have been working uh hard on this project to get it going their dilemma is that they are transitioning to a new architectural firm uh Catalan own Associates and um who was working uh very hard to come up with a plan that fits the plan that was approved uh so that they can proceed with a building permit and um they just haven't been able to get to the point where Catalano has something that can be submitted um upon which a building permit uh can be granted um and so an extension um is requested respectfully this is the first extension um I don't think it it prejudices anybody um to allow it to happen this was a long and winding road on this lot as some of you may recall and they have were prior uh proposals on it um it's really a lot that's uh 10 uh 990,000 square fet has patches of of Upland um and we were able to come up with something here that um did at the end um get the support of the counil that I worked for for a long time um putting together uh the project so um that's my presentation and uh I'm hopeful that the board uh sees that it's a a reasonable request for a one-year continuance okay uh David Nixon well actually um I think I need you to go through the whole questions from the public in the whole nine yards so let me do that I would agree you should follow the process I'm going to follow the process I know this is different but um we are going to do that so is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak against for this application um at all anybody no okay I will read the one correspondence from Conservation Commission and they write to us on August 21 2024 that um the property owner of 144 Chad Hab Lane um submitted uh an application to them on August 10th 2022 August 24th 2022 September 28th 2022 2022 the project was issued order conditions in November 2 2022 the project was rised to remet this to meet the standards of the wetlands protected Act and the uh Town regulations so nothing has changed there no is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak against this continuance if so please raise your hand or if you have a question indicate seeing none questions from the board David Nixon uh thank you yes uh you mentioned uh your clients have changed Architects have they also changed Builders meaning do they have a builder lined up they will uh change Builders as well they they've got a builder working with the architect so it's catalon and Associates is the architect I don't know whether they actually have a contract yet with KB Associates but th that's the Builder they're they're dealing with okay so it's a little premature to ask you for sketches and so forth I guess okay uh because as you know uh if another year goes by it's kind of a different story so but I have no more questions thank you Mr for Jenny questions well my only question is me along the same lines would are you sure one year's enough should you maybe just ask for two just be on the same well if the board is disposed to two but I think we advertise for one and I think your clerk who's always on the ball will tell you that's beyond the scope of my request okay um if I see a a problem um towards the end of the year I'll be in early to explain what it is and ask for the board but right now it's it's a year and of course that's to get going um not necessarily to complete the project we've got a a provision here because of the access if you've ever been down to this site very tight Road the bo the board saw fit to uh put a four-month no work exclusion inside or outside on this property so we only have eight months during the course of the year to work on this once we get going so it will not be completed this year but our hope is that the building permit will issue and we'll get started if as a result of the new architect and I think that's where Mr nion was coming from the plan is different at all and I've been talking to Mr Briggs about that issue we'll be back here to show you that so that um you get a chance to look at it okay fair enough Steve questions um no I have no questions and Lee oh almost set thank you okay I have no questions either so um I will ask for a motion to allow this application as submitted I so move I second that and vote Yes yes Steve votes yes I vote Yes as to why it's unanimous congratulations thank you very much and Mr Lichfield thanks you as well that's important all right sure P there's no other business before this board we will um I just want to confirm on that last application that was to close the hearing go into deliberations and approve that's correct we did all that okay one of those multifaceted oh sorry about that you should have nudge me okay okay okay very good all right so at this point uh how I'm asking for a motion to adjourn so moved I second that and vote yes I vote Yes I vote to a Jour I vote Yes as do I good night chadam we need time yes 428 [Music] [Music]