##VIDEO ID:bcN34JFe7sk## e e e e e e e e e e e e e n [Music] [Music] anyone else welcome everybody to the August 15th 2024 meeting of the chadam Zoning Board of Appeals pursuant to Governor Hy's March 23rd 2023 signing 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 enure that the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided for in the order a reminder people who would like to listen to this meeting while in progress may do so by calling 1508 945 4410 conference ID 673 8076 pound or join the meeting through the link on the posted agenda while this is live broadcast and simcast on chadam TV despite our best efforts we may not be able to provide for realtime access but we will post a record of this meeting in 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 just take this opportunity to remind everybody to shut their cell phones or anything that makes noise off please um and don't speak until you get all the way up to the microphone um as this meeting is being recorded and we need you to be the microphone um we start off the meetings with a roll call of all board members to authorize this form of meeting starting with Dave V uh David h v and I approve of this form of meeting Ed Acton I approve David as nexton I approve all C simple I approve Lee Hy I approve Steve dbor I approve Virginia Fenwick I approve and Randy podes I approve as well um if any citizens or non-board members participating via the call um if there are any please give the last digits of your phone number for identification purposes we start the meetings with um staff reading the hearing notice see o clock on my right um then you or your representative will present your application or appeal anyone in favor will have a chance to speak up to five minutes and there'll be a clock for that that's um very strict time um then I will read all letters received by the board anyone against the application may speak or ask a question again with a five minute limit applicant will have a chance to rebut testimony um members will ask questions hear further information close the public hearing deliberate and usually we vote on the appeal our application um all votes are taken by roll call and at the end of the meeting we will close the meeting via verbal confirmation of the time and note the adjournment um I just want to make a comment that last time um I uh abruptly cut a member short which I should not have done for something I thought he was basically talking about topics that were outside of the criteria but indeed we all have wide latitude to go ahead and have an opportunity to tie in any any um comments to the um criteria so I apologize for that and um indeed we want members to be very creative and find all kinds of ways to tie us into not only the criteria but to the purpose intent of the bylaw so again I stand corrected if anyone had heard that um I was wrong so with that we don't have any minutes today we will go with the first application which is 37 clamshell Drive application number 24- z77 all realy trust care of Donnie Dunham 42 wano Avenue 1164 Osterville Mass 02655 owner of property located at 37 clamshell drive also shown in the town of chadam assessor m M 16a Block 29 lot e76 the applicant seeks to modify special permit number 22- 070 granted on October 27th 2022 which allowed for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a new dwelling the applicant now seeks to modify the special permit to allow for additional building coverage the approved building coverage was 860 sare ft and the proposed building coverage is 863 Square ft where 2,800 ft is the maximum allowed the lot is non-conforming and that it contains 0 square ft of buildable Upland where 20,000 ft is required and contains 5,674 ft of land area where 40,000 ft is required in the R40 zoning District a special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 4da sections 6 and 9 and sections 5D and 8 d2b of the protective bylaw this was continued from July 25th 2024 Mr Dunham welcome thank you good afternoon uh Donnie Dunham de Martin Dunham Builder um here to represent uh the AL real estate trust uh regarding the extra square footage um Sarah if you don't mind putting up one of the photos I think that would thank you so essentially the the square footage uh discrepancy from the 860 that was approved to the 863 um that was in the final site plan is related to a mistake that we made um related to the porle on the on the front porch depicted in this this picture um essentially the brackets that you see in this picture were made at 36 in in depth when they should have been at 30 in um if they were 30 in multiplied by the width of the Portico which is about 7t it makes up exactly 3 Square ft of additional building coverage um it was it was an entirely mistake in ordering on our part um that we didn't recognize until the site plan was completed um so we from our perspective we thought it would be worth seeking the modification giving that there isn't necessarily an impact to the neighbors and there's not an impact to the setback which is really important um the catwalk deck if we go back to the site plan Sarah thank you so the the catwalk deck that basically leads you to that entrance is closer to the front setb than the actual overhang of the Portico um the deck extends about a a foot further than the front edge of the Portico so the Portico itself is not closer to the setback um yeah that's uh basically it in a nutshell pretty simple issue that you know we totally take responsibility for for misp purchasing the custom brackets which um brought us here today yeah so you're hitting me on a good day for mistakes um I be it for me thanks Randy thank you so um misery likes company is there anybody here are on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application please make it known seeing none I don't have any correspondences so we'll go to is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak against this application or has a specific question seeing none questions from the board dich um I have no questions we just go right around this way uh no questions I do um you know what there's a art of business it's called squeezing MH and it's us CH to squeeze the last ounce of profit out of something and it's practiced and the squeezing is on the originator and it's not necessarily passed along to the end user but someone in between makes themselves a couple extra bucks and I get the impression you're squeezing us for the last dollar that you can make out of this particular project and I understand how the error happened but I don't see why it shouldn't be corrected do you have any comment on that so I I guess I just have a question when you say squeeze do you mean in terms of like us not absorbing the cost to fix it oh we're fully willing to fix it like I I I will make that comment very clear that we are fully willing to fix it with the permit lock out we obviously can't do that prior to September 15th but we will own the mistake if this has nothing to do with profit well it would if you had to do it it would and it would totally impact us it's 100% on us and we're willing to do it okay thank you you're welcome uh Paul questions I have no questions Lee no questions Steve Steve has no questions and jny any questions I I do could you just explain so the Portico right now is it's three three square feet nope so the Portico is roughly 21 square feet so it's three poro it's 3 feet in depth and 7 feet in width because the brackets need to be outside of the door so if it was reduced to 30 in in depth multiplied by the seven it gives you okay roughly yeah I think from that view it looked smaller than it does from the other view so okay that's um y so it wouldn't be as simple as just saying okay no Portico it it would have to just be a reduced Portico correct y all right thank you but it would essentially be taken off and rebuilt just given the structure but yeah okay Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations a each seconds and votes yes yes yes yes and yes so uh deliberations Jenny well I think you said Donnie that um the Portico doesn't go over any farther than the deck so by reducing it you're really providing coverage for someone who's standing there in the rain like a guest not really right you you would uce the I'm asking more questions nowor um okay yeah I I mean I I know that this I've heard a previous chairman say you know that this board is not the board of construction forgiveness but I do think that it's a small um it's a plausible mistake and it's a small thing and really I like having some Portico over the front because otherwise the building is very flat okay Steve we'll just go right around them yeah I I think the fact that it doesn't extend beyond the width of that walkway um by reducing it so you'd be reducing it by six inches the depth yes uh and the fact that it doesn't extend beyond the walkway there I you know we've had discussions about corner boards adding square footage um that weren't factored in I I I think this is a mistake and I don't think it it's detrimental to anything yep Lee I I agree with Steve it you know was mistake not detrimental um I don't have a problem with the extra six inches and Paul uh I agree it seems to me it's uh basically D Minimus it's an honest mistake and uh given the circumstances it's certainly not uh creating uh a situation that's substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood Dave Nixon well I think I stated my case um it just seems wrong to me to give a pass and this happens unfortunately more frequently than it should as Miss Fenwick said we're not the chattam board of forgiveness of construction erors but we end up being that way you know there was a time where we could put the squeeze on someone squeez on us and Sarah has a brick in her bag that if I tried that she'd whack me with it because uh it's a no no what I meant is we would say something like tell you what if you make a generous donation to The chadam you know let's say lowincome housing fund then we'll help you out but I can't say that and so don't even think about doing it okay but um I just think you know there are ways that we can help you out in other ways and I think as you know Miss Fenwick and I helped you out a couple of weeks back couple months back now yep well that's a different story this is this your error admitt it should be corrected as to what we approved so I'll be voting no yeah I I think it's a an honest mistake that that can happen in the field unfortunately this it does happen um it it could be corrected um it would take a bit of work and um myself don't I don't think it's it's worth the effort I I would if I was Voting I would vote to um let let it stay and um uh go from there move on thank you thanks yeah I been agree with in agree with most of my fellow members so it you know this this helps illustrate the um complexity of the construction process in many respects I mean when I think about it sometimes it's you know we get things that come back to us sometimes that a result of a mistake and things but I think these kinds of things can happen very easily and this this particular kind of can happen very easily in the field and you know doesn't get caught until they're doing the the as Bill you know and so and it ends up back before us so I I think that it's as to Echo what Paul said to to apply the standard of more sub substantially more detrimental in the neighborhood not at all um and would had it been presented as such initially I would have had no problem with it so I will support that and so I would say two things um I agree with what dve just said if it had been before us like that it wouldn't even be an issue and for me if it got this project any closer to a neighbor or any setback I would vote know tell you right now um but given what I just said and what my colleagues have said I would support it so Paul I'll move to approve the application as submitted Dave V seconds and votes yes no Jenny yes PA yes and I vote Yes as well almost unanimous but in any event good luck thank you thank you see you next time all right whenever SAR is ready we're going to go to Main Street 1369 I think sorry y y application number 24- 081 three story on Main realy TR realy trust care of William F Ry Esquire PE box 707 chadam Mass 02633 owner of property located at 1369 Main Street also shown in the town of chadam assessor map 10e Block 14 Lot D2 the applicant seeks to enlarge extender change at conforming dwelling at a non-conforming lot via the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a new dwelling the proposed dwelling will comply with all bulk and dimensional requirements of the bylaw but is considered substantial alteration and under the second accept Clause of section 6 of chapter 4A such substantial alteration requires the grant of a special permit the existing building coverage is 1,366 Ft 11% and the proposed building coverage is 1,332 Ft 10.8% where 15% is the maximum allowed the law is non-conforming and then it contains 12,370 ft where 20 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 protective bylaw all right Mr Riley whenever you're ready uh thank you very much so uh this is a project that was before you back in March and the uh the person who did the presentation wasn't very well prepared in terms of providing you with the information you need to make a truly informed decision uh so what I've done working with uh Tim meager who is the uh developer he's in the back row against the wall uh is gone around and checked out the adjoining properties uh the building has been reduced in height by uh a foot and a quarter um the couple is gone excuse me uh but I think the the most important thing that wasn't made clear to you uh during the last meeting is just how modest this building is and looking at the hearing uh the word massive was used I think by almost every member of the board and the the uh so you know the building is 28 feet 5 in high you know measured from the uh average grade but you know this property is located on the top of a small rise and so the average grade is actually three feet below the top of foundation so the structure itself from top of foundation to the ridge is 25 feet 3 in uh not exactly massive they use the Gambrell Gable end to maximize the room on the second floor but the bit you know that section of the house is 30 by 28 again not massive so I think that the I'd ask you to reconsider though you know those of you who thought it was too massive you know it's not a as you know you guys aren't designed people you just is it substantially more detrimental and so when you look at this property and you know compare it with uh other properties in the neighborhood the uh yeah so what I what I do is we did a little slideshow driving along Main Street so would you so started at uh this building at 1455 which is obviously an office building with apartments above next slide that's the accountants building there 1445 next yeah this is the cute little red house uh that's very modest and very wall next one all right now this was a surprise to me so here you have standard Cape uh it's got a little addition on it they sell Maps there the maps of antiquity 4590 square feet because it's you know you can't see it because of the the plantings but that's the size of the building so next slide Okay so on the left side of the building pardon me on the right side is the building of Mr Kilroy who came to the last meeting and objected rather strenuously to our proposal a proposal was made then and one of the problems he had with it was the fact that he was looking at it the garage doors in the end of the building so we took a picture of the end of his building so if you're driving up Avenue towards Main Street that's what you see so I think that's kind of a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black because he didn't like looking at our garage doors so but the other most important thing about this house is it's kind of a hodge podge of designs but it has almost 4600 squ ft of gross floor area you know 1,500 F feet of gross floor more than we have so again for he used the word massive also and so in comparison to the buildings around us you know were not massive in fact I don't know how many of you know the Swenson family they own a Pilgrim Village across the street they have a family house there up on the hill Peter's a tall guy Peter Swinson 6'5 or so so he's got a big house house which big guys should do anyway the house directly across the street we didn't take a picture of it but the house directly across the street is over 7,000 gross floor area so if you want to take the next picture it's our Locus so this is so the the new building we've enlarged the wing the garage Wing but it's only like four feet taller than that building and next slide and so this is the the last slide in the row this is the house next door used to belong to Freeman Phillips Phillips Farm cornfield anyway but that's got 2611 square feet so our if you look at the sheet on the back of my hand out and we start with the top building is Peter Swinson's house across the street 7,160 gross floor area Mr Kilroy's House 4592 Square ft 13 Vineyard AV is the house directly behind us which is a u a standard Cape full cape and I was surprised but they have over you know they have 3,200 square feet of gross Flor area uh 27 Vineyard which is the next house behind that has over 4,000 square Fe of gross floor area 30 Vineyard AV is the house directly behind Mr killroy house and that's set back from the road and it's pretty modest 2200 square fet so dropped down to 1369 the existing building is 1,927 square fet of gross Flor area and what we're proposing is 3422 so the what the new design does is it it changes the left hand side of the house from 30 by 262 to 30 by 28 but they maximize the second floor [Music] the do you have the existing floor plan handy Sarah so if you look at the existing floor plan you can see so the left hand side is the first floor of the existing building and uh the right hand side is the uh second floor of the existing building but you see it down in the lower right you can see it's a salt box so they lose o over a third of the room on the second floor so what the new design does if you can put up the new floor plan is uh so you can see the both the first floor and the second floor uh utilize the entire footprint of the main building the area on the second level above the garage again they they don't get the full area because uh the roof shape comes down and they use Dormers to provide uh lights so the the floor area you know habitable space on the second floor 950 Square fet habitable space on the first floor 1200 1239 1236 Square fet again so I know we like to use gross floor area and because of the changing G grade there is a walk out here so you can see that bottom level but the uh the actual living areas of the property are very modest and certainly not massive but to any degree uh a couple of members were concerned about the mass of the L for the garage uh and so I wanted to point out that the L is only 18 feet long as you look at it from the front and if you look over on the right hand side of that picture upper level you can see that set back six feet from the front wall of the existing building so so I mean when you look at the front you say oh wow that's big but when you realize it's actually set back 6 feet so there's no straight long wall to project Mass all right and the the uh another thing you know when we we talk about Mass we also talk about scale and sighting so scale is how does the house fit into the neighborhood I think that's what scale means and so I think by the gross floor areas of the adjoining properties I think it's fair to say that we are not out of scale with the adjoining properties um sighting it's another thing so if this house were you know 20 feet off the Front Street line well you think well it's it's too much we're as far back on the lot as you can get the back wall of the house is only 16 ft uh from our back property line which is where the existing back wall was so in terms of sighting from the streetcape thank you Sarah you know we're doing whatever we can to reduce the apparent mass of the building as viewed from Main Street and from vignard Avenue so the uh another thing uh people had the impression at least I got the impression from what's in the meeting that people thought the building was because it's up on a rise it's high but in reality the top of foundation of the building is elevation 30 37.7 which happens to be the elevation of Main Street uh in fact that actually starts at 38 if you look on the upper right corner there uh 37 36 and 35 so our building is actually even with uh the top of foundation front door is even with Main Street and the building is only 25 ft tall so I'm going to ask you to think about that and I hope you would agree with me that uh you know the design has done what they can to reduce uh the impact the visual impact of the house from the streetcape so the U uh what I do is have you run through the criteria so how to the size you probably already gone through them all I would if that's okay um we we I think that we feel you've gone through them all um if anybody on the board wants him to go through the criteria please say so no and they were emailed to all the board members oh so you don't want to hear me talk for another 15 minutes no comment if that's okay with you because we do have them in writing and we had them in advance and the second round with this for us as well yeah I understand but is that okay yeah okay thank you I just want to make one request sure if people have concerns will they make them in the form of a question so I can address them we'll do our best absolutely all great thank you yeah all right so is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that we speak for this application in favor please make it known yes hi my name is William Underwood last four digits of my phone number 5012 and and you a neighbor or a chadam resident yeah um first I'd like to thank Sarah and Chantel for their help via email and communication but Sarah if you could pull up slide 12 that Mr Riley had up are you the Builder for this property no he lives next door okay thank you okay he's a frier too yes I do have I have a uh I have a soon to be junior at Providence well I'm wearing my PC tie today go friers so and Mr Ry thank you for your communication with me with regards to Mr uh you know meer uh taking care of the property before my wife and children moved in for the summertime so I appreciate that um I just wanted to uh and going back to the the video um in notes um from the last meeting you know obviously this also has a historic district um you know implication involved and um you know as um the chairman stated you know streetscape is a big importance uh with this property my home is the Home in the back um you know modest cape and uh you know we feel the new structure and there was a 3D design that was here um that really 4T High and you know this garage area it would really dwarf my modest Cape that my dad purchased in 1981 so uh Chad's a special place for myself and my wife and brother-in-law are in the stands are in the in the room as well sir sir can I just ask you are you speaking in favor because that's where we're at no I'm sorry I'm speaking I'm speaking okay so I'm going to stop you and we're going to get to that um if you're not speaking in favor I'm going to stop you I like to stay strictly within the rules okay so stay tuned all right now I will read the two correspondents unless there's anybody here that wishes to speak in favor or that's on Microsoft teams that wish to speak in favor seeing none okay we have a letter from the hbdc the historic business district actually first one is from Judith Georgio I apologize um Judith Georgio is a health agent she writes on 8813 2024 that she reviewed the plan to demo and reconstruct the property um it's connected to town Su it's approved for three bedrooms additional flow must be applied for at the sewer department I have no objections to this application now from the hbdc this was back uh they they heard this application on December 20th 2023 uh they rendered the following decision the committee commission voted 5 to approve the demolition of the dwelling at 1369 with the standing conditions any changes or alterations made uh need to get approval from the hbdc um they voted 4 One Z approving the construction of the new dwelling at 1369 Maine um Windows shall be white the applicant shall return for approval on hardscaping looks like they had two meetings in any event they approved it so now getting to anybody here or Microsoft teams that wishes to speak against let me just first see if there's anybody in the audience wish to speak against yes sir please head to the mic take your time and we'll get back to the person online in a couple minutes hi my name is Steve Kilroy and uh I want to thank you folks last time that we had this meeting of watching out for all the neighbors and the best interest of the town and I had a couple of questions about the plans it appears that the plans were pretty much the same as the plans previously showed and other than like the kouo was on and the trim of the the house was white instead of black but on the height there was some questions that I had the existing height of the the height of the existing building according to the plan was 28t 7 in and the height from that if could you bring that picture up please the existing photo of the house the side the side view where the garage is please is this that light that you can use is there a trick to it just push okay there it is okay now on the existing house please the height here is from here to here was 28 feet 8 in and that was taken from the the level of the bottom of the garage that spot spot right there is about a foot to maybe 18 in below where the street would be so the garage is down a little bit and could you bring up the view of the proposed house please okay on the side here they have their their grade average grade height is 7 foot 7 fo 7 in higher than where the bottom of the garage is and it also appears like Mr Riley I believe said the the property itself is filled in there's not there isn't a a foot to a foot and a half dip from the street to where the bottom of the garage door is it's raised up so basically the height of the whole building is higher than what is proposed in my opinion we could stop your clock for a moment and have the building inspector give an unbiased explanation of that first before we get to Mr Riley later um so you could maybe set them straight Jay so the excuse me the building height is determined by the average grade plane okay which is on Final Grade not on existing grade okay so they're proposing to fill the front yard you can see all the Contours that Arc around the front so they're filling the whole front half of the yard to elevate the grade plane because that's where we measure the building height from so okay it's not saying that the building's going to be at the same height as the existing it is going to go up but the building height is proposed at 28t 5 in okay so the the base of where the garage is up to that 7' 7 in average grade that you're talking about would still come up a foot to a foot and a half the average grade is G to come up from the as a result of the filling of the front yard exactly so the height of the building again would be that much higher the elevation of the ridge of the building will be higher but the building height as we measure it from grade plane will be under the 30 ft at 285 in corre the appearance of the building because of the grade being raised up will be higher when you come around the F The Ridge of the building will be higher right okay so that would be okay so we're going to leave it at that um go back to any other comments yes it so the building the height of the total with all the adding and all that stuff there the height of the building will be roughly 36 feet it it won't be um it won't be it'll be what what it's listed as okay then I'll leave that part alone this other part was what we had talked about was the building being conforming and compatible with the area houses the the houses on the Main Street and all that and it really is not really conforming and I I don't think uh the word that Mr Riley used that I had said and the board said I think I said it was overwhelming when you come around the corner and just to clarify find something else I don't can you bring up the picture of house number 10 Vineyard Dev please okay this isn't my house I live in the mo mo modest Cape next door to that number 30 good to know so that's nothing to do with mine that's why when you come around the corner and you see this light L massive building and I'll use massive this time but it's a little overwhelming and this is one of the reasons why I objected to it because I'm the next house this way and I do look at this all the time okay so so you know you got 25 seconds left okay I want to then I use the 25 seconds by saying thank you very much oh you're welcome for all that you do thank you glad you came thank you very good all right anybody else wish to speak against before I go back to the gentleman online no okay gentleman online continue hi William Underwood again um Sarah again if you can go to picture 12 thank you I appreciate that uh so again my home is the house in the back um you know obviously Mr Riley had a bunch of compar I feel I'm probably the most affected because 4 feet high is really going to have a um you know from a scale sighting and mass uh situation it's going to affect me the most um you know I have I can actually see whites Pond across the street through that top window so quot I do have a water view but um anyways long story short last meeting right not more detrimental compatibility to the neighborhood the impact of scale to the houses and and and focus on the neighborhood and I feel that um the structure in the plans today do will have a uh you know detrimental effect on the neighborhood and uh you know I'm All For You Know updating that property obviously there was a tragic accident in a fire um and uh you know from Mr Mega's perspective right he's got a great opportunity to build a beautiful home um unfortunately I I think the home is uh again um not compatible to the neighborhood and and and um you know that's again I'm against the existing plans in place so thank you for your time I appreciate the opportunity thank you sir so is there anybody else that wish to speak against this application anywhere nope Mr Riley you want a chance to rebut well just well first of all I want to apologize to Mr killroy for saying he own tan Vineyard the uh uh yeah I think you I understand that it's difficult when there's change we we see that all the time you as members me as an somebody presenting change but the the uh the thing I'd like to have you focus on is the fact that the house from the top of foundation to the ridge is 25 feet 3 inches tall you know and if if you go back to the picture that Mr Underwood had you put up there you know I'll bet his house is about the same height you know can you restate what you say the house is because that's not what we have the height no I know the height from the average grade plane is 28 fet 5 Ines yeah okay yeah the height of the building as your eye sees it actually sees it from the top of foundation to the ridge is 25 ft 3 in that's because the average grade plane is 3 feet below the top of foundation so that's the normal thing when you have a house that's on a sloping lot so you know it's the building itself from top of Foundations to the r just the proposed building is 4 feet taller than this building so I mean the I don't think it's massive because it's only 25 ft tall from top of foundation in Gross floor area as a measure we clearly are not out of scale with the neighborhood um although you know Mr Underwood's house is um 13 yeah 3,200 two square feet so I don't think at 3,400 Square fet again I don't think we're out of scale we're 300 square feet more on grow floor area so you I think we all agree number five is the most important criteria scale siding in Mass uh and impact on views and visors and the streetscape so when people turn into Vineyard AV they will see the end of the building but it's a flashing moment they just they drive by and they're gone you know the in general the concern is you know what's the impact on the streetcape being where the house fronts so I'd ask you to keep you know that in mind all right so this is rebuttal time so you're gon to get some questions from the board are you are you comfortable with that Building Commissioner wants to have a comment just quickly the site plan calls the top of foundation at elevation 377 and then the architectural plans called the top of the finished first floor 377 so it's a discrepancy of maybe a little over a foot right there just throwing it out there the the 25 ft Mr Riley speaking of is from that elevation 377 to the ridge I don't think it's necessarily the top of foundation no no okay 26 fet but you know but they did lower so the they did lower the billing a foot and 3/4 so that the uh first floor is now 9 ft from subf floor to soft floor instead of the previous 10 ft all right if that's okay with you we'll go with questions from the board and you'll you'll have more time Dave V we do we have question yeah I have some questions because there's a lot of numbers being thrown at us um I'm trying to read some of the numbers off the plan so it's little difficult but I'm doing okay with it Mr Riley uh so I and I think this is in in agreement with something you stated but I think I pulled this information from the plants the um existing house the ridge existing house is at elevation 6.82 that's correct and the Upper Ridge of the new the proposed house is at elevation 64.0 5 no no that's right the Sarah there was a we had a little deficiency on the survey side so we submitted a revised site plan on July 19th and the even though it Bears the same date as the original plan and doesn't mention a revision it so how did you expect us to know all that this is oh wait minute wait minute let me did you rece receive that Sarah give given I given the the critical nature of of of what's what we're considering the fact that the the site plan doesn't agree with the archal plans with respect to elevations and things is enough for me to say we don't have the right we don't have enough information and this is Dave so so we're being let me oh do you think excuse me I in questions do you think we have enough information Mr Riley uh under the circumstances if you didn't have if you don't have the revised plan the answer is no well I the plan I have say the only thing I can see and so the other thing is it would be helpful if your engineer provided a little more information we have some local other Engineers not just who who are will call out top of foundation Ridge elevation Etc that might be uh help us on the site plan with respect to existing and proposed all I see on this latest site plan we got is uh um that gives me any of that information proposed house top of f top of foundation 37.7 it doesn't give me anything about the existing Foundation uh on the site plan I I pulled that stuff from uh the the architectural drawings that also attached so it's hard it's difficult enough for us to ascertain what the actual numbers are and given that various numbers being tossed around by different people in the meeting I I'm I just don't think we're in a good place so do you agree uh yes if you didn't have if you don't have this most reason plan then I agree if the most recent I would hope hopefully the most recent plan would give a little more information than what I'm going getting off this is this this is you said something about not being dated um so this is certified PL plan uh latest revision 2124 right is what this shows and this is the one proposed uh house top of foundation elevation 37.7 so Dave right that one second Sarah wants to time in that is the correct plan with the proposed Ridge Top being elevation 62.82% the board never got that because I made sure that you didn't get that before they came here because I wasn't going to advertise something that I wasn't certain was correct so is do you think it's too much for me to ask for because not because I'm trying to transcribe from the engineers to The Architects plans do you think it's unreasonable to ask that that one or the other G I mean I think the engineers plan I would hope to have be showing me top of foundation existing top of foundation proposed Ridge existing Ridge proposed and we could still go through questions just so for your you know your benefit great yeah I it's just that it just it seems like we're it's way too much confusion and we're we're being asked to make a very important decision that has a number of viewpoints being expressed to us and I I just feel like I've got to have better uh coordination and you will thanks all right Ed questions just any comments you want to make that might be helpful to the applicant um no questions no Dave Nixon uh nothing in addition of what already been all right Jenny um yeah I'd like to say two things so Mr Riley you opened your um comments today saying that everyone almost everyone if not everyone last time mentioned the word mass and you're right I watched the hear I rewatch The Hearing too but there's something else that everyone asked which was or not asked but comments that the majority maybe not everyone talked about streetcape the historic house you know it's being so important to the streetcape um agreed with my colleagues the Gambrell is a stretch don't think it fits in the neighborhood so it wasn't so much about mass as it was style so my question is was the style of the house considered it wasn't any part of the changes that we observe was that considered changing that because that was a lot of the comments no I understand that and the uh your area of responsibility is scale sighting and Mass you're not a design review board so if the scale sighting in Mass uh fits in the neighborhood then you know Beauty's in the eye of the beholder well criteria five says including views Vistas and streetscapes and I'm talking about Street a lot of those comments were about streetcape the historic business district being where this house is in particular you know I don't mean to denigrate historic you know the historic business district bylaw was passed actually special acts of the legislature in 1985 and what they wanted to do was try to control uh Main Street to make sure the buildings here were built were compatible with the buildings in close proximity once they've made that decision I think I think that issue is settled that they've issued a certificate of appropriateness so if if if if the zoning board can say we don't think it's appropriate then we might as well tell historic business district commission to you know stop bothering me well I'm merely making the point that at our last hearing when we gave a lot of feedback very consistently on mass and streetscape um particularly it being on Main Street um the the it it looks like you would you change two things you remove the Koopa and you reduce the house which we appreciate uh you reduce the height of the house 1 foot two in is that the only change because the comments that we gave last time were more comprehensive than just height yeah I know and I but I don't think the information you received at the last meeting provided you with sufficient information to actually understand the mass of the building because the building is only 25 ft or 26 feet tall and that's not a massive building the main section is only 30 ft wide that's not a massive building the garage section is set back six feet so there's no straight line that goes 48 ft which is the maximum length of the of the building it's broken up why is it broken up because it reduces the apparent mass of the building so I get you know I understand people don't like gamarel all right I understand that but again Beauty's in the eye of the beholder I think the beauty decision is supposed to be made by the hbdc okay thank you but we have your comments and yeah obviously the owner knows Steve yeah I I just have one question and it's really for my own my own edification I guess um and it kind of goes back to the to the ridge Heights again but on the I guess it's SK 101 where we're talking about the existing um top of Ridge and the the overall measurement I think it's 28.7 seems to start at a point that is level with the garage floor but then if you go to the proposed drawing I guess it's [Music] a20 the ridge measurement is taken from a point beginning at almost the top of the garage doors um not that picture another picture a20 I'm getting dizzy looking at all the plants flashing I know so the the the the base measurement seems to be taken at a line that's even with the windows of the garage doors well so that's seven almost a 7 foot difference right there so I just need someone to explain to me why the two measurements can't be taken from the same place because as the building inspector explained that's not how we measure the height of a building in chadam well it's how you measured the the the existing building from you measured from the garage I first of all I didn't do it an architect did it and you know Engineers don't trust Architects they get the numbers right so can tell you in general I understand but I'm just saying the measurement for the existing building was taken from the garage floor the measurement from the new buildings taken from the top of the garage doors it was done by an architect who's not an engineer and I don't know what his basis was for doing that you know but that changes the overall height of the Ridge then it adds almost s feet to the to the measurement of the proposed excuse me one second The Building Commissioner is chopping at the bit so so Steve um the existing house has its own grade plane they're showing it at elevation 3 or whatever it is at the garage doors the new proposal has a different grade plane entirely because we don't we don't hold to the existing grade we go with finished grade so the the proposed grade plane is elevation 344 which is 2.4 feet higher than the existing grade plane so that's I I I just try need to try to understand it because I don't it it seem Target adding a lot of fill and it's it's it's it's being measured from a different point correct okay thank you okay thank you pleas um so I have a couple of um comments regarding the mass as well or questions um I rewatched the the uh meeting from March as well and I know my concern was the the mass of the garage and that wing of the house as you look at it from Vineyard and I think a lot of other people are concerned with that as well my question is would the owners consider reducing the size of the garage because you have a garage a kitchen and then a large bedroom not that large but yeah pry pretty nice um I think if you were to relocate that bedroom at somewhere else and just have a nice vaulted ceiling in in your kitchen um that might help with the mass of the garage right wing the other thing that might help and I don't know if anybody has considered this or not is some some major Landscaping plans that we could see as well that maybe would you know hide mitigate or help yes help mitigate the mass all right and Paul uh well I agree with Dave V we need to get clarified uh plans that show us uh the numbers that are consistent whether they're prepared by the architect they're prepared by the engineer so that we can understand what we're doing here uh because I don't think we can act based on the information we have before us now the the real problem it seems to me is not so much the square footage um as it is the orientation of the building and the garage to Vineyard Avenue it seems to me as if when you look at it from Main Street you don't see anything because everything is uh covered up but when you look at it from Vineyard Avenue which is the view that most people have when they take the corner there um it's a substantial uh change to what is there um and I think detrimental uh so that uh it makes more sense to um perhaps reorient the whole building arrangement I don't I don't know whether this is possible or not but I mean maybe you want to front it towards Vineyard Avenue and and have something that goes uh uh perpendicular to Main Street um and you can present then uh a view towards Vineyard Avenue which would be uh consistent with what else is in the neighborhood um the other places that you're citing in terms of square footage um that may have large square footage are really set back a a great distance from Vineyard Avenue and uh they're raised on a hill um they really aren't comparable in terms of the way this property looks given its orientation so those are some comments that I could offer U as to where we could go from here and thank you I don't know if you watched hbdc the first and couple first and second but they made them spin the house around this way um they didn't like right Steve they didn't like the idea of it being the other way so I imagine the applicants probably their head is probably spinning right now um but I I will just go right out and say it that uh another member said last time that you know you have a gambell here and that is contributing to the apparent mass and maybe that's not the right design for this so if you really want to make your client's life easier change the design because this design does not fit with the neighborhood no one likes it that that's the elephant in the room here is that house is ugly it just is um and you can't buff a turet here you know you can't put lipstick on a pig all of that because it all contributes to the mass uh this design is you know impacts the visual character of this neighborhood and no one likes it so I would just you know this is just all informational at this juncture um so that's my two cents we like a continuance to your next available meeting October C can I make one further comment yeah Dave Beach go ahead so Bill I just like to say um I I just want to clarify my remarks so what what I'm looking for is because it you know I see the drawings I see the different things things but frequently when I go out in the field or I look at it and I'm wanting to make my own assessment I need something that gives me comparisons to the building that's there that I can rely on so then I can visualize say okay it's going to be four feet higher and the garage is at the same height the garage floor the same height something that's what would really help me and I and further I'd like to say that I came in here thinking or feeling and I'm still leaning this way to some degree is that and I've said before the gambrells are not my favorite particularly but I try to be very careful not to let us the style be the deciding point for me a style be a deciding point so just kind of speak a little differently than what Randy just said um because I'm because we are a zoning board and we do have uh the hbdc which is uh charged with um aesthetic consideration so that's thanks uh Mr Riley I would suggest you ask U for withdrawal I'll tell you why there's just so much going on here that a continuance to me is just too soon and that's simply my comment on that I I appreciate the comment but you know the previous previous application requested a withdrawal and that was in March and here we are in September and the um the owner of the property is present he's a builder I'm sure he's already thinking about design changes he wants to make the architect works for him so uh I believe that we can come back in a very short period of time with design modifications and the information consistent information between the architect and the uh and the plan Sarah what do you think um if Mr Meer doesn't mind because there's a lot of timing you will have to go back to the historic board um if just I have a couple questions about when you realistically can have the plans available so when you're requesting your continuance we know which date to go to if you were on the October 10th meeting for the zoning Board of Appeals I would need all revised plans in hand no later than September 9th meaning you would need to be in front of the hbdc prior to that the only meeting that we have for hbdc is September 4th and the 18th you would need to file by next Wednesday to be heard September or to be heard on September 4th you would need to file by September 4th to be heard on September 18th is that possible well probably not but how about the second meeting in October that would be October 24th and it would give you two it would that would give you until September well it would 9th the 2nd and the 16th I would need everything no later than September 23rd all right great that' be good so you're looking for a continuance to October 24th yes Paul uh I'll move to Grant the request to continuance to October 24 dve seconds and votes yes vote no Jenny uh yes and Paul Paul votes yes and I'm going to vote no as well and I I I think uh you should really just come back with some very organized information so that was a vote on a continuance um now the board would need to make a a formal vote on the application all oh then they wouldn't be able to come back from for two years correct I'm I with or or they can request a withdrawal or you could ask for withdrawal I don't want to cause you two years so I apologize no I appreciate that I don't and the but it's already been from March this is August now we're in August right so we'd like to come back in October and finish it up all right design yeah you said you're G to work on all that all the things you heard y okay all right I I'll I'll um change my vote to yes thank you very much thank you thank you thank you for do we have to sign the other one no no no so we're going to 52 Captain Richards um when um Sarah's ready she will read the application application number 24- 083 Harold Burke and Susan Ley Burke here William G Lichfield Esquire 330 Orleans Road North chatam Mass 02650 owners of property located at 52 Captain Richards Way also shown on the town of chadam assessors map 10d block 102 law R3 the applicant seeks to enlar ex enlarge extender change a conforming dwelling and a non-conforming lot VI the construction of an addition the existing dwelling of proposed addition will comply with all bulk and dimensional requirements of the bylaw but is considered a substantial alteration and under the second accept Clause of section 6 of Mass General law CH 4A such substantial alteration requires the grant of a special permit the existing building coverage is 1,52 ft 7.8% and the proposed building coverage is 1,934 s ft 14.3% where 15% is the maximum allowed the lot is non-conforming and then it contains 13,500 ft 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 5B of the protective bylaw attorney litfield welcome good afternoon Madam chairman members of the board Bill Lichfield here on behalf of Harold and Susan Burke who are over on the left- hand side along with their Builder and engineer Dan spegman who is usually quite careful with numbers uh Sarah Clark uh is not only extremely efficient she's also preent she scheduled this hearing which we anticipate to be brief and simple knowing what was before you prior to this this afternoon so we appreciate that Sarah uh maybe the site plan could go up and we will show what is going on we have as you know from your site visit a fairly standard thank you a very fairly standard lot in a neighborhood which was developed when 10,000 square fet was the minimum lot requirement the existing house conforms in every way and if you to approve the special permit it will still conform in every way because this is a fairly classic Borland hearing our sole nonconformity is the size of the lot we conform as to coverage setbacks both from the street and sideline and if you approve the special permit for the construction of a garage on the North side and an addition in the rear much of which will be built over an existing deck we will remain compliant so with that I'll go into and there are the site plans as shown not a Gambrell we have a simple full cape and it will remain a cape although we'll have a couple of doghouse dormers on the front as to the criteria including attic receive site including building coverage and the setbacks the site is certainly adequate for the existing home built under prior zoning and it will remain adequate for the addition at the rear and the construction of a garage as I indicated it will be completely compliant as to coverage and setbacks as to compatibility of size on the third page of the handout uh as you know from having been out there as well all of the neighborhood lots are non-compliant as to size the current house with coverage of 7.8% is tied for the smallest in terms of percentage in the neighborhood if you approve the special permit you can do so based on the finding that it will remain compatible and appropriate uh except the cottage Colony units across the street um most of the houses on on Captain Richards have garages and the additions again comply with the dimensional requirements of our bylaw as to the extent of increase in non-conformity our sole non-conformity is the lot size that will not change there is no increase of non-conformity as to suitability of the site it has been developed for residential use for approximately 40 years there are no wetlands in proximity the uh site is suitable for the additions there are no environmental issues no impact natural environment scale sighting Mass views and Vistas and effect on Street scape is indicated and as you know we have a full Cape the scale is in keeping with but smaller than most of the other houses in the neighborhood there's no impact in views and Vistas the scale and the mass will not be impacted by the addition of a garage or the Dormers and most of the addition uh is again at the rear and thus without impact on streetcape views and Vistas are not at issue compatibility of use there's no change there's no uh change in the number of bedrooms the Board of Health has no concerns uh Harold and Susan are contemplating at some point coming up here on a more year round basis perhaps for eventual retirement as you can tell from looking at Harold but not Susan uh the issue thus is whether the proposed construction of a conforming garage Dormers and an addition the rear is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the non than the conforming structure on a non-conforming lot as they indicated it is a classic Borland petition certainly not far from mansionization against which or about which yorkland was concerned and it will remain a reasonable and appropriate house again adding a garage makes it more rather than less compatible there is a modest expansion of living space but it's more conducive to the family's eventual plans for the property so I think that you can find that the proposed additions to be built in complete compliance with all bulk and dimensional requirements of the bylaw are in fact not at all detrimental to the neighborhood and certainly not substantially more detrimental we'd be happy to answer any questions thank you is there anybody here or Microsoft teams so wishes speak in favor of this application seeing none we have one correspondence Judith geio our health agent writes on 813 201 24 that she re reviewed the requested additions and Renovations and the property is connected to town sewer the plan does not add so FL of the property and is acceptable she has no concerns is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wish to speak against this application or has a specific question if so please make it known um before we go to questions from the board I'm going to go to the Building Commissioner because I think we talked about a possible issue he wants to bring up thank you yeah I'm always just a little concerned for a property owner when the setbacks don't allow any room for error and you can see the dimension calling out 15 ft proposed to the addition um if during construction they're off even a little bit um it may cause the applicant some additional expense to correct the situation or a delay to modify the structure or they might even need to seek a variance so I'm just concerned with that it it meets the byof at 15 ft if they can build it at 15 ft then there's no issue but I I always have a little concern y we're always trying to help the applicants we appreciate that Madam chairman and Mr Briggs Mr Speakman is also the Builder as well as the engineer and I know that he understands that measurements are to the outer cornerboard so if we plan to make this uh 15 15 and a half feet uh it would probably be better to just allow for any issue but the corner boards are accounted and Mr Briggs doesn't really want to see us nor does chairman pod as in the future no okay um questions from the board we'll go around this way Dave be I have no questions questions Ed um there's a couple questions do do you have to know what the average lot size is in that neighborhood uh all of the numbers well not all but not because the condo Colony across the street uh they range from 13,000 to 177,000 so it's probably about 138 just eyeballing these numbers yeah so on the third page in the left column they seem to be misplaced of course neighborhood as you know from last week's discussion is interesting that you know the neighborhood in one sense the motel behind us is an immediate AB butter but I didn't include that lot size because it's not part of the same neighborhood even though it's immediately next door okay now this lays it out for me thank you Dave Nixon just a quickie was this a a a cottage Colony at one time on the other side of the street it was and still is on the other side well they it's been condom minimized okay there are what seven or eight units over there you may not know but there's a number of seven or or eight units across the street okay but but that's what's happened okay thank you and Paul questions no questions and Lee no questions Steve uh What Becomes of the patio in the deck is it ever going to get rebuilt or uh well the deck the deck may not a patio you can do without zoning board of appeals approval I don't know if that I didn't mean to steal your thunder if Mr Burke if you want to answer you have to come up here you would have to come up if it's worth it to you go ahead up or you want to repeat it to me and I'll either one sorry we haven't contemplated a deck at this point we will have patio Hardscape um um the the existing house will be short of by about I don't know five or six feet from where the existing deck is but we haven't completely ruled out the possibility of maybe putting a very short deck okay but I don't think that gets it counts its coverage unless it's got a roof over that's my understanding okay very good thank you and Jenny questions no questions no questions okay Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations uh dve V seconds and votes yes yes and Jenny yes well yes as do I okay deliberations uh Steve I think it's a nice project um the ptical breaks up the the front of the house um nicely so it's not just flat um I think it's a nice project as long as you could you know stay within that setback I think it'll be great good luck Paul I agree I think it's certainly L more substantially detrimental to the neighborhood and uh it'll be helpful for them and Dave Nixon operations it's in no way uh is this anyway Dr metalon the neighborhood that's a plus and Ed um yeah not substantially detrimental to the neighborhood it it looks like it will be the you know highest lot coverage in the neighborhood based on the size of the lot um but it certainly looks like it's going to fit in fine and Dav yeah I agree with all previous Jenny as do I and Lee as do I okay Paul I'll move to approve the application as submitted I guess the question is uh what our standard conditions make sense here the question is if I could Mr Speakman if you start on September 15th can you complete exterior work by June 30th yes that being the case uh I you know I wouldn't advocate for advocate for the so-called standard conditions but it would seem to be acceptable all right well I'll move to approve the application as submitted with the conditions that all construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner that between June 30th and Labor Day no exterior construction will be allowed no work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. only Dave V seconds and votes yes yes yes well yes as to why it's unanimous congratulations thank you very much well we're going to have a five minute break so we'll be right back e e e e e e e e e e e e and we're back and we are now going to 109 chain drive 24- 0820 whenever you're ready application number 24- 082 Andrew pinkowitz care of William RI Esquire appeal box 707 chadam Mass 02633 owner of property located at 109 Shane Drive also shown on the town of chadam assessor map 15g block 74 lot b28 a the applicant proposes to change alter expand a non-conforming dwelling and a non-conforming lot via the construction of a partial second floor addition and additions the existing dwelling is non-conforming and it is located 38.4 ft from the road and 24 ft from the Inland Conservancy District the proposed partial second floor addition will be non conforming and that it will be located 39.5 ft from the road where a 40ft setback is required and the enclosed porch will be non-conforming and that it would be located 18 ft from the Inland Conservancy District where a 25t setback is required the existing building coverage is 2,336 ft 12.4% and the proposed building coverage is 2,698 Ft 14.3% where 15% is the maximum allowed the LW is non-conforming and that it contains 18 ,900 ft of buildable Upland where 20,000 ft is required and contains 27319 ft in an R40 zoning District a special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5 b of the protective bylaw good afternoon Bill Riley on behalf of Andrew pinkowitz Andrew is in the back row the uh so Andrew and his wife have owned this property uh for 12 years and you can tell he's still a young whipper snapper but he and his wife were planning for the long term and they hope they love the community they live in Bishop's Terence and they they hope to retire there someday uh so when they decided they needed more room in the house for them and their and their daughter uh they retained the services of Gordon Clark the architect Gordon and so what I'd like to do if we could start is have Gordon explain uh you know what the pites asked him to what their goals were and you know how he made the design to accomplish those goals and the changes that he made in in the existing building Gordon introduce yourself okay good afternoon Gordon Clark with Northside Design Associates uh representing the ptes um see what we have up there uh do you want to go to the existing conditions first okay so there's elevations of the existing house it's just a simple Ranch uh it's kind of an isolated little Community you go in it's like a a roundabout circle with similar houses is mostly ranches in there there uh some some two-story houses in there um the house is built on a concrete slab so there's no basement one of the things that the pinku has wanted to achieve was currently the garage uh has been kind of doubling they put a desk out there in the summertime and that's sort of like kind of been an office space and they needed more room for a bedroom uh to kind of separate themselves the bedrooms are on the uh on the left side over here and they wanted to get separated from that and put a new master suite up over the garage with an open area loft where they could have move his desk up there and they could retrieve the garage because they don't have a basement and they would get some storage space back and be able to park the car in there so we try to keep the design simple uh in keeping with what's there they also wanted to improve the looks of the house and we hope we've done that we added a porch across the front of the house kind of break that up so that's a nice space out there it comes out about 6 feet and that'll give them shade in in the front of the house breaks that up and there's a Gable in the center there the way this house was designed originally was that the larger or wider part of the house is to the left uh as you face this and there's a narrower section there so it drops down that's where the koua is so we put a Gable in the middle there to kind of uh duplicate sort of the Gable on the other end and balance it off so that our design was more balanced with on one side and the other and that sort of hides the brake in the roof um it's it's basically a simple addition um there's a stairway that goes up to the second floor the height of the of the second floor is approximately the same height uh we used a little bit taller floor joist because uh again the first floor is sitting on a slab so uh we've got a little bit taller floor joy I think we used 11 and 78 tji up there so that boosted that height up just slightly currently the house is is right around 15 ft the existing house 14 and some change and we added 7t 7 and2 inches I believe to the height with that second floor the roof is the same height as what it was before so the total house is a little over 22 ft now which is not an extremely high house and way under the limitations I believe for chadam um the grade does not change here we're on the same grading uh same that that That Remains the Same in the back part of the house we added a screen porch um for summer living they go out there and they you know there's a little patio out back there where they could barbecue and so forth that's not seen from the front of the house um that's out in the back you can see it on this elevation here uh if you want to go to photographs of the house I think we have just so you get a sense of the actual house sits on a little bit of a rise but the the lot is once you get up the little bit of a rise the lot is flat so we feel that the this is a modest addition it'll give them the space that they need and it'll be trimmed and shingles and everything the materials will be all in keeping with what's there now so we feel it'll fit Within the neighborhood um there is a Grove of trees out in front of the house I believe a neighbor was hoping that they wouldn't cut them all down and they don't plan to do that uh that gives a little screening uh from the street uh and scale to the house because the the trees are in front of it so I think the impact from the street view will be rather minimal uh essentially that's it if you if the board has questions or thank you yeah thank I think he did your job Mr Riley as far as uh two of us at least are concerned the criteria has been reviewed what do you think do you want me to talk longer no no no we've all been out to the site just so you know it's an obligation that we have yeah they want me to talk shorter so they want it so I'll just run through the criteria well he already did but really if you insist well adequacy the size of the site you know we're not expanding the footprint except for the except for the screened in porch Andrew says the reason for the screened in porch is is the Wetland behind and the mosquitoes are brutal in the summertime the uh compatibility we fit in the neighborhood uh the only increase in nonconformity is living space and the screen porch is a little closer to the vegetated Wetland site is suitable they've been to the Conservation Commission and we think you know the job that Gordon has done building the second floor into the existing house is admirable his suggestion to add the porch roof in front of the house really helps the design uh and take some of the blandness off the design just improves the look so we think that the proposed changes are not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing structure thank you is there anybody here on Microsoft teams who wishes to speak in favor of this application please make it known if so seeing none two correspondences include a note from Judith Giorgio on 813 2024 she's our health agent she reviewed the plan to add a second floor addition to the property the property was approved septic installed for the existing three-bedroom property no additional flow is proposed the existing bedroom on the first floor will be converted to a walk-in closet and the office on the second floor will have an open rail at the stairs at a f in a 5- foot casing opening this meets the requirements of the health Division and then conservation um says that they met um we have the state of July 30th 2024 uh the applicant submitted notice of intent It Was Heard by the commission on July 10th and 24th of 2024 the project is scheduled to be heard again on August 28th for ordered conditions it's a fly here that's why I keep doing that and is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak against or has a question about this application seeing none questions from the board we'll just go around from this way I have no questions uh uh no questions no questions uh Paul no questions no questions no questions no questions and I have no questions either Paul move to close the hearing and move into deliberations each seconds and votes yes yes yes yes and yes okay deliberations Jenny I think it's a terrific project um we had a wonderful Tour by uh Mrs P pinkle wits um very thorough update um and you did a nice job with your update as well Mr Riley so I think it meets all of our criteria okay Steve I think it's a nice project it should add a little um a little life to that house it' be nice the only thing I was going I was concerned with which was addressed was the um the addition of the porch in the back and making it closer to the BBW but you explained why that's important to have um so I think it's a nice project good luck um I agree with Jenny and Steve I think it's um great project meets our criteria it's going to be really nice and Paul certainly not more substantially detrimental to the neighborhood I will support it I agree with every anybody good yeah um it's interesting when I drove around the neighborhood that um triangle with the vertical trim looks like it's a detail throughout the neighborhood it's not I saw it a few times in there so I think it's it's nice that you've Incorporated that into the design so uh certainly not substantially detrimental the neighborhood and meets our criteria yeah I agree with all previous uh not an easy neighborhood to uh add on to the existing houses uh and also it's it it's it it dawned on once walking through there in that neighborhood and see and seeing all the garden sheds and everything realizing all those houses were built on slabs you know so everybody is struggling to find storage so I certainly understand the reasoning for it very good Paul I'll move to approve the application as submitted I guess the question is conditions and what the plans are for construction um I assume they'll start as soon as they can I believe you have a builder all set yeah so I would suggest I'm assuming it'll be done by next summer but if you want to put in the summer conditions that'd be fine all right I'll move to approve the application as submitted with the conditions that all construction activity and vehicles will 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 a at 500 p.m. all week thank you very much Dave seconds and vote Yes yes yes yes and I vote Yes it's unanimous thank you very much great that's good two unanimous votes today that's good thank you thanks and the next one's going to be 24- 084 78 Kima Road application number 24- 084 JJ BC Scott trust care of John Scott 78 ker Road chattam Mass 02633 owner of property located at 78 Kema Road also shown on the town of chadam assessors map 8B block 22 lot h54 the applicant proposed to change alter expand a non-conforming dwelling and a non-conforming lot via the construction of a deck the existing dwelling is non-conforming and it is located 15 ft from the coastal Conservancy District the proposed deck will be non-conforming and that it will be located 6 ft from the co poal Conservancy District where a 50-ft setback is required the LW is non-conforming and that it contains 16375 ft 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 5B of the protected bylaw okay welcome all right thank you I'm John Scott thanks for seeing us we are proposing to build this remove a a barbecue deck and a stairway to the that deck and and instead build a larger deck that'll connect our family room to a deck on the north side of the house as uh per an email I guess I don't need to say anything about the special permit but I'll just uh go down with these comments that you asked for the adequacy of the size of the site in terms of size of the proposed use the size of the site 38 acres is appropriate for the proposed use all land behind our property is Town land and there's no residential lots abing the rear or the right to the north side of the house subtracting the square footage of the barbecue deck and stairway that are going to be removed the proposal would add about 346 Square ft of deck suitability be suitability of the site for the proposed use proposed use is suitable and would utilize airspace over minimally used yard space the impact on traffic and flow there' be uh of course some traffic during construction and uh the contractor will be informed of this 10 15 mph speed limit there is substantial off-road parking for construction vehicles and we'll inform the contractor to keep the park Vehicles off of the kimar road pavement uh the impact act on the neighborhood visual character including views and Vistas The Proposal would have minimal impact on the neighbors there are no as stated there's no residential neighbors behind the home where the proposed deck could be located nobody's view would be affected and there will be minimum ability of neighbors to even see the proposed deck the accuracy of the method of sewage disposal and source of water and drainage there would be no change to sewage disposal or drainage septic system is located in the front of the house uh adequacy of utilities and other public services there will be no utilities or public services affected noise in litter there will be some of course noise during construction but uh We've located the proposed deck away from Neighbors to so that would affect them compatibility of the proposed use of the surrounding land uses many neighbors have large decks and or patios so the proposed deck would be compatible with the neighborhood impact on the natural environment including slopes vegetation Wetlands ground water and water bodies except possibly during construction there'll be no effect to surrounding area as mentioned the the application packet the deck will be supported on an existing retainer wall that was required during our 1992 construction of the home the impact on the neighborhood and town visual character of any formula business establishments many neighbors and passes by will never even know that we added the deck the cape style architecture of the home with the added deck would still be fitting for a home in chatam and in our neighborhood very good thank you is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of the application seeing none I will read the two correspondences that we have one from Conservation Commission and one from our health agent uh conservation writes that um the applicant submitted an administrative review that was approved um they must submit a site plan to show the distance of the resour the distance to the resource area the project as proposed meets performance standards um of the protection act that's applicable and that was on July 30th 2024 we received that uh Judith Georgio our health agent says she has no objections or concerns about the proposed deck and she tells us that on August 13 2024 um is there anybody here or on the line that wishes to speak against or has a question seeing none questions from the board uh Dave Nixon have none Ed Aton um I guess I just have one question U you are going to be supporting the deck um on top of this retaining wall that the pre-existing retaining wall is that correct and do you know uh it it's more of a construction question I would just say you you want to verify that there's a a footing or verify the construction of that retaining wall to make sure it's going to support a deck especially being that high above the ground would be my only comment I guess um I am an engineer uh I'm I'm happy with the competence of the wall but um we haven't had anybody look at it it's not cracked or anything it's very solid yeah I I think you just want to verify that it goes down at least 4 feet in below the to the frost line just just to be safe um and the building inspector may have more to add to that I don't know does he no we'll uh we'll vet that out during the building permit process all right very good I have no questions Jenny no questions Steve um have you addressed the U the issue with the Conservation Commission about providing a site plan to them uh I talked to Paul Whitman um and sent him a plan but okay and and he acknowledged that he was going to look at it so I was a little surprised at the statement that they wanted that um okay well you might want to just follow up with them and to make sure that they got it because it's going to be a requirement yeah Sarah has a requirement about that so uh they did PL apply for an administrative review um which I review the conservation applications when they come in for building or the ARs um and that's when it was triggered that they had to go to zoning Crystal has since uh the wetlands coordinator has since received a copy of the site plan showing the distance which is six feet from the top of Bank good thank you as long as that's been taken care thank you Le um I just want to confirm that there are no stairs going down into the yard off the deck there will be no stairs there is a Stairway now going to the deck we use for a barbecue okay but um I've never been comfortable with that because it's a Stairway behind the house and it just seemed unsafe for me to have an access to the house from there so I'm happy now that the stairway won't be there we still have three doorways in into and out of the deck and the front of the deck the existing deck on the north side of the house is actually just a little bit above grade so I mean an emergency there would be means of EX you know EX okay thank you and Paul I have no questions no all right I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations Dave V seconds and vot yes yes Jenny yes yes yes yes and yes for me okay so deliberations um Jenny start with you I think that it's a great project makes a lot of sense I actually had the same question that Lee did about the stairs being removed completely but it looked as though that's what you intended and thank you for the explanation um not substantially more detrimental to the Neighborhood meets our criteria and Steve I think it's a nice project looks like you're going to get some uh improved usage out of your deck looks like a good project good luck thank you Le I agree with my colleagues well certainly meets all our criteria yes it's not detrimental in any way certainly uh will'll fit right in thanks I agree with all previous as do I okay so Paul any conditions I I I don't see a need for conditions in in this uh situation uh how long do you think it's going to take to do the construction John do you have any idea uh I I would imagine just a couple months but all right I you just have to find a contractor assuming you can find a builder right yeah my my Builder retired so ah that sounds like right all right I'll move to approve the application as submitted uh Dave second and votes yes I vote Yes yes yes as to it's unanimous congratulations thank you very good presentation and we're moving on to our last application when Sarah is ready to read that 24 Avalon Point Road we're talking about stairways application number 24 - 085 Avalon Avalon resident trust care of William fley Esquire PO Box 707 chadam Mass 02633 owner of property located at 24 Avalon Point Road also shown in the town of chadam assessors map 12 L block 15 C lot L4 the applicant seeks to reconstruct an elevated stairway and landings under section 4 a3a protective bylaw the lot contains 4,914 squ ft in the R40 zoning District a special permit is required under Mass General law chapter 4A section 9 and Section 8 d2b of the Chad and protected bylaw all right Mr Riley we'll just wait for you to pass out your thank you The audence Sounds sounds good to me good afternoon Bill Riley on behalf of Avon Point uh I think it's the chat is Trust um there's an existing staircase the property owner was walking down the staircase he went through one of the steps he's got grandchildren he just wants to rebuild it so it's safe for he and his grandchildren to use it's the exact same place approved by conservation that'll be my presentation Madam chair all right very good um is there anybody here or Microsoft teams apparently not that wishes to speak in favor of this application seeing none I have three correspondences to read one is from see the Conservation Commission dated July 30th 2024 Avalon Point Road uh was submitted a notice of intent heard by the commission on June 26 the project is scheduled to be heard again on September 24th for notary conditions then we have note from Rob Rell as a neighbor to the applicant for the above please log in my support he lives at 18 Avalon Point Road signed Bob next we have a note from Ken Joy he writes on Jun 29th 2024 as an A but I received notice of the application to be heard in the upcoming zba hearing I support this application replacing the current Stairway to the beach in the interest of both safety and comfort for the Brown family and their guests please read the letter of support into the record during the meeting that concludes our correspondences on that application is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that we speak against this application are as a question there is nobody here and nobody on Microsoft team so I'll take that as a no and uh go to questions from the board Jenny two questions Mr Riley um the width of the staircase is changing a little bit yes it is just a couple of inches my understanding right yeah okay and then um what about access to the I saw conservation and everything and read in the packet that everything's going to be hand done because there is no access to that anymore that's the access has been cut off well there's no room for machines to get down there no well they had machines down there when they did Bank stabilization recently but um so I just wanted to make sure that access wasn't an issue I guess it's my question no I mean he's got there's putting room on his lot I mean you have a new house which was agonizing to get you guys to approv well I shouldn't say that but it only took us three times here to get it approved but the uh there's plenty of room along the sideline okay for access and they were they were all wonderful meetings by the way that those three meetings we give you a reason to live don't we exactly yeah all right Steve questions um I don't have any questions and Lee no questions well no questions no questions uh no questions uh nor do I have questions all right I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations save each seconds and votes yes yes yes yes and yes okay deliberations David Nixon makes total sense uh Mr Brown was uh there when I went out there and he explained how he fell through and he really doesn't want to do it again and particularly his family and guest so it sure makes sense to me very good Ed uh new um certainly um set a stairs in the same exact location um I I have no issues and Dave yeah I you know I didn't know about the falling through I couldn't from the top and looking down I didn't see anything anything wrong necessarily other than the width it looked like they want to widen it the only I guess thing that other comment that I would make with respect to a set of stairs like this and is that um I'm sure the contractor will pay very close attention to the fastenings that they use because that can make all the difference especially if you're using um cleats on the edge of the into those Treads would say said you know any failure of a fastening uh and uh you got some a problem so all right very we good Jenny yeah something else I noted in the write up was that it looked like it was very environmentally sensitive proposal the construction part of it um so I think it meets our criteria yep and Steve um I think in the interest of safety and the avoid of insurance companies is probably a good idea so uh I have no issues and Lee I have no issues with this either Paul I think it clearly meets all our standards um I'll move to approve the application as submitted um not sure we have a need for any conditions here given the neighborhood and the isolation and so forth so I think just uh move to approve as submitted uh Dave V seconds and votes yes yes yes yes and it's unanimous yes thank you very much thank you and have a nice night thank you I will so we need a motion to adjourn a motion to adjourn I'll move to adjourn Dave V seconds and votes yes we all vote on that Ed I vote Yes yes yes Steve votes yes yes yes as do I and what time is it 5:05 p.m. how do you like that that good night [Music] [Music] chadam e