e e e e e e e e e e e e e e [Music] y [Music] welcome everybody today is a no not August not August yet no April I knew it begin with an a April 25th 2024 meeting of this town of chadam zoning board of appeals um pursuant to Governor hey's March 29th 2023 signing the acts of 2023 extending certain covid-19 measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain Provisions the open meeting law um Mass General law 30A section 20 until March 3125 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 in the order just a reminder that persons who would like to listen to the meeting while in progress may do so by calling the following phone number 1508 945 4410 conference ID 577 549 78 pound or join the meeting online via Microsoft teams through the link in the posted agenda while this is a live broadcast and simoc cast on chadam TV despite our best efforts we may not be able to provide for realtime access we will post a record of this meeting in the town website as soon as possible in accordance with Town policy the public can speak to any issue or hearing or business item on the agenda during the meeting when recognized by the chair um before we uh go any further we're going to establish a quarum and um find out if everybody here approves of this form of meeting Virginia Fenwick jinnie approves Steve Steve dor approves 12 all C simple approves David as Nixon approves Ed Bruce and David H Fe I approve okay so we have a quorum um then the way the meetings are uh conducted are as follows we've had our roll call members of uh the board um if any citizens or non-board members are participating via the phone please give your name and the last four digits of your phone number um when recognized by the chair um the hearing notice will be read by um Sarah Clark our Central Permitting coordinator to my right and then um you are your representative will present your appeal our application anyone in favor will be have will have an opportunity to um voice their opinion then I will read the correspondences after that anyone opposed or that has a question will be able to uh chime in and then uh board members will ask questions we'll get further information and then uh we close the public hearing there'll be a deliberation portion which is during after the meeting is the uh hearing is closed so there'll be no uh further input once we close the hearing um and then we deliberate and we vote on the application most of the time um votes are taken by roll call and at the end of the meeting we will close via verbal confirmation and we will will note the time of adjournment and also I want to mention that we have um our Building Commissioner Jay Briggs here and we also have Chantel kill Kenny um administrative assistant and we are made possible um for your viewing by Channel 8 Mark Van Bor and Brian Briana Fitzpatrick um and basically that is it for this portion and we will talk about who is voting today and that will be David V David Nixon Paul simple Virginia Fenwick and myself Randy pach and if anyone needs to recuse themselves for any matter then one of our Associates either Ed Acton or Steve um dor will be the voter we'll see about that later and um without any further Ado Paul we have uh two sets of minutes yes we have the two sets of minutes uh we'll do them separately the first is a meeting held on March 21 2024 I'll move to accept those minutes as published uh in David seconds okay roll call vot on that D vot yes Nixon Yes Virginia Fenwick any votes yes Paul all vote Yes and I vote Yes and the second set of minutes is for the meeting held March 28 2024 I'll move acceptance of those minutes Dave each seconds are there any um adjustments anybody no okay roll call Virginia J votes yes and Paul all votes yes yes yes as do I okay then um first application Sierra application number 23-29 David and Sheila Hep care of William G Litchfield Esquire 330 Orleans Road North Chad Mass 02650 owners of property located at 22 Hilltop Lane also shown on the town of chadam assessor map 9B block 29 lot 17 the applicant seeks to enlarge extender change a non-conforming dwelling on a conforming lot via the construction of additions decks and a garage with habitable space above the existing dwelling is non-conforming in that the uppermost level exceeds 50% of the floor below by 80 Square ft and the existing building height is 32.1 Ft where 30 ft is the maximum allowed the proposed uppermost level will be conforming and that it will be it will exceed the allowable 50% by 207 Square ft no changes proposed to the building height also proposed is the construction of a conforming additions and garage with habitable space the existing building coverage is 2,342 ft and the proposed building coverage is 2,989 Ft where 3,000 ft is the maximum allowed the lot contains 28,200 Square ft in the R20 zoning District a special permit is required under master Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw this was continued from February 8th 2024 Mr Lichfield welcome thank you Madame chairman members of the board Bill Lichfield here on behalf of David and Sheila Hep with me today is Peter McDonald the architect also with me today is Peter McDonald who has been working with the heps for several months in regard to this proposal we thank you for your uh consideration and allowing continuance when we were before you or scheduled before you earlier in the year because we had some revisions to the plans and it would probably also be best knowing that this board has good memories uh to talk about uh a situation in regard to a neighboring property uh the Hep spoke uh expressing some concerns about that and they and the romains who were their neighbors have worked those out those differences out uh they have they're completely supportive of what you already approv for their neighbors and their neighbors I should begin by telling you have no objection to this proposal so those of you who may remember some prior discussions in I think January uh can be assuaged of any concerns in that regard uh Sarah I don't know whether you want to bring up a site plan or house plan whatever you want but the uh the HS of own this property since 2020 uh they are uh looking forward to using it on a more year round basis not with immediate retirement but with the goal for doing that and beyond that David has some octogenarian parents who uh come and spend the summer with them and they like those folks to be able to live on the first floor which means that David and Sheila uh have to move uh and what they would like to do is to move up to the uh uppermost floor and expand that a little bit now under our bylaw there is an existing nonconformity as to that uh Second or uppermost floor under the bylaw it says that the uppermost floor can't have more than 50% of the floor area below it of the floor area immediately below it it already does uh that is a typical non-conformity it's a non not necessarily A non-conformity with which you deal at every hearing but it's nonetheless a an aspect of our bylaw and the house is non-conforming in that regard we are requesting uh a slight expansion 127 Square F feet of that floor but that is the only nonconformity involved in fact we are eliminating a non-conformity so let me talk to you about the plans and Peter can talk about the architectural plans if you have any uh any questions but I'll go into the criteria maybe the site plan would be something to bring up Sarah we have a completely conforming lot at 140% of what's required this is the R20 Zone we have a good siiz lot with 28,000 and square feet of of space uh so the lot itself is non-conforming we have at present a uh nonconformity as to the sideline which we are eleminating and we have for reasons which I don't understand the haps don't understand and we don't know when it happened but we have a house that is a foot or so over the height limit long before the heights the HS ever own the property uh but what we are proposing to do is to construct a completely uh conforming two-car garage with living space above uh the heeps have adult daughters and they may someday have grandchildren and things like that but it's it's for family purposes largely but as you know the notion of a garage is not an unusual request and again that that portion of what we're requesting does conform completely so it'll go into the criteria as to adequacy of site including uh building coverage and setbacks notwithstanding non-conformities as to the sideline and the height I think you can find the site is certainly adequate for what is there now in the R20 Zone I think you can also find that the site is adequate for construction of a garage for a small expansion of the uppermost floor and conversion of a screen porch on the southwest side uh to a sun room which will also conform the sideline nonconformity uh on the west side will be eliminated and while coverage increases the coverage will conform almost all of that coverage is from the garage and uh Mr v may raise the question and others of you will will think about it as did I we recognize we are close to the coverage limitation and we have had discussion about cornerboards and things like that so when the property when the if if you approve the special permit as we hope you will do we will be very mindful that uh Mr Briggs requires an as build plan and we will be below uh and not above what you approve and below that 3,000 square ft uh but almost all of the coverage expansion is from the garage as to compatibility of sides with the neighborhood the lot is in the mid-range for the neighborhood this is one of the few Lots in West chadam that is conforming most or not there are some near the water that are quite large uh but the footprint is also uh in line with others in the neighborhood if you approve the special permit it will remain compatible the numbers obviously increase but the site benefits from the layout of the road Hilltop Lane as you know from having been out there is not exactly a thoroughfare uh it is uh really a right of way although it was laid out many years ago by the town so it it is a road and thus we have Frontage but to the left or west side we have a vacant lot or east to the west side we have a vacant lot we're also considerably uh far back from barn hill so to the degree that there is going to be a change it will remain compatible and much of the increased gross floor area 2600 square fet of that gross floor area is basement and garage uh 2,000 square ft comes from the garage and from the basement rather and we of course know the gross floor area includes basement but basements below grade don't have any impact on the size of the house at least as far as the world knows as to the extent of increase in nonconformity it's 127 Square fet on the uppermost story but there's no change in the height of the building the other changes in the garage meet all dimension requirements as to suitability of site we have a residential lot in a purely residential neighborhood I think that you can find the site is suitable for the garage and it and the other modifications are without impact on the natural environment as the scale sighting Mass views and Vistas the existing house while non-conforming is consistent with the scale and sighting of the neighborhood there's no unified neighborhood style there it was originally largely a summer neighborhood Cottage colony and the like but it is without impact on views and Vistas if you approve the special permit the scale remains appropriate the architectural plans uh Echo the existing home there is really no impact on streetscape such as it is and again it's distant from other houses and not readily visible from barn hill the use will remain compatible and is the adequacy of water and sewer we have uh Town water we will be connecting to town sewer the chair will later read a comment from the health agent indicating that she has no concerns the other criteria traffic flow and safety noise and litter and adequacy of utilities are not really at issue thank you Sarah that is the view of the house from the East side uh when the relatively few neighbors going up and down Hilltop Lo Hilltop Road coming in I think that's the East is it not it is the East Elevation uh that is what they will see as they go down that uh shell roadway so the overall question as you know is whether the proposed addition of a conforming garage a small increase in the living space on the uppermost floor and conversion of the screen porch on the West Side to a sun room while eliminating the sideline encroachment but still meeting all coverage limitations and all other setback requirements is substantially more detrimental the neighborhood than the current non-conforming structure on a conforming lot coverage obviously increases but it's below the limit and it's mostly from the understandable goal of having a garage consideration was given to various designs and Alternatives the helps uh worked with Peter's firm for quite some time on this they have assured their neighbors uh that the Northerly side of the garage which you see when coming up from Barnhill onto Hilltop will be Rel landscaped to preserve ve the quiet and peaceful feel of Entry to H hiltop the htop lane neighborhood they were in touch with all of their neighbors and uh Jennifer and Steve dwey at 35 Hilltop as well as press and K Romain at 351 barn hill have indicated uh that they have no objections whatsoever to this proposal the changes will if you approve them will facilitate multigenerational family use with an eye toward event ual yearound occupancy in light of the criteria and the plans as they are presented to you today and Peter can certainly add anything he would like to do I think that you can find the proposed changes are not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood we'd be happy to answer any questions okay thank you um is there anybody here are on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application if so please raise your hand or indicate online seeing none I will read the one correspondence from Judith Georgio our health agent who writes on 2624 I have reviewed the plan to renovate the property the existing dwelling has four bedrooms and there is no increase in septic flow proposed the new addition will not encroach on the septic system I have no concerns so now is there anybody here or on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak against this application or has a specific question seeing none okay questions from the board Jenny just one question you did mention at the beginning that um this was continued because there was change in design plans but I did a comparison um I didn't see any changes in the design they were minimal I'll ask Peter to come up and if I could Madam chairman ask Peter to respond to that uh they were were not major but we wanted to make sure everything was correct so I'll my understanding I wasn't at the first hearing and uh there was some uh could you identify yourself oh I'm sorry Peter McDonald uh I wasn't at the first hearing but my understanding was there was some uh difficulty in reading my plan because some lines were light so our changes to to our plans were pretty much graphic not not substantial or substantive okay thank you yeah I just wanted to make sure I didn't no we didn't something it's same house it's just hopefully drawn so you can see it a little better okay thank you so there's no changes clar clarified is is the best word for them okay um Steve questions um is the proposed garage there was one thing if I me interrupt uh we added some steps uh from the second there's a deck off the second floor and we changed the steps we added some steps from there to over the screen porch there's a screen porch on the south side of the garage of the house uh there there it is there's a laser this is a laser cool does it work uh it does oh okay so right here the uh that's the top of the screen porch and we put it up I think a foot and a half and we so we had to put a couple steps that's that's the only substantial change sorry I forgot about that piece that's okay all right thank you all right Steve uh the the the proposed garage is that directly attached to that no the reconstru there a reconfigured deck there's no coverage between the two but it's connected to the deck or looks like there's a set of stairs that go up behind it to a yeah it is connected to the deck as far as I know it is and it's accessed you have to go out of the house I guess across the deck and then up fly of stairs okay all right thank you there there is an interesting notion that if we had connected the garage with a a floor you know we we might have gotten with because that would have second floor living space on it we might have eliminated the nonconformity as to the uppermost story being more than 50% but that was too complex and my trying to explain it would be even more complex okay Paul questions um yeah let me just make sure I understand you're going to have a living space uh bathroom and so forth above the garage so are you eliminating a bathroom connecting to town sewer under the water and sewer regulations you can get the additional bedroom that you could have gotten had you put in an IA system so this entire thing I think it's noted on the plan it is uh somewhere there yes that we are connecting to town sewer okay and there are Sarah slides that down a little bit the plant the other way the other direction uh noted on there are the sewer covers and the sewer a connection right by the H and Hilltop Lane okay uh my second question maybe uh to Jay or to you and that is what's the purpose of the limitation with respect to the 50% figure on uh second floor or above floor I I have spent the last 40 years maybe longer than that waiting for someone to explain the purpose of our bylaw um the bylaw says we can have two and a half stories you can have either a finished basement or a finished attic but you can't have both we have an unfinished basement so there are no issues there but the half story is defined in the bylaw as being not more than 50% of the story below why Mr Simple I defer to Mr bricks but that's the rule okay it's just another limitation on Building height we have the 30 foot building height or two and a half stories so why it was done that way I don't know but Mr lichfield's Right the uppermost story can only be up to 50% of area of the floor next below so from your Viewpoint do you have any uh problem with the idea of expanding beyond the already nonexisting non-conformity as to that percentage well that's why we're here right um they're over the 50% already and they want to go further beyond the 50% okay all right I don't have have any other questions Dave Nixon questions you know when I see something like this I say so how did it get to 32 feet and uh there's some you know some different answers to that question Sarah when was this built um the assessor records indicate 2003 so that's when it became 32 feet correct and we didn't have what we have now yeah in3 final as builts and height certifications weren't required by the building department so that wasn't that long ago was it 21 years just a dropping the bucket well I I don't know I mean it's it's not a question that anybody here can answer but it does bother me that it's 32 ft we and we understand we we've also been kind of confused about it obviously the heps had nothing to do with it uh and the the house now exists I think given its location uh to the degree that it is a foot and a half taller than it should be or a foot and two feet uh it's not a burden on the neighborhood and again we're not increasing the height last question Sarah can you tell me who it was that was the builder no I cannot was that new was that Mr V no oh okay all right all set there oh yeah all right Ed Acton questions um no questions I think uh We've covered what I was thinking as well dich question yeah I have a a few questions um so first one bill just to clarify um you um you've mentioned I believe mentioned 127 square feet proposed addition to the attic level um the drawings indicate 264 Square fet to me uh can we clarify that I'll ask Peter to I actually took it from the legal ad going from 80 to 207 if if I'm wrong it's my error um there is also an increase on the floor below that so that's why it's only 207 the increase is 264 thank you but with the floor below it's only 20 so okay that's my first question so then I'd like to delve a little bit into this question of the non-conformities um and and some of these are some questions that I've asked Sarah already and and um and I just want to try to David if I could just interrupt for one second just for to clarify the last part the second the the 2.5 floor the uppermost floor currently is 494 Square fet it will be 758 right that's the 264 difference I was I was put okay sorry so um the um I mean I I'm struggling too and and and I'm struggling with the the the these non-conformities are came to us in a way that's very different from most of the non-conformities that we see and um because clearly um and for whatever reason when we know and I don't think any of us can explain it um but um uh they the at the time that the building was constructed the grade plane was the standard for the height and you know I I'm getting guess a little we some questions but I'm try to integrate this but and I don't see I mean I I I see the the grade has it's not like the grade falls off and they could have made a two- foot error by you know that's hard for me to understand so uh what and and the floor area definition has been how long has that's been in the bylaw for a a long time you know do you know Bill I don't I don't J probably doesn't know how long it's been there right okay yeah so I mean that's the question how could either these have have have come to be and I don't know that I mean I don't think any of us are truly qualified but I'm open to any any suggestions well if I could try to respond and I I understand the concern the the uh statutory changes to the state zoning law I think more legitimized this and other than they would otherwise because there is already a provision that if something is built with a building permit which this clearly was uh that it's grandfathered and then the 2016 amendments to the statute and I can't quote the the the acts of 2016 exactly but it essentially says this is like the the 81l issue that they become nonconforming after a period of time well and that was going to be my one of my next question question is what year that was 2016 I know it's been since I've been on the board so prior to that of a situation like which clarified basically made a situation like this a pre-existing non-conforming eligible to petition us for extension of change how prior to that was there like some kind of purgatory or was it by town did towns it was by interpretation what well I mean Jay may be able to answer that but you know rules and interpretation of rules and statutes evolved there was a time that as you know you could you could by Dent of a special permit create new nonconformities without a variance that was until 2014 and we did that all the time uh there was also until I don't know eight years ago give or take if you had a conforming addition to Borland if you were proposing a conforming addition to a non-conforming house on a non-conforming lot you didn't have it to come to the zba so it it's a gradual Evolution and we understand why we're here because we have an nonconforming house we had nothing to do with it but we are validly non-conforming and we're simply asking for a change to it and granted and and I do try to take into account past interpretations as well it just seems to be some it's fairly striking how how how much these are are non-conforming given the situation but as you described it it's true did they J jaded anybody did they get a a certificate of occupancy do we have anything of that on file they did get occupancy they did get an occupancy yes um okay so the house would have been completed per the Assessor's Records well Sarah's looking that up I mean I I don't know I didn't look it up but they've got a walk out or retaining wall and I don't know if that was original to the original build or if that might have lowered the grade plane and caused an overage on the overall Building height all I can think of is that actually worked works against the way I would see it because you know the grade is right up there it's like it it you know 50 at some points on the top of the foundation is 50.8 that's that's the that's about as high as you can get a grade to the top of foundation and some of the other spots are 47 48 49 so it looks like maybe it was filled in but that would have been taken into account in the original I would think calculation of the grade plane you can't there's no room there to put in more fill to to drop the the you know to raise the grade plane but lowering the grade would would lower the grade plane and Elevate the building make it taller wouldn't it would it make it taller I we're now we're getting off we're guessing it might I don't know it's yeah uh so okay um just a a couple other little things so and and Peter I I noticed and and maybe this is part of the confusion in a way uh on on one of your drawings I noticed that the um you showed the um and and oh and also John O'Reilly s plan references this says that um well the drawing shows three 30 Fe 4 in from the grade plane to the ridge uh which I I'm I'm I'm thinking that was that's an error that must be an error I go with John ry's could you step to the mic please when you that's okay uh yeah I would go with John O'Reilly's uh number on yeah I I think so John John O'Reilly basically he he set that he shot the top got the foundation at 81.1 and then he added the 3.4 uh or 30.3 I guess it and added that to get to the um maximum allow um yeah I um I think in terms of questions I think that's all I have for now thanks if if I could just try to follow up Madam chairman to what I think one of the questions that Mr V was underlying issue that may be of concern the the fact that we are we have more than 50% of the uppermost floor the floor below it is invisible um not saying it's right but it nonetheless exists similarly we are too tall if we were proposing to increase the height that came from something 23 years ago that none of us understand that I think would be perhaps a more legitimate worry but we're not the the inadvertent event that happened 20 odd years ago if changed will have no impact on the neighborhood because it can't be seen so Randy I do have one more question yeah please so so then I I I'll put this in a form of question were you if you were proposing uh and and which Sarah has indicated to me that these parts of the don't the part parts of this don't require special permit garage and the conforming additions to this sun room and the the and the screen porch if you were proposing to add as you're showing to add a second floor over the sunro addition and you were not proposing to expand the the attic that would bring it into a conforming situation uh that would be up to Mr Briggs to determine um you're saying would we have to come here if we weren't doing anything on the uppermost floor well okay that's probably true but it does but does show I mean just looking at the numbers we're the existing 494 ft of attic space is is over it's 80 Square fet over the 50% of the existing second floor MH the proposal for the for the second floor is to increase the square footage to 112 Square ft 50% of that 550 1are ft that now the four the existing 494 Square ft is now 57 Square fet below yeah I see I see the number you're talking about the second floor now is 828 it's going to 1102 if if if the uppermost floor remained 494 we'd below eliminated one of your the another non-conformity in addition to the sideline set that we feel one out of two is pretty good if baseball if it were baseball it' be 500 and we'd be leading the league so well it's just something that's that that jumped out at no it's a good point I had I hadn't considered that but you're right on the numbers okay thanks that's all okay so I have a couple questions just I just want to clarify so just go back to the garage for one moment so you're proposing the garage be 27 feet I think um because allowed is 79 The Ridge and proposed is 76 so I just want to make sure I have that right I can't even read this is so small uh are you J going by number on my drawing um I don't I took some notes so I don't remember exactly where I took them from probably site plan yeah the height of the square footage I'm sorry no the height of the garage if you want to do it in feet I think it's 27 I just want to make sure that's accurate uh that seems pretty close I'm because allowed is 79 and the garage proposed is 76 and so if you9 if 79 the the numbers are right okay I just want to make sure so it's a kind of a tall garage but um anyway so that's one thing and then another is um so right now you're 80 square feet over on the attic so to speak and you want to be two and a half times more over than you are because you want to you end want to end up 207 which is if you're 80 now that's two and a half times as yeah the 127 square foot increase yeah okay so I just want to put it in perspective but okay that's the 268 foot increase not yeah the the the net the yes the net increase is 127 the second floor or the attic as I said is going from 494 to 758 yeah so it's two and a half times more non-conforming in an already non-conforming scenario where your height is already over so it exacerbates it it it no question that's that's why we're here no I know the degree the degree of increase is you know that that we can calculate any way that you want but I understand the numbers okay if I may yes uh what generated this new bathroom and the new space is because right now there's a very small bathroom there and David is how tall six six fiveish and he can't stand up in it so that's why we're doing this it's not even supposed to be there in the first place so you have an amount of sympathy on that but okay I mean when you think about it the the floor itself is it just it's just a more than it should be right yes yes um because we're not supposed to have three story buildings essentially I think that's at the end of the day that's the reason for the bylaw so we don't have three stor buildings right which which we do not again uh the the bylaw says it well it's current currently 828 on the second floor and the floor above is 494 yeah it's it is certainly a lesser structure than the floor below it yeah okay so um I will I don't have any more questions I want to take the moment to say if anyone's cell phone is on at all now even on vibrate if you could kindly shut it off because we can even hear the vibrate when that happens um okay so um Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations dve second and how do you vote I vote Yes Paul I mean um Dave Nixon yes Paul yes y yes as do I okay deliberations going to just start with Dave V well I you know I sort of somewhat uncharacteristically for me uh you know there some things just jumped out at me here and and I I tried to clarify how I saw what I felt I was seeing I understand the reasons some of the reasons why they're asking for to to expand that that attic floor um but I guess I just have to come down on you know first of all despite the history and everything I I have to my I guess my overall take with respect to these non these existing non non-conformities is they don't match the spirit and intent of the bylaw basically you know they you when we have other kinds of non-conformities that come to us because zoning got overlaid on on either you know totally pre-existing Properties or properties that got rezoned from maybe r10 to R20 or 30 or 40 or 60 even and created new setback nonconformities and things like that it in my mind when those things take place the existing and are presumed to have been to be okay and and um and gives us because this board via state law and the town bylaws gives us the ability to assess you know the um you know whether it's substantially more detrimental the neighborhood or not Etc and and I hope we I think we do a very good job of that in this case honestly I have to say I don't necessarily find that the scale sighting and mass are are um hugely negatively um uh affected here they are proposing to they're not increasing the height non-conformity but they are extending it by almost 50% of the existing Ridge length adding another 16 ft to what's already 34 35 ft and I just be because of the way these these nonconformities came about and I know that we are and I don't know whether the courts have said much about this you know and and looking at our criteria and things but I see I'm I feel that this the these kinds of nonconform are different than some of these other ones and I think that we you know I see it again I don't see it as being keeping with the spirit intent of the bylaw so that despite I can understand the need for it and the desire or the the desire for it um but they've already got quite a bit up there there's also 190 foot deck that's doesn't count in any of the square footage or anything they can do the expansion to the second floor the first floor second floor eliminate the uh half area non-conformity on the third floor I that's what I would suggest they do okay thank you um Paul well I uh I agree with Dave the uh my impression is that uh we're taking a a situation that shouldn't exist and we're permitting it to be added on to um and I don't see that is consistent with the bylaw so um I tend to agree with David in his assessment of what should be happening here okay thank you Jenny well I can't really add anything else to what Dave and Paul said um they really summed it up very well and I would agree with what they said and Dave Nixon well I'm not happy about it but I I don't want to penalize um the owner of the property and and that's what we're doing if we follow what we're thinking here uh I don't I don't think it's fair to them and if we go to is this going to be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood no I mean it's not going to bother anybody around them the the site of the house you know uh it's just so the garage is going to go in and all that's what they're going to see they're not going to see the extra square footage on the third floor whatever flooor you want to call it so um uh I I don't think we should penalize the applicant because at the end of the day this is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood okay thank you Ed Acton your thoughts on deliberation um I uh you know I I don't certainly don't want to penalize the homeowners for something they've inherited but um they are you know increasing a non-conformity that they inherited um that shouldn't be there um I guess if I was you know voting today I would I would probably agree with um my other colleagues that um that extra you know dmer up on the third floor uh I I don't think I could I could vote for that and Steve Deo deliberation well there I guess there's a few things that I want to um sort of reflect on that the the the 32 foot height they inherited it there's not too much we can do about that now but they are increasing the square footage of that floor and it might you might be able to work out something else there's there's other additions on this house that maybe that living space could be added to AB above some of the the proposals so increasing that nonconformity I think there's ways around that I don't think that's totally necessary the other thing that sort of brings pause to me is the the fact that um I'm kind of a symmetry guy so if if you look at at the front elevation it's on page A5 you sort of got on the left side of the house you've got what is now basically a flat roof with the deck um then you've got a non-conforming sort of Center Gable that it's being proposed to add more space to and make it more massive as far as I'm concerned then you've got a sort of a subordinate I think where the living room is Gable end which is about 20 F feet tall and but there's no mention of the deck that's to the right of that living room in the garage which is going to be a nearly 30 foot Gambrell so in the same house you've got three different roof Styles um and and the fact that this that the garage is it's it's part of the front elevation whether it's added to the square footage or not or what what it's being used for and it's I'm kind of disappointed that you can't see the whole house um in one snapshot and the fact that the nonconformity for the second floor or third floor is being increased where I think that living space might be added someplace else so that we wouldn't have that non-conformity okay thank you well actually my mic wasn't on sorry thank you um You can count what would you like to do I haven't had a chance to speak to my client but the zoning board of appeals approval requires four votes and as the chair indicated I can count so the uh the normal course would be to request that the board allow us to withdraw without prejudice which affords US an opportunity to come back as soon as you and Mr McDonald come up with alternate plans shall I app we're happy to to withdraw thank you Madame chairman ask request of the board that you allow us to withdraw without prejudice okay Paul uh I move that we Grant the requested withdrawal without prejudice D seconds and how do you vote votes yes and Dave yes and Jenny Jenny votes yes PA yes as do I thank you so much thank you very much have a nice day okay all right Sarah whenever you're ready Next Up application number 24-33 jna Jen a little John care of s SP design LLC 693 Main Street chadam Mass 02633 owners of property located at 96 a Leonard way also shown on the town of chadam assessors map 9j block 6A lot LP 29 the applicant seeks en large extender change a non-conforming dwelling and a non-conforming lot via the construction of an addition the existing dwelling is non-conforming and it is located 33 ft from the road where a 40ft setback is required 19.6 ft from the westeria butter and 16.1 ft from the easterly a butter where a 25t setback is required the proposed addition will comply with rodent AB butter setback requirements the existing building coverage is 3,250 ft 10.3% and the proposed building coverage is 3,427 Ft 10.8% or 10% is the maximum allowed the lot is non-conforming and then it contains 125 ft of Frontage where 150 ft is required and contains 48,000 560 ft where 60,000 ft is required in the r60 zoning District a special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5 be of the protected bylaw welcome if you could finally state your name good afternoon Paul Mal here from SV design representing Jim and Janna Little John and their project at 96 a Leonard way uh as Sarah indicated uh we do have a non-conforming lot here um the the original House was built uh on an a lot that was developed before 1987 so it was conforming at the time of its construction and uh has since transitioned to an r60 uh creating the non-conformity on the front and side yard setbacks um our our modest um screen porch Edition here is is placed on the back of the house um you can see here in the in the site plan where the bend happens in the house we have a garage structure on the Northern side in the mainous on the on the uh western side and our um screen porch area is sort of tucking in between there's a small area currently of of covered uh porch area um un screened and we're encapsulating that within our new screened porch area uh the addition uh will will increase the non-conformity of uh lot coverage we're currently at 10.3% 177 Square ft of addition goes to uh 10.8% um W with that I'm happy to oh this is a a great representation of the massing of of where're we're adding and how we're adding uh you can see that area of covered porch there and the existing on the left and on the right we're we're simply dragging the roof line of of where the kitchen meets the main house over our new screen porched area the area itself is um there there's 100 foot buffer zone nearby we're not in the buffer zone but it is nearby and some conservation land behind the house um sitting on the back porch at the golden hour is challenging with with the amount of insects that uh attack um so that that's the main reason for for the addition but um it's for outdoor enjoyment it's for uh a serviceable area that that can you can remain outside in in the evening hours um our addition is located on a flat of already pred disturbed land in between the garage and and the main house and uh we're not disturbing any further uh areas of the property okay so we'll probably foro having you go through all the criteria on a small project but anybody could bring up whatever criteria they think are applicable um as we go through um so sub and you also submitted in writing which we appreciate so we have that for the record uh is there anyone here or Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application if so please indicate seeing none I will read the correspondence there are six all together first one from the health agent uh Judith giio on Tuesday April 23rd she writes I have no concerns about the proposed screen room Edition at this property then we have a letter from Nancy Kissle on and she lives at 52 a Leonard way she writes on April 19th 2024 I approve the I approve issuing the special permit for the construction of an addition at 96a LED way and then we have a letter from Mary mlin and that's written also on April 19th 2024 she lives at let's see 103 a LED way and she says we support granting the special permit um for this application then we have a letter from Shirley hagard and she lives at 106 a Leonard way confirming her support for JN and jna Little John's requested porch Edition and we have a letter [Music] from the chmatic gmail.com and they write on April Charles and Pat Patricia banano okay both are identification uh of this letter and they have no problem with the little John's request to add a second screen porch to their to add a screen porch to their home their neighbors and and um that's that then we have one more letter here from Scott Clary from 96 a Leonard way we are a budding neighbors to Jim and John a little John at 96a Leonard way we're in complete support of the issuance of a special permit via the zba to add a three season portch your consideration is appreciated that concludes the correspondence is there anyone here or Microsoft teams that wishes to speak against or has a specific question regarding this application if so make it known no questions from the board uh Steve um I don't think I have any questions thank you Paul no questions any I had no questions Dave Nixon no questions Ed Acton uh no questions and Dave I have no questions nor do I Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations Dave each seconds and votes yes yes Dave Nixon yes Jenny yes Paul yes as do I deliberations uh Jenny yeah I thought that this was a very well first of all Mr vun I really enjoyed uh or appreciated this you're absolutely right the massing is uh we we've talked about 3D renderings and things like that and and it doesn't make sense for every property but how you were able to model this just so uh clearly showed what you were asking for and I do believe that it enforces what the numbers support which was that this is a modest request I mean you are asking for a little bit more um in the building coverage but it's essentially at 177 square feet less than two small sheds if you think of it in that in that context and you have a lot that is 48,000 Square fet so I think it's very modest request and I think it meets our criteria right Steve yeah I also appreciate this drawing I think it's very helpful to see where it is and relationship to the rest of the building um a lot of the square footage that you might be adding is is or it's existing it's already being used but maybe slightly in its different man manner so I don't have any problems with this it's it's on the back of the house it's not seen by anybody else I don't think it's uh going to affect the neighborhood Dave Nixon your rendition of the addition is what we needed on the previous hearing all right um certainly not substantially detrimental to the neighborhood so looks good yeah meets all of our applicable criteria and um this isn't one of our criteria but I think we should support someone with the aliter alliterative quality of their name John and Jan and little John yeah sounds good and Paul we'll have your comments and then a motion I agree with uh my colleagues comments it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood U I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations did we just do that we did we did do that yes now we want to okay all right I'm ready to move then uh it seems to me we've got uh no need for conditions on this one given that the lot is large enough to contain any construction and so forth so I'll move to approve the application as submitted Dave V seconds and you vot and votes yes yes Jenny yes and Paul Paul votes yes as do I congratulations it's unanimous thank you appreciate your time all right is there anyone that needs to recuse on the next application by any chance uh yes I do Randy I need to recuse I'm a indirect about her all right so we will have Steve dor will be voting on this next application because one of our members is in a butter and uh s whatever you're ready application number 24-34 deeg real trust care of SV design LLC 693 Main Street chattam Mass 02633 owner of property located at 30 medish Lane also shown on the town of chadam assessor map 15g block 69 lot M the applicant seeks to larg EXT standard change a non-conforming accessory structure and a non-conforming lot via the con conversion of the existing shed to a studio office and the installation of exterior mechanical system Appliance the accessory structure is and will remain non-conforming and then it is located 13 ft from the Norther of butter where a 25t setback is required the existing exterior mechanical system Appliance pool equipment is non-conforming and is located 10 ft from the northly butter the proposed exteror mechanical system Appliance will be non-conforming and it'll be located 11 ft from the Northerly butter where a 25- ft setback is required the building coverage will remain 2342 ft 14.3% where 15% is the maximum allow the LW is non-conforming and that it contains 16,400 ft where 40,000 ft is required in the R40 zoning District a special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of protective bylaw good afternoon afternoon if you could state your name please good afternoon Sean Henry with SV design representing the owner M um Dan gkin the owner of 30 menish Lane uh he owns this property and spends most of his uh summer time here and finds himself um having family and guests down uh he also works from home quite a bit and he has this existing non-conforming structure which is currently used as a shed and he's looking to uh convert that to his office so he has a place to uh go work take take Zoom calls while um guests are are using the house and he's not disturbing them they're not disturbing him um we are planning to infill there is a a small I guess wood storage that exists on the right side of of the the Curve structure we're infilling that we're adding some windows uh moving uh the door around but essentially the the footprint of the building stays the same um just refreshing it and making it habitable um we are locating the uh mechanical equipment a heat pump on the back side uh as indicated uh 11 ft from the property line which is set back from the existing pool equipment that the previous owner installed um we are uh there is a sync that were adding out there um and that would be connected to the existing uh septic and uh I believe Judith has a note that um she's requesting that we would have a deed restriction that this is not a bedroom it is not per your definition and it will not be used as one and the owner is happy to put that deed restriction um as requested right you just go through the applicable criteria just the few that are please uh number one adequacy of the size of the site including but not limited to the maximum lot or building coverage and setbacks the proposed changes do not increase the building coverage or setbacks uh nonconformities lot coverage remains uh under the allowed percentage compatibility of the size of the proposed structure with neighboring properties the structure is remaining as is extent of the proposed increase in non-conforming nature of the structure or use um the non-conformities Do Not increase just the use is being changed uh suitability of the site including but not limited to the impact on neighboring Properties or the natural environment including slopes vegetation Wetlands groundwater bodies of water storm runoff uh landscaped areas around the structure to remain and no new roof runoff is created impact of scale sighting and Mass on neighborhood visual character including views and Vistas there is no change uh besides a couple of Windows and Doors compatibility of the proposed use with neighboring uses uh it's a residential use in a residential neighborhood adequacy uh of method of sewage disposal source of water and drainage um there's no increase of the sewage flow it's connected to the existing septic syn uh septic system uh and there is uh electricity already run out to the shed um and I don't believe the rest are at good okay thank you y um is there anyone here or on Microsoft teams that wish to speak in favor of this application if so please indicate seeing none I will read the correspondence there are two Judith Georgio our health agent writes on 42324 I reviewed the plan to remodel the existing shed in the studio office the plan calls for a sink area but not toilet facilities since this is a detached structure I would not consider a bedroom however I would request a deed restriction stating that this structure is not a bedroom and may not be used as such additionally a plan to connect the graywater sink to the septic system must be submitted to the health division for approval and permitting we also have one letter from a neighbor uh Bobb and Peggy black of 441 old Harbor Road we have been neighbors and easterly ab Butters of Mr gkin since he bought this property at 30 menish Lane in 2019 the improvements he has made in those six years have been taste as well as beautiful we feel sure our property value has increased because of his improvements he's been a good neighbor during the last six years and we live next door and we have no doubts his application to convert the existing shed on his property to a studio office will be an enhancement not only to his property but to ours as well we support the application that concludes the correspondence is there anyone here or Microsoft teams that wish to speak against this application or has a specific question if so please make it known seeing none questions from the board Ed acon I have no questions Dave each I have no questions Dave Nixon no questions Paul no questions Steve uh a couple easy ones go ahead um absolutely some of your drawings um uh let's say X1 for instance the existing floor plan shows an exterior sync I assuming that sink is being removed and added to the interior it is I think it's a more of a gardening sink where you would hook a hose up to it and it just drains out to the okay but this is inside it's going to be a functional uh correct sink correct um there's currently one 10 foot nonconformity I guess and that's the pool equipment correct so you're adding one that's 11t so slightly further away correct okay so it's not increasing any sort of that is correct non-conformity to the rear of the building the the size I think you said the size is not changing the the actual footprint of the building is not changing correct but some of the construction might uh you're adding a window and a door something or moving some things around but the the bones of the of the structure is going to stay the same correct okay um that's it thank you okay Jenny questions oh yes right sorry um I have a question did you talk to any of the Neighbors in the back there right near where the shed is uh I don't believe we have no okay um that's all I had Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations seconds you vot votes yes Dave Nixon yes and uh Steve yes Paul yes okay as do I so deliberations uh Dave uh well this is not substantially more detrimental of the neighborhood uh it meets our criteria uh by the way beautiful landscaping on that property wow just amazing um but no I I will uh support it okay uh Ed deliberations uh no it seems a a modest request and certainly won't be detrimental to the neighborhood and the as just I don't we didn't hear anything from the butters that are closest so um seems everyone's okay with it thanks Dave Nixon I agree with the previous St all right uh Steve um I agree with everyone else um you're expecting to comply with the requests from the Board of Health correct I assume y okay okay very good Paul I also agree I don't think it's substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and I don't think it's more substantially detrimental but I think it's really maxing out the property there's a lot going on there and uh because it's not enlarged the structure I I'll go along with it um so um any conditions um well I'll move to approve it I don't know that there's any need for conditions other than um that all vehicles and construction activity be contained on site is that okay with you sir that's acceptable yep okay okay so I'll move to approve the application with a condition uh that all construction activity and vehicles be contained on site or at a neighboring property with a permission of the property owner and that u a deed restriction consistent with that recommended by the U uh Town Health agent uh be included as a condition good da V seconds and you vote and votes yes I vote Yes and Steve Steve dor votes yes and I'll vote Yes as do I it's unanimous congratulations great thank you very much all right whenever you're ready Sarah we have 24- [Music] 036 I think oh oh yes that's right sorry we do have to do 24-35 for the record yes application number 24-35 revocable trust of stepen a Brighton and Stacy a Brighton Car William G litfield Esquire 330 Orleans Road North chadam Mass 02650 owners of property located at 500 Shore Road also shown on the town of chadam assessors map 16g block 3D lot A5 the applicant seeks to construct an elevated stairway and landings under section 4 a3a of the protective bylaw the lot contains 39,18401 District a special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 9 and Section 8 D2 be of the protective bylaw attorney litfield welcome back thank you madam chairman appreciate your uh allowing me to come back on behalf of the applicant steveen uh Bron the Bron trust I'm sorry Steve uh Bron Stacy fluk who the trustees we would ask uh that you continue this matter until May 30th we filed originally with the Conservation Commission uh for a order of conditions for Shoreline stabilization some subsequently filed an amended order to construct the stairs uh the Conservation Commission has allowed the amended order but they will not be able to hear it until after today they'll be hearing it on May 8th so we given the nature of this request we thought you would want conservation review and thus asking her to continue it and we may be filing slightly revised plans which will have addressed concerns that the Conservation Commission has already expressed very good very good um Paul I'll move to Grant the requested continuance to May 30th 2024 and Dave V seconds votes yes just one quick question Sarah how many does that give us on the 30th we will have six on May 30th okay okay Jen yes y I vote Yes and Paul Paul votes yes as to why it's unanimous thank you very much we'll be we'll be watching the conservation hearing and I will be brief because I will be 6th and the 30th all right it's okay all right now we will get to 24-36 when you're ready application number 24- 036 L KSA trust Sydney cook trustee car William G Lichfield Esquire 330 Orleans Road North chatam Mass 02650 owner of property located at 255 old Harbor Road also shown on the town of chadam assessor map 15f block 11 lot G1 the applicant seeks to en llarge extender change a non-conforming dwelling and a non-conforming lot be the expansion of a covered porch the existing dwelling is non-conforming and it is located 18.8 ft from the road the proposed extended porch will be non-conforming and that it'll be located 18.6 ft from the road where a 25t setback is required the existing building coverage is 2551 ft 16.5% and the proposed building coverage is 2,65 2 ft 17.2% where 15% but not more than 2800 ft is the maximum allowed the law is non-conforming and that it contains 15,43 Square ft where 20,000 ft is required in the R20 zoning District a special permit is required under under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5 b of protective bylaw Mr lfi thank you good afternoon once again Bill Lichfield here on behalf of Sydney cook who is trustee for the uh family that owns the Cook family that owns this house on 255 old Harbor Road this is a very simple request we are simply asking to square off and make connect the two porches that are on the south and east side of the house uh the house has been there since 1820 there as shown there and that dumpster is not the way we ordinarily have the House appear just an unfortunate timing but uh the cooks are doing significant renovations to the house they're getting rid of the vinyl siding replacing it with wood clabs no one has done that in recent history and I think it's a wonderful thing maintenance is another issue but they're concerned about historic preservation and as part of that they would like to square off that kind of curious looking Gap so that what you would end up with is as shown there so in the interest of uh your time and the fact this is a simple request I'll go into the criteria as the adequacy of Satan building coverage and setbacks the house is adequate for a the site is adequate rather for a house built in approximately 1820 not withstanding it's its quote excess unquote coverage and proximity to the street I think you can find it to be adequate for squaring off of the covered porch which modestly increases coverage but it's also an aesthetic Improvement as the compatibility of size the area was developed long before zoning if you improve approve the special permit it will remain compatible there's no change in living area or gross floor area as to the extent of increase of non-conformity the porch will be 2/10 of a foot which is about 2 and a half inches I guess closer to the street and coverage increases by 101 square feet as the suitability of site the site has been U is suitable for residential use as it has been for a couple of centuries and it will be suitable for the squared off porch as the scale sighting map and Views and Vistas the scale and the mass are not impacted by the addition to the porch it does increase coverage but with a positive impact on streetscape there's no change in use there's no Plumbing or sewage or noise or litter resulting from squaring off of the porch the issue is as you know whether this prevents presents a substantial detriment I think that you can find that squaring off of the front porch with a modest increase in coverage and a minimal change in the setback is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood the mass the word mass is really inapplicable to a covered porch without sidewalls and there's no change as they indicated in NE grow floor area or living area rather it's a simple architectural change that will be an improvement till it is already an award-winning house uh the owners as I indicated will also be replacing the vinyl siding uh with cedar clab removing the Alum aluminum wrap which now covers the trim and restoring or replacing much of the detail of the house it's part of the ongoing restol restoration and preservation of the Elisha small house I think that you can readily find that the proposed small addition is not substantially more detrimental be happy to answer any questions all right thank you is there anyone here on Microsoft teams that wish speak in favor of this application if so please make it known see none um I will read the correspondence first we have a letter from um Judith Georgio a health agent written on April 23rd 2024 I have no concerns regarding the expansion of the covered porch at this property and then we have a letter from um Christina Basset uh she of the historical commission um the CHC heard this application on April 16th 2024 reaffirming that the home is historically significant and that the proposed changes do not Material diminish the home's historic significance so they do not impose a demolition delay and that was on April 23rd 2024 that concludes the correspondence does anyone here on Microsoft teams with a question or wishes to speak against this application please indicate there are none questions from the board Brad Cody yes sir oh Ma'am I'm sorry yes this is Brad Cody um I did send in an email uh earlier today regarding this um to the the to S Clark um and I would like for that to be read uh into the record we have time limitations on when those can be received um we may do you a solid and read it if we find it quick at 258 pm. we got it at 258 p.m which would be 2 minutes PRI to the beginning of this meeting um I'm going to use my discretion and say I'm sorry that we're not going to read it however you have the opportunity now to read it so go ahead okay um I am in a butter at 247 old Harbor Road on the surface um we have no issues with the proposed changes being made to the house however the one single issue concerned and it has been an issue ever since the cooks bought the property is their utilization of the driveway you'll note in the pictures that you have in front of you that there is a dumpster and there is a truck that consists of three parking spaces those of you who have visited the site I'm going to have to stop you sir in in that this is not related to the nature of the application but I think the attorney has is absolutely related it right it's absolutely related because they they are utilizing the driveway as a parking spot and preventing us from exiting and entering our driveway so I respectfully request that until they and their contractors can provide you with a suitable recommendation on where all that equipment will be I I do not want this moving forward all right well we heard you and we're gonna We we'll take that in consideration with ions and I know the attorney is standing here he heard everything that you said and so um thank you for your correspondence at this point okay okay thank you thank you okay so questions from the board dve no I don't have I have no questions okay action uh no questions Dave Nixon no questions and Jenny questions no questions about the application but are you gonna well we'll get to that okay yep um Steve questions no questions well questions no questions okay and I don't have any questions but would you like a chance to rebut certainly I I will pass along to the Cook family the concern as I understand it and I you know I haven't done the title on either property but I I will do so and I I expect that the cooks will be good neighbors and and we'll try to get you a copy that letter if that help thank you you're welcome all right so now Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations DAV seconds V yes Dave Nixon yes Jenny yes Paul yes as do I okay deliberations um Paul well I think the Project's a uh Modest Proposal uh it looks to me as if it will improve the look of the house and uh I think it's certainly not more substantially detrimental to the neighborhood Kenny agree with Paul very modest request I think it's an improvement I applaud the preservation um it meets our criteria not substantially more detrimental and Steve deliberations um I I I think this is probably a much needed um addition I kind of wonder why things were done the way they are done I kind of questioned about if those porches even existed when the house was built um probably not and also the the structure to the rear of the house probably didn't come with the house um but I think the a way to resolve the way things look now is to is to add that corner so I think it's a good project okay uh dation I agree with all previous yeah and yes I agree with the fellow board members Dave Nixon yeah certainly not substantially detrimental in any way shape or form and uh I agree as well and I'm glad that the caller was able to express his concerns I mean nobody likes the look of a dumpster and nobody likes to be able to I mean to have be um impaired in their ability to park and and exit and enter their driveway so duly noted and at that point at this point Paul yes in considering conditions I just wonder what the extent of the work is going to be U and when the effective date of the special permit if the if the board is inclined to get it is approximately May 25th I don't know if this is a one month project uh it may have to wait until fall if the board is so inclined to impose a seasonal limitation can I ask a question so if we impose a seasonal limitation does that mean that dumpster and any of these well the dumpster is not there now oh it's not no that just happened to be in the photograph so anything with this parking issue will be resolved then well I I can't I can't guarantee that all right um but we we recognize that we I assume the board is going to impose a standard limitation that we have uh traffic and or Vehicles contained in areas where either on the on the site or with permission right I just didn't want to prolong the agony necessarily so no that the that photograph was taken some months ago and so far as I well it wasn't there when you went there was it I no I didn't think so things come and go so you never know that's why I asked yeah yeah they do I'll I'll move to approve the application as submitted with a condition that all construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner I don't think there's a need for any further conditions uh given the small nature of the project I agree and I second that does anybody have any anything to add about conditions no yes I did it it is a shared driveway off of Old Harbor Road or Route 28 and in order to get to the abutters property they have to use that same driveway so I think we should condition that that driveway for safety reasons cannot be blocked for any reason by the contractors well if I could respond to that I suppose the question is defining the word blocked I understand what you mean and you understand what you mean but if I if jbg's Construction Company parks there to unload building materials for five minutes or 10 minutes is it blocked I don't know the answer to that I just when you impose when sometimes wording can create issues so I understand what you're saying and I'll certainly speak to my clients and their Builder to make sure there aren't any issues but there's some degree of flexibility I think I I have to say that if I can't get out of my driveway exactly when I want to get out of my driveway I am not happy and I I think we should all be able to get in out of our driveways exactly when we want to I will abs absolutely express that to my clients so I think that should be part of the condition not to block it go you know park somewhere else I think my suggestion would be if we use our standard commit uh condition that construction activity and vehicles are contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner we cover the issue and we don't have to get into the question of What's blocking and what's not blocking under the circumstances okay sounds good yeah I I think that's a better yeah and I so I second that and I vote Yes and Dave yes Jenny yes well while vote Yes as do I it's your name thank you very much congratulations that was easy as on as side I might say that I've been living next to a construction project this winter and the um there's there's definitely can be a a difference between the uh ideal that we said or even I set with the contractor and the subsequent U activity it it can vary you know even with the best of intentions but it's better to try to get everybody coopera that's why our cars have horns all right lastly we have uh 24-38 Sarah right that one's just for Signature uh application number 24-38 Eastward MBT LLC car William F fry Esquire PE box 707 chattam Mass 02633 owner of property located at 155 and 157 Bridge Street also shown on the town of chadam assessors map 15b block 1B lot 1B the applicant seeks to extend special permit number 20- 084 for one year the current expiration date is May 6 2024 and the proposed expiration date is May 20 May 6 2025 the special permit allowed the applicant to to demolish the two existing dwellings and construct two new dwellings the lot contains 3.13 acres and 7 1,160 ft of buildable Upland in the R40 zoning District a special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 sections 6 and 14 and sections 5B and e2b of the protected bylaw Mr Riley welcome uh thank you very much Madam chair um Bill Riley on behalf of Eastward the uh I sent Sarah uh a colored side by side comparison of the previously approved project and uh we're uh what we're thinking of today the reason why we need this extension can you put that up of course you can okay all right so on the on the left is the original proposal as approved uh by you and so that was the thinking at that time two houses take them down put up two new houses move the houses back a little bit and uh so we got an order of conditions from Conservation Commission we have an extensive planting plan uh but then the uh the thought process changed a little bit uh and uh so there's a team at Eastward and it was a lot of debate it was difficult to come to a consensus uh then we had some health issues uh on a couple of members of the team which delayed the final design uh we're very close now and we actually anticipate fin a request to modify the special permit by the end of May but what we're proposing now is uh one larger home and a smaller guest house but we've the purple line is the flood plane and so as you can see in the original design uh the house on the left is uh completely within the flood plane and on the the plan on the right we move the house back so it's outside the flood plane um so we think that from an environmental point of view you know it's a much better project and I just wanted to let you know what we're thinking about and really why we why it took so long to get to this uh point I mean the you know there were concerns about how far back to move it what was the impact on views and vistors for the house not the neighbors but the house uh the U was actually my suggestion to move it back behind the flood plane and uh you know like most projects you know that go through this process we think it comes out as a better project uh there's less area of disturbance uh we're going to have we have to modify request a modification or Amendment of the Conservation Commission order there going to be a very substantial replanting plan there already was one but now that we have move the buildings back uh there's going to be really huge Improvement in terms of the health uh vegetative Health uh and Views U from the water so I think that uh uh I think that they've done a great job took a long time to get here but uh so we'd asked for a one-year extension um that'd be it do you want to go over the reasonable grounds for that quickly or you want to just for us to just accept it on well I mean when you say reasonable grounds well I think the reasonable grounds are it took us a long time to get to this design but the end product is a better product environmentally and from a zoning point of view we have less coverage we have more plantings and we're moving the buildings outside the flood plane that would be the reason what I would suggest the design time took longer but the end product is much better okay um is anybody here on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this um application if so please indicate seeing none okay I'm going to read the correspondence there are two I believe first one is from conservation it's an updated letter um and it was received on April 25th 2024 the project this is from uh let's see what's his name um chryst Keon the project was issued in order of conditions on February 23 2021 a one-year extension was granted um until May 30th 2025 the application the applicant has submitted a request to amend the order of conditions and the commission will hear this request on May 8th 2024 the project as proposed meets performance standards under the wetlands protection act I feel like there's one more that I skipped Judy Giorgio from the health the health agent for the town April 23rd 2024 writes I have no concerns about extending the special permit for this property if there's anyone here on Microsoft teams with a specific question or wishes to speak against this application please make it known seeing none questions from the board Ed I guess the the obvious question to me is why do you need to extend if you're going to be filing a whole new uh permit because the uh the permit expired on May 6th and whatever we whatever we presenting we're not ready to present yet so but we hope to present before the end of May to file before the end of May so the order would have expired so that's why we need the protection thank you Dave questions so what you're proposing to present is a modification to the special permit that we're extending yes that's correct mhm and uh if were this to expire you wouldn't be able to modify it because it it had or or or not I'm not sure well the original order uh the property is pre-existing non-conforming particularly with regard to the flood plane and our you know the setbacks from the flood plane the uh so that's a non-conforming status that we want to preserve okay if you look at the if you put that back up again so we moved the buildings outside the flood plane uh but we still would like to have a swimming pool uh that is so we need that we still need that non-conforming status to protect our ability to make that okay uh y provision okay and then and um the it's it's the what you're talking about at least um is it looks pretty clear that the that it is a proposed guest house being less than but meet the the bylaw definitions of a guest house in to the main house in this in this I think you can tell from the footprint 50% of the size of the yeah of the main house that's correct okay um that's all I have for right now thanks some questions yeah Mr Riley uh your client uh has been allowing asphalt to be dumped in there and all kinds of things I'm sorry what I said your client has been allowing asphalt and other scrap from a certain project I presume it's the town sewer to be dumped there are you aware of that well the U what my what my client did was Grant the request of the town to be able to use the property temporarily uh whatever has been dumped there is going to be removed well the problem with that is that uh I happened to be up there yesterday and I looked at what has been graded out not just dumped there and the graded out includes dirty dirt and dirty dirt is chunks of asphalt in there and everywhere I looked and actually I ran into Miss W there she was there too and we saw chunks here chunks there and everything we looked at had pieces in it and so you say okay they're just being good eggs and allowing the town to they're getting no renumeration for this they're just letting it to be dumped I I I don't think I just don't think Mr Riley this is being shall we say um uh uh uh a good caretaker of that property I I just don't see it David Clark can help out uh I understand if you conern name sorry David Clark Clark engineering I understand your concerns um and it's one of my concerns too because Jay has been very Vigilant about uh holding the leral law about filling in the flood plane so we have pre-disturbance topographic information on the property and all the material that's been placed on the property by the town's contractor will be removed and we have information that can document um that so so the regrading of the property with or the moving of material on the property has the appearance that there's been fill placed in the flood plane and and uh that will all be removed uh before the the house project is finished and actually probably all be removed before the house project gets underway right I I think the I appreciate the concerns uh I personally haven't been on the lot lately so I didn't drive by and I did notice the contractor's Vehicles there but the the uh we can assure both Jay and you that we're going to go back to the original Contours because that's that was the basis for the house design as well and I think so I mean they didn't ask us for permission to do that they just did it and so we're going to make sure that the Matter's cleaned up and and uh you know brought back to the original Contours of the property uh maybe one of you two gentlemen know the answer to this question uh to get all that stuff over there they've been using essentially 10- wheeel dump trucks what's the weight rating for our Bridge on Bridge Street I I don't know would you guess it's 30,000 lbs 25,000 PB I mean it's a being a drawbridge it's not like you know a a bridge that's one span well that's that's true but you have to remember the uh Dougies Bridge as was named uh there was a long and contentious discussion amongst the town's folks including the recently deceased Norman pacen that they wanted to have a wooden bridge the state didn't want a wooden bridge they wanted concrete and metal so the compromise is that the base of the bridge is concrete and metal and only the surface is wood so I don't know what what the weight is but it's I'm sure it's you know not being compromised by these vehicles going over it otherwise there'd be a sign in front that said weight limit there's no sign anywhere I mean well I know but that's that's the point Dave if there was going to be a weight limit the state and the town would have placed a weight limit on it went before it opened and so because there is no sign there there's no there's no Max huh well well there was I mean that's that's my problem that your client is allowing and I'll just tell you because I have clients that have dump trucks like that these things the the gdw of these things is 73,000 pounds 73,000 your automobile Mr Riley doesn't even weigh 3,000 no it doesn't my automobile is particularly cute so it's okay for all right but and this brid being a drawbridge know doesn't work all that time yeah David what do you want just tell me what you want I don't want to see another 10- wheeel dump truck go over that bridge until somebody tells me it's okay I don't want to see it impose that as condition we're happy to get the information for you well anyway you know it's it's it's just we just you know we were just trying to be good I know I know you you're all a bunch of princes and you're going to go directly to heaven and that's great and I'm happy for you you know I think really am you know the the only way I'm getting to Heaven is because I'm a volunteer in a handicap ski program you know so people say why do you do that I say how else is a lawyer going to get to heaven all right so any other questions from the board Jenny yeah unless you're we'll go back to you if you think of any okay um Mr Riley I wanted to ask you to elaborate a little bit more on why three years is not enough time um this first hearing to zba was in January of 202 21 voted 4 to one to get EXA uh and you received exactly what your uh client wanted at that time for the two homes and and then in March of 2023 um you came back and asked for an extension and I watched that hearing and you said we're thinking about a change of design why does it take a year to come up with this um it seems like three years is I mean we're talking about an the owner of this property is an experienced Builder knowledgeable access it seems like a lot of time three years for that spot which is very prominent spot to be um to be in limbo well the uh without getting into the you know the health issues uh the principal in the company had a very serious health issue and the uh it continues to affect his health and that limits his involvement uh to some degree and so that has greatly slowed down our project and that's basically why it's taken this long to get here so a follow-up question to that and I uh certainly empathize and can understand that that can be disruptive but this isn't an individual this is a company you mentioned at the beginning of this hearing that there are like a team of people that work on these projects right but the all right so Eastwood companies is basically Bill Marsh everybody else in the company you know is working for him all right the design team consists of an architect Karen Kempton who didn't actually finish her design until about you know three weeks ago then they have to turn that footprint over to David so it's not a team of people in Eastward home it's a team of people who are working with Eastward homes but the all the design decisions are driven by Bill Marsh and so you know his compromised Health has slowed the process down a great deal and so we you know we thought one year would be enough it was only when I brought to their attention that we were running out of time that they asked me to come in and get this extension you know as I said you know we're finally coales around you know a single design I'm I'm confident it'll be presented hopefully by the end of May but perhaps early June for filing and I think the project represents a very significant Improvement on the environmental side and so that's why we think the you know the relief should be granted because it's going to be a fabulous project I understand you know it's been a long time it hasn't looked particularly attractive I understand that also but you know the way to get the thing moving and is to Grant the extension so we can get the new design filed and get to work so going back to Mr Acton's question why couldn't you just uh you have to do that anyway uh put a new plan together and represent it right we have to look at more than this to approve that right so why wouldn't you I mean I understand there's um you mentioned that there's some they'd have to pull it back even more but it we're talking three acres of property here with like 70,000 square feet of you you could still build a single family home with a pool on on the property and take as much time as you need to come back with the with a new plan yeah we think that requesting another one-year extension is very fair we think the project has improved tremendously and uh you know we think that the one year relief should be granted I mean we think that if we lose the if we lose the non-conforming status of the property this it represents a significant decrease in the value of the property in the value of the project moving forward so that's really what the issue is the that that is why you need to extend for a year not to come up with a new plan that's a better plan is that right the plan has been in the process for months this plan has been in the process for months it's a very complex plan I deferred to David Clark to talk about the the the meetings that he's been involved with as they work through the grading issues on the property uh and the Wetland issues on the property and so as I indicated we've been working diligently hampered to some degree by the health issues and so you know we're very close to being able to present the new plan but it's still not Sarah would still not accept it today so we have a little bit more information so that when we file it it'll be complete and be accepted we've been working on this new plan for a couple of years now and it all stemm from um Mr Marsh wanting to change directions from having two substantial single family homes to a more traditional large single family home and a traditional guest house so you see we don't have two single fames dwellings we have a house and a guest house um part of the problem with uh the design is is that we are so close to the flood plane and some of the past recent iterations of of the floor plan um still put us in the flood plane which um we've been trying to avoid um for building code issues obviously um Karen's had her plan done fundamentally for six months the last six months we've been working on the the landscape um and so Andrew geray uh finished the conceptual landscape plan a few weeks ago gave us that information we finalized the site plan our site plan's already ready to file for a new special permit or a modified special permit we just filed with conservation yesterday to get that process started to amend the order condition so we're moving forward quickly now um and it was all basically driven by Mr Marsh's idea that turning this into two separate dwellings into a more of a a a single family compound type of with a small guest house which is and I don't know if Bill mentioned this results in several thousand more square feet of uh Hardscape and structure being moved out of conservation's jurisdiction so it's a it's a huge improvement over what was permitted and if I could you keep mentioned one year when I actually filed the request it was for six months because we don't need a year uh I was advised by uh Madam chair that I should ask for a year I think just for consistency I I I never talked to you about this you did you mean me yeah we had we you and I had a conversation right after I filed it you had looked at it with Sarah and you and you called and talked to me about it and you said Bill you've asked for six months I think you should ask for a year I already said said that we never had the conversation so I'm not going to say it again okay all right in any event we don't need a year so if you want to give us six months that's fine I think it's a huge improve so so that I'm clear I I agree I think it's a better looking plan I think you said Mr Riley that the purple line represents the flood plane yes so that's the new plan and the previous picture was the prior plan and it's pulled back but you shouldn't build a flood plan anyway so like I feel like you're holding us a little bit Hostage to this better plan would you not build this plan if you don't get the extension would you go back to the two um I mean I'm just trying to understand like well that's a business decision by Eastwood companies and that they would have to I'm just we don't want to go back to the original plan so so it's I I guess I'm having difficulty understanding my question what the concern is you we'll be filing we'll be filing the plan by the end of May or by the middle of June so if you want to give us a 60th day extension so we can file it that's fine we don't we're going to go back to questions and answers okay okay if you have another question please ask it well maybe I wasn't clear I think my question essentially is why do we need to extend this permit since it's changing completely and why can't we just go to a new application and then you can do that in that's well we think this is a better plan if we're required to to start over again and lose the non-conforming status it represents a significant decrease in the value of the property uh and so we prefer to just move forward with what we have and what we've been working on for the last year and a have okay so specifically this non-conformity that you would lose has to do with the flood plane is that yes okay so it would have to go on the other side of the purple line yes all right thank you and questions Steve did you already ask question no I didn't but the ones I would have asked have already been asked all right Paul questions um I actually wasn't going to go out to the property because I was anticipating that this was a uh an extension question I I was familiar with the property but I did go out and um if you go back to uh to what the property looked like before this process started it was it's kind of uh unusual um I would out there to look at the property before the process started uh back three years ago and there were deer on on that property um and um I was in some what surprised by the amount of clearing that was done uh I think it took all of us by shock that it was approved and I think it was approved because it was invasive species right and that was the reason why it was basically cleared um but uh then I went out and looked at it last week and of course there's all kinds of stuff that has been dumped on the property now I appreciate the fact that um that Bill Marsh and others are are receptive to trying to help the town in a situation where it needs some help in terms of storing things but um it is not a good situation uh the way it was done and as I say I don't know whether that was with permission or whether it was not with permission but the thing that bothers me more uh that I'm trying to get resolved is you're really making an application for a new project and um when you ask for an extension of the existing approvals the existing approvals are not really relevant at all it's it's a new project that you're starting now I understand that what you're saying is um if you don't get an extension then you may lose the non-conforming nature um and I guess the question there is can you explain a little bit more uh how that impacts your client and uh the project itself I understand part of it is the flood plane well I think the uh uh I suppose I would have to say it begins with you know the vision uh of the principle of the company and you know what's the best most attractive use of the prodct property now when you said you went out there at the beginning was that before the houses were removed that were there that was that was that was at the time that uh you filed an initial application for a special permit right and so that's four years ago I guess right can you can you move the plan a little bit to the side so we can see a little bit more of the of the leftand plan down a little bit so I can see the Okay so when when we bought the property uh can you move the cursor uh Orin do we have the oh yeah here it is was this the existing conditions that's your that's the original approval from 2021 okay so uh the original House the house the house that was there that we took down was located over here and the guest house there was a guest house that was located over here both inside the flood plane inside the 50 and so the idea was well we'll move things back because that's an improvement and then there was a a very significant plant mitigation plan all right so One impact on you know refusing the uh extension is that you know we're we're no longer in your jurisdiction you know the plant mitigation because we're now moving outside of the flood plane we're moving away from the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission there's no longer the authority of the Conservation Commission to require the kinds of mitigation we're offering so we think that working with you working with the Conservation Commission it's a better better project placing a swimming pool in the flood plane is really not an issue because you know the things we don't want in the flood plane are structures because structures can be damaged in a flood they can create uh debris that affects other properties you know there are uh you know things that we put in houses that we don't want floating around in the water if in the event of a storm you put a swimming pool in a flood plane and it's just a hole in the ground with water in it and so we don't think that having a swimming pool there represents you know any sort of threat to uh the environment so the project as it has developed slowly is is much better than the original project and so you know if the application is denied then we go back to the design drawing board the thing continues the lot continues to look the way it looks you know while a new design is put together I I don't see that as being beneficial uh you know to the town right now we're ready to get the work hopefully this coming fall all the material that has been put on the property will be removed and cleaned up under the supervision of Jay and the Conservation Commission you know we start doing the mitigation planting this fall I mean there are a lot of advantages to this project if it's allowed to proceed I mean I mean if if you look just at the comparison of lot coverage you know there's much less lot coverage not just in the you know in the flood plane or in the area subject to the conservation jurisdiction but just back towards the road so it's you know it makes you know for a much more attractive design and to the extent we have to move everything back then we have then we have things closer to the road you know more massive structures is closer to the road the further aways from the road I think you know reduces the impact scale sighting in Mass on the property so we really we really believe that the work we're proposing to do constitutes a substantial benefit uh some of which would be lost along with our ability to put the pool in the flood plane which is really all we're trying to do Paul do you feel like your question was answered uh I I think that answers my question yes thank you do you have any more questions Paul no Dave nion do you have another question no no you don't all right so um if I had a conversation with you which I didn't I would have said how much time do you need to get moving and so it's funny that you you mentioned something like six months because I actually was talking to staff about it today and we tried to figure out what could we do to to allow you to keep your non-conforming you know aspect but really send you a message that you know this is it and we came up with five months perfect you think perfect but that means when you come back to a I mean this is just my this is just the world according to Randy we have other people here we expect to be well underway but the thing is you'd have when you come back with another plan plan if anyone went along with what I said um you'd have to come back with a good one cuz you wouldn't have time to come back again it's I tell you this you know what I mean this is a great plan you know what I mean though I do know because you wouldn't have any time to spare and and again if if anyone went along with what I'm I'm saying there'd be no further continuances either you know I know judges say that so I figured I'd say it no but but believe me this design has been worked on for months so I'm throwing that as a question and I think you've answered it that that that would be something that might appeal to you uh five months no further continuances um that was my question you answered it so now Paul well move to close the hearing and move into deliberations Dave V seconds and how do you vote and votes yes Dave Nixon yes and Jenny yes and Paul yes as do why uh okay deliberations David Nixon okay well uh I hear what you're saying Mr Riley but um I truly believe that the process that you've gone through or your clients's gone through what we listen to now three and a half years ago has all changed as youve said no more two houses we G to this and the other thing and it needs to start from scratch now you said okay there could be some monetary problems well that that's not our issue we don't ask you how much money is this client going to make on this or not going to make on it it's none of our business so I you know I I just can't factor that business in secondly as I mentioned I don't think that your client has been a good caretaker of this property and you say well he doesn't feel so good and you know but everything depends on his whim of the day well you say he's going to this plan is going to be great and everybody's going to love it he could tell you too he some no I hate it it stinks we need something not a flimsy piece of paper we need the plans we need everything and the only way I'm going to get it and be able to make a decision is for us to deny your request and go back to the beginning and you're talking about well well then the flood plane and all this it wasn't us that made you rip down those two homes it wasn't us was it no it was done for what reason I'll tell you what reason you get a lower property tax substantially lower when you don't have a structure on it I mean I mean who's kiding who this is this was an economic thing so I have not done okay so I really think the best decision for the town is to have this go back to the beginning and let's see what happens this is not something that should be modified in any way shape or form can I just can I make the hearing is closed no I understand that but just I want to reiterate one comment which is you won't have any jurisdiction over what happens okay and it's a better project when you have jurisdiction I think I've had my say yes you have thank you if you need another one no we'll go back all right uh Jenny deliberations well I I said a lot of my kind of deliberations and my questions um I think that it has been I I it's been a lot of time it's been a vacant lot it's a as I mentioned a very important part of town this has been neighbors visitors to chat them that have seen this you know I recall Mr Riley you mentioned in your narrative in uh 2021 the original proposal that you know the houses aren't going to be seen from the street they're going to be covered with there's be trees they'll be way back there and and then all the houses were gone all the trees were gone so you know I'm I'm just I'm I am personally hesitant to approve a plan or a um related to the offer of the extension is predicated on this plan that we're just seeing from the screen we don't even have a copy of it here so we have to rely on what like Mr Nixon is saying you and your client are saying you're going to do um having said that I do think that if we are balancing the interest of time and trying to wrap this up it's really an isore um and three years has been a long time that what's being proposed would make the timeline go faster that's one thing that I'm thinking about Steve deliberations if you were voting if I were voting well I I think the fact that this has been out there for three years is time enough um I understand there's extended to any circumstances but nothing has been done except tear down those two houses that were there and blighted the area as far as I'm concerned and and I also think that this is a substantial enough change we're going from two houses to one The Hardscape is changing the Landscaping is changing I think it's a substantial enough change that it warrants a new application and to start from fresh okay Paul deliberations well I uh I had come in with the concept that uh that really this amounted to a new application uh um and I realize that there's a there's a lot of uh a lot of stuff that's gone under the bridge in effect uh and trying to get this result um I take um as important uh the fact that there has been a health problem with respect to the principal who was involved here I realize it's a company but it's also a company that's run by him uh and and he has been helpful with the town in the past and uh I take that into consideration um I think also it is of significance that we would retain some jurisdiction with respect to this property if we do not um kill this uh at this point and require a new application uh because I think we could end up with a project that is better because we do have jurisdiction so uh I'm inclined to go the way of extending uh the permit but to limit it to a five-month period has been suggested by the chair and um and go on that basis but uh I agree that the the whole project has been somewhat of a disaster from the beginning uh simply the way it looks and uh the way it affected the property itself and I'm amazed that uh um with good intentions are however that uh things could be dumped on the property uh and conservation does nothing about it nobody seems to do anything about it because it looked like a mess and uh it shouldn't well that's where I'm at um deliberations Dave Beach I think yeah well I um I'm sens I'm I'm sensitive to the um [Music] the I guess I'd say concept that um you know frequently there's in the evolution of a of a project a construction project there can be uh some real improvements that take place and I I I feel like I'm seeing that at least in terms of the plan that they've sh us and and and what bill is indicating uh I think there's a a strong uh likelihood that if they're if they're able to to proceed with that plan and um with ours and kcoms input uh that I think it's probably going to be a better a better plan than the extension that I mean what they're asking for I mean I don't know they could maybe walk into and and present for the building permit for the for the plan that they have tomorrow and go ahead and build it so if we uh you know there's possibility if we're going to force their hand on that that's what they'll do and I don't see where they are in the process and the way that it's been presented I I don't think I don't want to do that I I think that they're they're indicating yes there's been certainly been problems in in in the look of it and how it's all gone along but as far as the timing goes um you know I just don't know that I don't really think a a lot has changed in three years in my mind about in terms of of generally we fairly routinely Grant extensions uh be and you know frequently with the thought well you know well we we approve something for two years or whatever and and they add another year is is in the grand scheme of things is something that uh is is worth doing and it should I don't feel differently about it than I did a year ago or whatever so I I really think that rather than I I don't I don't believe that it's going to be in the town's best interest necessarily to box them into having to conform to everything on the lot and and and we lose any input kcom loses input they can do whatever they want uh well that may they I imagine they'll find a way it might cost them more you know they may not be able to make as much money as they'd like but they'll find a way to do it I'm not convinced that that's going to give us a better result then if we go along and give them an extension and give them the time to F further develop what they're telling us they're going to do that's my take on it I don't think you know to to or Andor say to them all right you know you got you got couple weeks left on this approved plan do what you will I I I don't think that's a a safe a good way to to do it either so I I'm in favor of an extension so okay are you in favor of a five month extension you know it doesn't real uh honestly I I would be fine with the year I'll go along with anything less than that but you know I mean I I I know it so yes it puts their feet to the fire more and maybe that's a maybe that's a good idea I'm I'm not sure that it you know unforeseen things all happen all the time so I I'm okay with the year but I I'll go with the five months if that's what people go yeah Ed deliberations and if you were voting yeah I'm not voting today but um I feel like uh the the plan that was approved was an improvement over what was there I I feel like the latest plan could be Improvement one house instead of two houses it takes everything you know further away from the the aura um I I don't feel like uh Eastward has been good stewards of the property but that may go under the heading of no good deed goes unpunished um trying to help out the town um and then you have uh lose control of you know what what's actually happening on the site um I could I could see you know that really needs to be policed when you when you you you say okay to something like that but um um I'm okay with an extension I'd like to see the the project move forward I I think people in that area with like to see the project move forward so I would be okay with a you know yeah a six-month extension to to to get this project going yeah Madam chair uh yeah I I didn't talk yet but if you want to talk before me you might as well only that to the extent that the current condition of the property is offensive which it is uh denying the application today just means it's G to continue to look like that because now we have to do a new design the way to get the property looking the way it should look is to grant our request so we can begin as David said he's his site plan is ready to go Karen's plans are almost ready to go Andrew's plans are ready to go you we'll be filed hopefully before the end of May we're it start in September so can I talk now all right so um I just want to make a couple comments about I listened to all the prior hearings I wasn't on the board in 2021 when they granted this Buck Upson voted no you probably remember that and some of the members that voted yes were um happy about all the trees and so now we have a different scenario there and that's a little troubling to me because part of the reason they voted yes I think it might even have been Paul is because he thought that that the whole setting was nice I'm not done talking yet and so then um now we have a different scenario and then you came before the board um for an ex for an extension you know for a continue more time and then at that hearing you said we have new plans we're going to come we're going to get them to you by the summer and we hope to start by fall of 2023 and it was really the same rendition as you said today there's really I think there's no daylight in your last argument in today honestly um I don't know if the gentleman got sicker or not but I'm just saying he had he had a stroke no that's terrible I'm not I'm not trying to deny it so don't you don't have to argue with me okay so don't okay you don't yeah probably less is more from you right now I would say so um I just wanted I'd like to go through the evolution of everything just for the record sure and now I I'm very troubled about the fact that if we if we deny this it's going to sit there and it's going to look lousy for God knows how long until until decides or until somebody in the company decides to do something about it and then that is not a good it's not a good look it's not a good result so I'm going to go I'm going to stick with my uh recommendation for five months because that causes you to have to go ahead and file all these plans that are ready to go and if you really want to keep your non-conforming status you'll do that and you'll have shovels in the ground within five months you'll have a permit I guess so I'm going to stick with that and uh I think we all gave it a lot of thought a lot of time did you want to say something um I was just going to say they'll have to physically commence work not just have the building permit in hand within five months well prior to the expiration of the special permit yeah so you have you know the clock's not going to start ticking until May 6 whatever it is you know so it's not today that the clock start ticking I think it's ticks then and so you'll have until I think October us if we do six months from then um I'm not 100% sure but um and if you you're willing to accept that I'll ask Paul for a motion no yep okay yeah uh Sarah um when Dave was saying that uh East would come come in tomorrow and get a permit for what we approved three and a half years ago that's not correct is it we're running three to four weeks for the issuance of a building time would have expired they would so that's that's not a concern we wouldn't be coming in we're not going to go back to the original plan but we just flushed out the fact that that wouldn't help you anyway that could not happen yeah it wouldn't help okay so even if it came in the motion did not we don't have any plans for those buildings okay okay um so Paul well I will uh I'll move to Grant the application uh as submitted with the exception that uh rather than an extension for one year it would be for for 5 months and uh that the original conditions imposed on uh permit 20- 84 would be continued which is that all construction activity and vehicles would be contained on site that between June 30th and Labor Day no work would be committed on weekends no construction activity between 8:00 am. and or excuse me all the construction activity between 88: am and 5:00 p.m only Dave Beach seconds and how do you vote and I vote Yes and Dave Nixon absolutely not okay Jenny I vote no okay Paul I'll vote Yes and I vote Yes too so that's denied and um thank you very much that concludes our applications for today um I you need a motion to adjourn after we decide what time it is it looks like it's motion and then vote okay motion to adjourn I so move and I'll second I'll second the motion to adjourn and how do you vote I'll vote Yes Jenny yes Steve yes Dave I don't want to leave what happens we're having so much fun uh okay all right Ed uh yes and d and I do to and now we'll say what time is it Sarah 5:23 p.m. not bad good night chadam night [Music] [Music]