##VIDEO ID:gh1bgwUCXfo## e e e e e e e e e e e e w [Music] [Music] Happ [Music] [Music] good afternoon everyone this is the December 12th 2020 four meeting of the chadam zoning board of appeals pursuant to Governor Hy's March 29 2023 signing the acts of 2023 extending certain covid measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law until March 31 2025 this meeting of the chadam zoning board of appeals is being conducted in person and via remote participation every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access access the proceedings as provided for in the order a reminder persons who like to listen to this meeting while in progress may do so by calling 1508 945 4410 conference ID 302 026 930 pound or join the meeting online via Microsoft teams through the link in the posted agenda while this is a live broadcast and simoc cast on chadam TV despite our best efforts we may not be able to provide for realtime access we will post a record of this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible in accordance with the town's policy the public can speak to any issue hearing or business item on the agenda during the meeting when recognized by the chair the way the meetings are run are as follows as follows we take a roll call of all board members ask if any citizen or non board member participating via the call just make it known your name last four tele last four digits of your phone phone number um s clar to my right will read the hearing notice and you are your representative will present your appeal or application anyone in favor of the appeal or application will'll have a time to speak for up to five minutes and there'll be a clock to um to count that and then I will read all letters that we've received regarding your appeal or application then anyone against the appeal or application may speak for up to five minutes and ask any questions during that time period the applicant will have a chance to rebut any testimony we will um ask questions to anyone uh present that the board um thinks is uh reasonable and then we'll hear any further information close the public hearing and once that public hearing is closed all deliberations will be just between the board members and if you raise your hand we're not going to acknowledge you so sorry in advance for that but we'll take care of all that during questions and comments um then we will deliberate and vote usually we vote on the appeals or applications unless they get continued for some reason or they're withdrawn all votes will be taken by roll call and at the end of the meeting we will close via a verbal confirmation and note the time of adjournment um I ask that if anyone has any gadgets of any sort that makes a noise please shut them down and um only um talk when you're recognized by the chair and voting today will be Ed Acton David Nixon Paul simple um and Virginia Fenwick and and Dave e I'm sorry sorry Dave and uh that's how it's going to be today and all members do deliberate and we'll all be free to ask questions um you need to get four out of five votes in order to Prevail on your application that's a super majority and that's um Mass General law rule so with that um we'll do a roll call vote for everybody to authorize this form of a hybrid meeting starting with David V uh yes David h v and I authorize this form Ed act and approves David S nion authorizes it Paul C SLE I approve Lee Hy I approve Steve dor approves Virginia fanwick I approve and Randy podes I approve as well and see we don't have any minutes today so we'll start right off with the Hillard family revocable trust 24-1 128 When Sarah's ready application number 24-1 128 Hillard family revocable trust dated 10 10th day of June 2024 care of William G Lichfield Esquire 330 Orleans Road North chatam Mass 02650 owner of property located at 69 nor cross Circle also shown on the town of chadam assessor map 1B block 8 lot n021 the applicant proposes to change alter or expand non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming lot via the construction of an addition the existing dwelling is non-conforming and it is located 13.7 ft from the Northerly of butter where a 15t setback is required the proposed addition will comply with Rodin AB butter setback requirements the existing building coverage is 1,701 ft 17.1% and the proposed building coverage is 267 Square ft 20.8% where 15% is the maximum allowed the lot is non-conforming in that it contains 9,960 sare ft or 20,000 ft is required in the R20 zoning District a special permit is required under masser Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw attorney Lichfield welcome thank you madam chair members of the board Bill Lichfield here on behalf of Rob and Mary hilard Mary is in the rear of the room and Rob is here with us virtually the hillyards purchased the house about 9 years ago and uh moved up here year round about four years ago they've become very involved in uh Town Affairs volunteer positions with which you're familiar and they have come to understand that uh while chadam is lovely in July and August it can get a little bit chilly and uh sometimes even though it no longer snows on Cape Cod it's it's nice to have a garage unfortunately their house does not have a garage and they are here today seeking a special permit to exceed the coverage they are already in excess of what is required for New Lots uh in order to build a onecar garage uh as shown there that is the existing house and they want to put uh a complimentary garage on the leftand or Westerly side a onecar garage and they would also like to make some interior changes on the second floor uh converting a an existing bedroom into a home office and have an office a bedroom over the garage a somewhat larger bedroom so we are seeking a special permit perhaps Sarah the site plan might be a useful thing to put up as well uh because one of the interesting things about this neighborhood and I know you've been down there a few times before this particular lot while nominally something under 10,000 square feet has a feel of being somewhat larger Fair View as you know uh becomes unpassable after you pass Norcross Circle so to the right hand side of their property line there is a thank you exactly there there's a significant amount of open space and vegetation which has the feel of being part of the lot similarly on the South Side on the Norcross Circle side uh they have some additional and land area which is part of Norcross Circle uh but which gives the visual feel of being part of their lot I mention this because we we know obviously that the coverage number the absolute number is low but the percent is high but I think there are factors here which can warrant the grant of a special permit based on the I think the finding you can make that constructing of a single car garage an addition of 366 square fet is not substantially detrimental to the neighborhood let alone more substantially more detrimental so we'll go into the criteria I'm not sure if bernardet McLoud our house designer Is With Us online she may be showing up here in person but as to the criteria adequacy of site including building coverage and setbacks we have uh an older neighborhood with small Lots not a single lot in the neighborhood conforms with current zoning but the site is entirely adequate for the residential use which is enjoyed since 1956 when the your house was originally built I think you can find the site to be adequate for the addition of a onecar garage it will meet the sideline setback on the left or west hand side and again given the Glendon and Fair View uh open space benefit that we have the lot appears larger than it is uh and I think you can find it to be sufficient for a small garage as to compatibility of size uh with the neighborhood the footprint the gross FL and the living area are compatible with neighboring houses not withstanding the excess coverage coverage will increase if you grant the special permit by 366 square feet but that's still not going to be really incompatible I think in terms of the feel of the lot overcrowding and so forth it would be visually preferable to have a garage to have a car garaged rather than sitting in the driveway the gross floor area and the living area obviously increase but they remain com comparable as to compatibility with the neighborhood I would observe as I'm sure you did when you went out there that all but one of the other houses in the neighborhood nine shirely drive that's the only one that does not have a garage everybody else in the neighborhood has a garage and I think we would be frankly more compatible if we had a garage as to the extent of increase of non-conformity we're non-conforming as a lot size coverage and also a rear sideline setback if you approve the special permit the sideline setback in the rear will be unchanged and we meet uh the sideline setback where the garage is proposed uh the coverage at 20% would be less than what was previously allowed in this neighborhood until the change in zoning uh we formerly could have 25% uh and I'll I'll get into the zoning change but I think it's important to remember uh that when zoning changes in this neighborhood other neighborhoods were made the voters were told that you they would always have the ability to go to the zoning board of appeals for Relief this is not a developer seeking to build a speck House of of 12,000 square feet this is a homeowner who wants a garage and that is what we when we change the coverage limitation for that matter when we upgraded the zoning from 10,000 to 20,000 Square ft that is what the V voters were told that the zba would have the ability to Grant relief when it was appropriate as to the suitability of site it's an older residential neighborhood the site is long suited for residential use there are no environmental issues and the site is obviously suitable for continued residential use as the scale sighting Mass USS and Vistas neighborhood visual character what is there now thank you Sarah is an attractive Cape the scale is comparable uh with many in the neighborhood it's cited a appropriately there's no real Mass to the house as such and there's no impact on views and Vistas if you prove the special permit will be larger but the scale remains appropriate on the separate handout sheet that I gave you um I presented not in the stapled one but the loose one I presented a couple of options for you to consider if you feel that there is a mass problem with the height uh the hillyards could and their architect could reduce the height and that would be responsive to a letter that the chair will read later and I'll speak about that when the time comes but the details of the garage will match the existing structure the garage again is consistent with the neighborhood and the vegetative screening Shields the closest to butter as the compatibility of use uh there's no change it's a residential use and it will be a reasonable and understandable as well as compatible use to have a garage adequacy of water and sewer there is title a Title 5 system and town water it will remain a three bedroom house again we'll be converting the existing second floor bedroom to a home office and the chair will read a letter from the Board of Health in that regard all utilities are there so the question is as you know whether a small garage is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing house on a non-conforming lot yeah the coverage increases obviously that's why we're here 366 Square ft but the resulting total of footprint of 2,000 square fet is far from being massive the proposed addition in a neighborhood which is completely full of non-conformities is designed to be harmonious with both the existing house and with neighboring properties again all about one of which have garages there is some times an understandable notion that nonconformities shouldn't be extended uh that may be a misapprehension because the statute uh local history and what the voters were told when they agreed to zoning changes allows for increases in non-conformity when there is a finding by you that there is not a substantial detriment resulting zoning board of appeals is a relief valve allowing homeowners to make make reasonable changes when found by you not to be substantially more detrimental and I think the desire to have a garage is a reasonable change the determining Factor need not be coverage per se or a hard number rather whether that coverage creates a substantial detriment to the neighborhood uh there's one letter from an abutter and I understand she's here today at least virtually she had some concerns and that's why we have the options as the height that I'll talk about later but there was no concern about coverage the chair often quotes the purpose and intent of the bylaw which is to manage growth and development so as to ensure appropriate use of land it speaks to the prevention of overcrowding and blight to Health and Welfare and quality of life and preserving the qualities which distinguish chadam as a desirable Community for year round living the additional coverage created by a onecar garage on this lot does not create overcrowding or blight far from it it won't have any negative consequences for health or welfare but it will be a boon and Improvement for the life of Rob and Mary Hillyard and their quality of life as year round residence so given the circumstances uh the criteria and the plans and in this location I I think that you can find not withstanding the coverage that the addition of a garage is not substantially more detrimental I'd be happy to answer any questions thank you is there anybody here or on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application if so please raise your hand for in favor seeing none I will now read the one two three four five seven letters that we have we we hear from Judith Georgio our health agent on 123 2024 who reviewed the plan to renovate and add an addition to the property the dwelling will remain three bedrooms and will not not and it will not encroach on the existing SE septic system she has no concerns then we have a handwritten note from Margaret kavanau 60 Norcross Circle in chadam she tells us um the appropriate s the application is the appropriate siid for the neighborhood and the lot I do not object to the building of a garage at 55 Norcross Circle South chadam respectfully submitted Margaret kavor and that was received on 1212 2024 then we have a note from Mary V Kerns she lives at 78 North Cross Circle and she writes on 121 2024 that she understands the hill at 69 Norcross Circle um um plan to um make an addition um and that the family at 42 Shirley Road have made concerns about that proposition um she states that the property at 69 Norcross is not close to the wetlands to cause the issues and as far as Shadows go of the hills planted mature Landscaping they would also cause Shadows since this addition has already been approved by the town of chadam I see no reason to go forward the hills have been very instrumental in keeping nor cross Circle in compliance with with the Town rules for private ways I.E snow removal uh Cecilia Ys Mary V Kars then we have a note from Joshua Baker from 121 2024 he lives at um 55 nor cross Circle and he is supportive of the proposed construction at his next door neighbor's house to add a garage and room above it please let us know if anything is needed from our end to move this towards the construction next we have a note from Paul and pigy fera 83 Glendon Way South chadam on 1210 2024 um he tells us that there him and P Paul and Peggy are writing in support of the neighbors's proposed Edition at 69 Norcross um The Hills Have Always Been responsible neighbors and we are confident they will continue to be as they move forward on this project next we have a note U from Christopher and Elizabeth Goram 49 ch Drive South chadam on 124 2024 and they say that they're writing to express concerns regarding the proposed addition at 69 Norcross Circle since the existing residence is already exceeds 15% of the maximum lot coverage and the proposed garage and bedroom Edition is weighed to the northwest of the lot perhaps a roof height that is lower or equal to the height of the existing building might not only feel more uh consistent with neighboring roof lines but also cast fewer Shadows while we certainly appreciate the desire to maximize one's property having just been granted our own special permit Hing as closely as possible to the limitations set forth by the protective bylaw will go a long way to preserve the look feel and beautiful natural environment of South chadam one of the many reasons our neighborhood which is so close to the Red River and fragile wet lands is special is because it has been it hasn't been overbuilt we'd also urge our neighbors to consider replicating the permeable driveway that they currently have which is not only attractive but could also help with the potential water runoff a concern exacerbated by the fact that 69 Norcross is also cited on a hill next we have a letter from georan and Steve denzo 27 Shirley dve they write to us on November 25 2024 that they are writing in support of the Hill project at 69 Norcross we agree with the changes that are proposed and that concludes the letters is there anybody here or on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak against this application or has a specific question seeing none okay questions or specific uh concerns by the board starting with Virginia Fenwick okay Mr Lichfield um so the driveway is moving over to the and um will it be permeable to the question that the neighbor had I don't know it will be permeable it will remain gravel or shell or something like that so okay um what about the AC right now it looks like it's in the spot where the garage is proposed H is that moving I didn't see where it was going to go you know I don't know the answer to that Mrs hilard perhaps you could come forward because they can't hear you from there thank you thank you very much yeah welcome when you get to the mic just please state your name hi Mary hilard 69r cross Circle um the piping from the h the AC can remain because of it will be inside the garage the actual unit will just be turned to our backyard okay thank you all right so it so it's pretty much going to be where it's showing here what about generator have you thought about adding one of those I have my husband hasn't so if you'd like to speak with him about adding one I'd be very appreciative of that well I just am asking because of you know your your lot size if that would have been contemplated yeah just so that you just so we all know and for the public as well under the current zoning Bogue which may be subject to change uh Eric exterior mechanical Appliance units have to meet the setback for structures and are not viewed as an extension of a nonconformity for better or worse so a generator may be a challenge but that's for later okay uh one last question similar to the comment that neighbor number 49 asked was there consideration to or would there be to not having the Second Story on the garage the the three iterations which I handed out are intended to be responsive uh the they for starting from the top they are four feet lower and six feet lower than what is proposed now the potential issue is the appearance because of the pitch i' defer to Mr V and and Mr Acton to opine on whether the uh pitch on the uh Gable end would be as attractive if lowered uh we would be lowering the Ridge height but to do so would change the pitch so the the hillyards would like to have uh a home office uh many of us have them today and the only way to do it is to convert one of the bedrooms and and have this bedroom over over the side but I think that reducing the height uh as well as maintaining the permeable driveway would be responsive to one of the one of the uh commenters okay that's all I had thank thank you okay we'll go over to Dave V since his name was mentioned thank you questions or particular concerns no I don't really have um questions or concerns I can see that the proposal of the the um for the the ridge is matches the uh the the Gable facing the street on the other end of the building um I guess one question question um it it looks like in 1999 there was a couple of additions made to the house and I'm wondering if in fact that living room was a garage at one time and was converted over my my understanding is that it was long before the hillyards owned the house but my understanding is that that had been a garage at one point in the past and the a younger family lived there had kids and I think they wanted a place to shove them off to the side and that was where it was and then the ridge elevation of the existing house is I I'm sorry I had trouble finding it it's on the site plan I believe Mr rton it is oh she's only calculated for the the addition the addition uh but based on the handout that I gave you we could probably subtract it out um because well let's see if she has it on here oh the ridge elevation of the existing house is 62.4 uh but now we're talking apples and oranges in terms of I mean clearly as as designed the garage would be taller but we could go with any of those options that if the board felt it warranted to lower the ridge okay thank you David Nixon questions or comments that you're concerned about well uh my comments uh and my concerns are the height of the proposed addition certainly uh to me it's certainly too much but um I'm glad Mr Acton asked that question because when I looked at the house I meaning about was that not a garage to begin with and it would be ludicrous to suggest that you return that to a garage because that just isn't going to work and you'd lose the space that you're looking for above it uh so to convert all that so I guess um I come down that um I can't say it's a great thing for the neighborhood but it certainly would not be um over the top we'll say as long as the bottom iteration that you presented was what was approved and I think you said that would be 6 feet down something like that if if my sense is and I haven't spoken with Rob or Mary directly but my sense is that the iteration that acquires four votes will be the acceptable iteration okay Paul well I had I had the same concerns about the height on the uh on the addition um what's the effect of reducing the height um on the addition uh on the interior use of the of the it it could still be allowed because of the pitch changing there could still be a second floor a bedroom up there and uh as you come up to the property the it looks as if uh there's a lot more there than actually is because they've sort of ignored where where the road line is and so forth uh but I wonder if they considered um moving the septic tank and just putting the garage on the right hand side of the building as opposed to the left I think we might have a street setback problem putting it there regardless of the yeah we would we oh I see what you're what you're saying in terms of of the I think at extending forward uh well we'd have a setback problem from uh Fair viiew Drive because it's a a laid out street so do you think you would not be able to put the garage on that side I don't think there would be room the garage is yeah I rather suspect that it had been reviewed by uh bernardet before she came the garage is5 F feet it would be awfully awfully tight I'm not sure would work Paul there actually seems to be a gravel uh parking space up in that area at least from what I saw um to the uh as you're looking at uh the house from Norcross Circle to the right hand side of the uh septic system yeah I I don't know the history of that okay um and what is there any concept of what they're doing in terms of the back line The Stockade Fence is who's on the side there's I noticed that as well there's no intent to to remove it the neighbors didn't request it if the neighbors ever did uh I think the the helard would do the right thing the fence has probably been there for a very long time looks like the fence is there and it looks like the patio also goes over the line it appears to again that was I I believe that was there the fense and I can't swear to it but I suspect both were there when the hillyards purchased the property okay I have no other questions Lee thank you um for um Jay or Sarah if they just wanted to build a regular garage would they have to come before Zone and get approval as well just a regular no two stories without the living space above I think they could well they over on the coverage so building coverage is why they okay they still would okay if it complied with coverage then they wouldn't okay okay um the if I could the Borland gave an example of everything complied except for lot size that a onecar garage would be allowable but we have a coverage issue to begin with and um my other question is um instead of reducing the pitch could you reduce the pitch quite a bit and put some dormers on the garage and help would that help I don't know I'm not a builder unfortunately Miss hobby I can't give a definitive answer and I don't see burned that online so I I can't answer that Steve if you if you're done leave yeah um just a couple of quick ones um What Becomes of the of the existing parking area umum Bel lawn vegetation yes planted so that would be removed and I'll interpret it would be removed yeah okay okay and then I I didn't see it in the um in the letter from the Board of Health but I um and I guess it's because you're removing the closet um and what's going to become the office yeah it's a walkth through my understanding is that the board looks at a room through which one has to walk to get to another room is not having sufficient privacy right to be viewed as a bedroom right so the fact that you're removing the closet they didn't say anything about removing that door at the top of the stair no but if if Judy would like that done tells us no her letter spoke for itself but I think you know it's easy to do but I don't think it's required okay all right was it thank you um and J you already asked your questions and I don't have any questions so Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into the deliberations da each seconds and votes yes Ed acting votes yes I vote Yes all votes yes yes okay um deliberations Steve um well I was a little concerned about the amount of block coverage but um you're sort of behind an aall here you have the second smallest lot in the in the neighborhood and if it was more in line with the with the other Lots you know 14 15,000 square fet the percentages would be substantially lower so we we might not have so much of a problem so I was a little concerned about it but um we didn't get any really any letters complaining about over usage of the property um I kind of like the the renderings that you gave us the the lower pitched roof it's I think it's more in line with the what used to be the garage and it kind of balances out the house so um um it meets the setbacks and things especially on that side of the of the of the property um so I don't think I would have a problem with it okay uh Jenny so uh I recognize that the coverage ask is kind of small at 366 square feet but while it's seemingly small it is representing 21% of a building coverage ask because the lot size is that small however I think the fact that it's a garage and not just another room that they're adding makes a very big difference in my mind um you know we have four or five months of winter here and I think it makes a lot of sense to have a garage um I do prefer option three uh I I lowering it a little bit um even considering the one story but I get the fact that if you're going to the expense of all that addition that you you know wouldn't want to take advantage of adding a little more space to the top so I I i' want to do that as well um and then I do think that aesthetically it's preferable to have the parking on either side of the drive of the house and not in the middle of the front yard where it is now so um those are some of my thoughts and Lee I agree um first of all very attractive house um and I am in favor of garages as well um I like Jenny am in favor of the lower pitched roof I think it just Blends better with the house I think it fits in the the taller version um just didn't just didn't really seem to match with the rest of the house so um I'm not voting today but I would vote in favor if they would do a lower pitched version okay um Dave be yeah um well I don't um I here you know for myself uh I don't think that the original proposal is is out of line necessarily with I think that the concern of the neighbor and thinking about shadows and things they're they're quite a distance from this building and I don't think that except in this time of year when Shadows cast much further there would even be anything even close to Shadows approaching their property from this few extra feet uh on the roof that said I hear what my fellow board members say and so I can go along with any of the pctures that have been proposed um I don't think part of um my take when in looking at this um is I and I did my initial look was well gee it looks a little tall and and narrow in in a way it's I mean the emphasis is more is is more vertical emphasis for this portion of it as over the other part of the house that said in my synthesis of this when it's if were it constructed as presented when it's completed I don't think it would look out of place at all keep in mind to a certain extent in the presentations and I don't think there's any there I think it's good that the designers will do things like on the on the addition they show shingles and various things that you know to help us distinguish what's the addition but I think that that visually also can change our perceptions of it somewhat so all that said I'm I'm can go along with any of the root pitures that have been proposed um and uh I I don't and I think any of any of them when all said and done are it's going to look like it fits the building and fits the neighborhood so it's not substantially more detrimental in any way shape or form right Dave Nixon well as I stated earlier I was concerned about the height and the appearance and you're sort of getting into almost a massing category and question but I could readily accept the third version that shows the roof I think six fet lower from the pit the The Ridge and uh uh it would fit into the neighborhood if you did that can I clarify sure yeah I a little bit trying to read some of this a little small the print small and things but uh I think that the um the ridge on the third proposal I believe is about 2 feet lower than the originally proposed uh Ridge and that's just I'm looking at the pitch and the width of the building and it's around two feet shorter than the not six not I don't think I don't believe it's six feet no it says 26 okay we're in deliberation so please it looks to me like it says 26 the number the tiny number on the third one yeah yeah okay where are we Ed yeah um I mean architecturally I I would love to see the the same um design that used to be the garage for the new garage but I understand you're you're limited over there I think that would design wise might look the best but but you you have setback issues um as far as uh the height um I I guess I I guess it would be nice uh to take in some of the neighbors concerns uh uh and perhaps uh you know reduce the height a little bit uh um other than that I I don't have any concerns so you'd vote Yes on the third option I would yeah and can you say you'd vote no in the one or two would you uh I um I don't think there's that drastic of a difference so I could I could vote for either one two or three what about you Mr Nixon if it was one or two would you have voted no yes because I've been offered three choices and I'm trying to take the best one for the neighborhood okay yep yep I just curious I can't vote Yes on so I'd only vote Yes on on the one what happens when you offer us choices you know you you give a mouse cookie anyway um I think that I I I actually know in the past this board has actually given a variance for someone that wanted a garage so I think that we're very sensitive to garages and I think this is I would go with one two or three but I do agree that three is nicer and I'm not voting um so oh did Paul talk yet no I'm so sorry Paul that's all right um well when I looked at the uh plans uh my initial thought was that the height was a problem um and that was before I received any of the neighbor input um I guess just for clarification on the record it seems to me that uh the preference that I have and I think Mr Nixon is expressing and others is a 127 pitch which is the the uh bottom uh example um that you suggested in your handout um which it seems to me makes some sense there's a there in good hands in the sense that they have the ability to make use of a large portion of the area in there as part of their law which is really not part of their lot um and so that's worked out well for them um but it seems to me that um uh the the iteration which is most acceptable uh to me and with guar of my vote would be the 127 pitch on the on the new addition yeah so do you have any issues with um time limitations or what are your thoughts on conditions uh I think we would accept the conditions I would expect that and Sarah Jay and I and bernardet can agree that it is the bottom of the three and we'll I'll ask bernardette to provide uh final plans okay so Paul all right I'll move to approve the application as submitted with the with the change that the roof pitch on the addition will be 127 uh as opposed to the original proposal of 1210 and um also with the condition that all construction activity and vehicles will be contained on site or at a neighboring property with a permission of the property owner uh between June 30th and Labor Day no exterior construction will be allowed no work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. only all right Dave oh motion oh you did that was a motion Dave Dave V seconds with a a slight qualification not hoping that this is not being too fussy but in the construction world we would refer to that as a seven in 12 pitch rather than a 10 as opposed to the original was a 10 and 12 pitch so I'm just shift those numbers around uh and I vote Yes all right Ed uh Ed Ed Acton votes yes for the um I guess the 712 pitch I vote Yes PA votes yes Jenny votes yes all right pitch perfect thank you very much it's unanimous thank you come again all right next we're going to go to 36 Doom Drive and that will be 24-1 132 I do not sign this application number 24-32 Richard C pusio Jr and Karen pusio car th Eldridge 1038 Main Street chattam M 02633 owners of owners of property located at 36 Dune Drive also shown in the town of chadam assessors map 16a block 10 lot C6 the applicant seeks to enlarge extend or change a non-conforming dwelling and a non-conforming lot via the partial demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of additions the existing dwelling is non-conforming in that it is located 18.2 ft from the Souther Leo butter 20.3 ft from the Norther Leo butter and entirely within the coastal Conservancy District flood plane elevation 13 the proposed addition will be non-conforming and that it will be located 18.6 ft from the sou leab butter where a 25t set back is required and entirely within the coastal Conservancy District where a 50ft setback is required the existing building coverage is 2,820 square ft and the proposed building coverage is 2,845 Ft where 2,800 ft is the maximum allowed the LW is non-conforming in that it contains 101.6 ft of Frontage where 150 ft is required and 0 feet of buildable Upland where 20,000 ft is required in the R40 zoning District a special permit is required under m ER Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5 b of protected bylaw Mr Eldridge welcome thank you good afternoon that Eldridge east Southeast here representing the poos so I was before um conservation five six years ago with the same project with just a dormer the poos created more added the Dormer onto their Building without requiring zoning and they kept under the 50% rule for FEMA we're doing the same now except they want to do a little more work that will require zoning relief along with conservation they're still intending to keep under the 50% rule I think your microphone might not be that close yeah thank you good so yes they're they're staying underneath the 50% rule by just doing a little project they want to take out the existing garage and the second floor and put on a new one the current floor level in there behind the garage is at 132 and under our requirements that should be at 14 uh they're proposing it to be above elevation 14 so that'll bring that part into Conformity the first floor of the main house is still at 13.8 and will remain so they won't be able to do any additional building permit to the property for 5 years without bringing the entire thing into Conformity with the um with the vertical separation so we do have a lateral expansion on this one um I was able to put one stake in there's a very small jog in the back of the garage they'd like to can't lever it out to just Square everything off and in the front where the step is now they'd like to square that off as well so these uh lateral expansions are not really expansions it's not changing the impervious nature of the property but nevertheless they are expanding the footprint there's a Cinderella deck in the in the back of the property um I've had a small handful of clients who have put these in and they've actually used them but most people add these in and find them to be seldom used poos are no different they would like to remove that and that's what brings our setback into Clos into Conformity by by increasing the distance to that lot line by 4/10 of a foot the size of the site should be adequate we're using a lot area to the record mean high water and if anyone made it out to the back and looked at the Dune there's a lot of land out there that just continues to go technically the lot extends there and and the lot area is is significantly larger resolving out who owns what out there there that's a big project that I'd rather not get into so we're going to use the record lot area but just leave in there that we have more uh the compatibility of the proposed structure with neighboring yeah this is on the larger side but it's not the largest house in the neighborhood we have a 3329 nearby that that um is certainly larger we're maintaining the same well essentially the same footprint 25 Square ft greater uh living space is going to increase by a very slight amount they do have living space on the second floor now and they're just replacing the same we're not looking at any impact on neighboring properties we're not regrading changing Storm water or storm water runoff patterns the proposed Edition is going to match a similar I'll say tower on the property next door that one's smaller but that that one doesn't have a bedroom in it this proposed Second Story Edition is as far from duno drive as possible and uh so we're not expecting any real impact on the the scale sighting or mass residential use we have an adequate septic system and all the others except for the lateral expansion are covered uh the lateral expansion is that 25 fee which is all cived maintaining the perious nature on the property if there are any questions I'm happy to answer them thank you so much is there anybody here are Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application if so please raise your hand seeing none I will read the two correspondences that we have from internal agencies first one is from Judith Georgio on 123 2024 she tells us she reviewed the plan to renovate and reconfigure this property it appears the dwelling will maintain the existing five-bedroom layout and it won't encroach on the existing septic system I would like to see existing floor plans to confirm the existing layout prior to final approval for construction our other notice from the Conservation Commission from November 25th 2024 the project was heard on November 13th 2024 continue to December 11th to review the requested revisions if the revisions are approved the project will be revised in condition to meet the performance standard under the applicable law that concludes our our messages and now is there anybody here or Microsoft teams that wishes to speak against this application or has a specific question seeing none questions or concerns by the board Steve um what is the the the motivation behind um doing this addition is it mostly to get the everything on sort of on the same plane yeah this is it's not terribly dated but this addition went on a few decades ago and and they'd like to revise it and then it's we're actually not going to be at the same plane it's one step up now instead of being one step down okay but it's it's more in line with the rest of the house yes yeah and then um it it's kind of interesting that you use sort of a a hip roof design for the addition is that an attempt to to minimize the the overall height uh not only that I mean we are raising it's going to be 4T above the existing Ridge um and again looking at 40 dun Drive they have a similar Tower stck that's that's kind of an interesting way to do that instead of a Gambrell or something else that's a it's a good welcome switch thank I I do like to avoid gambrells when possible thank you okay Jenny questions or concerns um I have a question question too about the reasoning for the hip roof um but you you you've answered it's primarily because of the extra height the visual impact of the that side is that the reason I mean that's part of it they they want to have a a full second story and rather than Dormers or Gambrell or other roof line um this gives them the the ceiling space that they'd like um I think it looks decent does it have a door like the back of the house from so from the front of the house it is um looks like it's one story because you don't see the windows but in the back they're dormered out and it is two stories um you doing that in the back with this too or so the hip roof portion if you look at the elevations and I'm sure Sarah will bring them right up and you can see that South elevation this is only in the back half of that addition and so okay from the back so see the back looks yeah okay yeah so you are proposing a similar look from the back except for a taller roof where the Dormer that they added five six years ago uh it's very flat roofed okay that's all I had that thanks Paul no questions and um Lee while we're over here no questions Dave I have no question questions uh new questions and David Nixon I that the um the addition as designed to me uh doesn't add to the attractiveness of the home as a matter of fact I think it acts the other other way and I'm kind of disappointed to see the roof kind of cut off with a pair of scissors or whatnot you know in order to make it and am I correct in assuming that the garage will not be used to store automobiles I'm not sure it's yeah it it doesn't certainly some of the ones I own wouldn't be fitting in there you know um it kind of looks like you know just the opposite we had in the previous application where they wanted a garage to get the cars away from The View here they're going to be now there's plenty of places to park outside but um it it seems to me it's going in the wrong direction if that's if that's what's happening so I don't know um have you discussed with them a different look to the second floor of this addition I have not it was really Ted Spencer was the one who was drawing up the plans and and we reviewed different roof lines different roof types and it it just um and I seem to be the only one that's concerned about about it but it it seems to I mean the the house and the ones around it on that street or Circle have a similar flare and attractiveness and all of a sudden uh this throws us out of whack you know uh but I didn't hear that from others so um Paul did I already go to you I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations uh David CH and votes yes uh Ed Acton votes yes yes PA votes yes yes and uh okay that does it um okay deliberations uh David Nixon might as well finish your thoughts well to finish my thoughts I'd like to see an alternative to be honest with you I I just I can't believe that what they want to do can't be figured out in a in a far more attractive way and what I'm speaking of and our criteria is I as it's designed I really really don't think it's compatible with the other houses in there so um I guess I'm leaning on saying that uh I I don't think I have enough information and that this is the the alternative that should be done uh for me to vote Yes I would have to be convinced that that would true if not uh I would feel that uh the inform uh I was sure changed and I'd vote no M okay David Beach um yeah well I have a little bit different um perspective on this take on this um because I have some familiarity with the house next door um and uh the one and and the house next door does have something similar to this uh it has a little Tower it's more it's more on the backside of the water side of the of the uh house and uh and I'm I know or knew a former uh member of the family that owned that property and so had to spend some time in inside but also I'm aware of it because I can see from um our bedroom window I can see this the the tower if you will on the house next to it on do drive so I think that they I I so I when I saw this proposal I saw saw that they had T So taken their queue from from the house next door now this is more prominent than the one on the neighboring property uh but I don't it's it's kind of an interesting um I I I don't think they're in the going in the wrong direction necessarily I mean you could see if you're looking at the the um existing situation it's a very flat fairly flat roof uh Dormer on that space up there and doesn't really look very well in its present state so I understand they're wanting to get some more head room and get so thus they they need kind of need to go up in some way um you know this hip roof to me Works primarily because of the building next door there are probably some other treatments they could give it that that would be a little more tricky a little trickier to um design in a accomplish but it could be done um but as it is I don't think and given the location um and the house next door and sort of string of of properties along there if it doing it in this way I don't I don't think would really be substantially more detrimental in the neighborhood and I could support it right Jenny what say you well I don't love it either visually that's not within our criteria the design but um I think if I'm hearing what Dave e is saying the house that's similar is it's in the back so you don't see it that's why we didn't see it yeah okay um one of the things that I mean it's a beautiful home and and the property is magnificent it sort of telescopes bigger you know from lower to then bigger to then I mean I'm sorry yeah and so it to me it's throwing the balance off and I think that's why I'm struggling with the height of that however they they want a second story on a garage and that's um but on its face this application uh does not meet setback one of them Frontage CCD Upland and building coverage so it's you know it's kind of an ask if you think of however all of those things are very small I mean they're they're modest in they're not meeting the requirement so while I don't love it I don't think I could say it's substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood I'm leaning that way okay Ed yeah I say I have to agree with Jenny I don't I don't love the design um but I don't believe it's you know substantially detrimental to the neighborhood um one thing perhaps that could be done U that Mr Nixon might not like actually but uh not a coula but perhaps a a rail detail on that flat spot almost to make it look like a widows walk or something like that maybe a detail to to help but um I I don't see it being substantially detrimental to the neighborhood and Paul well I agree with the comments that the the other board members have made it's it's uh I think they're trying to keep the look as being low and in the dunes uh with the uh cut off roof um it's actually one of the things I noticed out there was when you look at 33 on D drive there's actually a cut off detail in the back of that um as you're looking up towards the lighthouse um so overall I think uh I don't think it would be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and Lee um well I agree with a lot of my colleagues as well it's not my favorite design um I'm wondering if there is another way to get the space that they want with a different roof line the different roof not the hip roof um um it doesn't for me it doesn't match the rest of the house and I know your houses don't have to match completely or be completely symmetric but I'm not voting so um I I you know I don't know I I think that um it wouldn't be substantially more detrimental but I personally would like to see another design yeah it's your lucky day because I'm not voting and I have to say I agree with Mr Nixon it's awkward it looks better from the back but um it is awkward looking it looks like you wonder if a car could even fit in that garage and like what's the purpose of the whole thing but I'm not voting so Paul um I'll move to approve the application uh as submitted um I don't think that uh given the location and the size of the lot uh that we need any uh any conditions other than perhaps all construction activity and vehicles that be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner yeah I yeah I agree um uh dve seconds and and votes yes Ed uh Ed votes yes well I vote know I just don't think uh we've been given enough information for me to be convinced uh that this is going to be okay all vote Yes Jenny I'm going to vote no okay so let's give the applicant a chance to withdraw before we do that I think that would be best if we could I appreciate we're we're going to just turn the clock back a second if we could withdraw without prejudice that would that would be awesome appreciate and we'll see you next time I'll move to Grant a motion to withdraw without prejudice uh David seconds and votes yes it Acton votes yes I didn't know I was sitting next to [Laughter] Santa I vote Yes all votes yes j i on the continuing no not withraw without prejudice withraw without prejudice that you caused yes I V okay thank you that's unanimous and we'll see you next time have some good holidays that was good information for the opp okay all right we're going to the third application 106 bliff a we've been to bliff before we're going back and that is going to be uh 24-13 application number 24133 106 barcliff realy trust care of William F Riley Esquire appeal box 707 chattam Mass 02633 owner of property located at 106 bar clip Avenue also shown in the town of chadam assessor map 16g block 9 lot 28a the applicant proposes to change alter expand a non-conforming dwelling on a non-conforming law via the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a new dwelling both the existing and proposed dwelling will comply with all Bulan dimensional requirements but is considered a substantial alteration under the second except Clause of section 6 of M General Law chapter 4A such substantial alteration requires the grant of a special permit the existing building coverage is 860 Square ft 2% and the proposed building coverage is 3,672 Ft 88.7% where 10% is the maximum allowed the lot is non-conforming and then it has zero feet of Frontage where 150 ft is required the lot contains 42,1 78 ft in the R40 zoning District a special permit is required under M General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5 b of the protected bylaw attorney Riley welcome uh thank you uh Madame chair Bill Riley on behalf of 106 barli realy trust uh I've been working with uh Jill uh Buro who is the uh principal in that trust uh this is a situation where we have a lot it was uh created um sometime back in the 60s uh this property um used to go out to Route 28 and the planning board at that time allowed them to remove that road fronted portion of the lot in the in the note on the plan board approval says well there's been an access out to barklay have for many years that's been certainly been adequate and that was that's all they said so we have a lot with no Frontage that was approved by the planning board on uh a definitive subdivision plan which is an unusual thing uh in any event it's a large lot and the structure on it now is is a if you as I know you've been out there is very modest and the families owned it uh the brr uh for 20 years over 20 years and the uh you know families [Music] grow grandchildren arrive and so the they decided they wanted to build a bigger house so the the house they're proposing would be uh on barcliffe as far as I can tell would be the largest house in Gross area uh but you know the because a lot is so large uh we're still uh 1.2% which would be 5 or 600 square F feet below the maximum allowed and the I think the inspiration uh for this uh came from when when the property next door was redeveloped the Marian cane property uh and three significantly larger homes were built there um with the benefit of special permits from the zoning board uh in fact our next door neighbor uh 84 uh barcliff is almost identical in size a little bit smaller squ feet smaller so the the advantage that this property has that many of the other properties don't have um for your consideration is the fact that the structure won't be visible from the street uh and the the uh well the neighbor to the right is you look at the as you look at the property uh who was a represented by Mr litfield there a concern about the opening up of the lot and his property's exposure to this new building I think we've worked out a resolution for that concern but other than that uh you know the the property that you drive through to get to this property that property owner uh has not filed any objection ction and uh I spoke with Jill bodro uh about his the relationship with that property owner and he's a sort of a absentee guy he just rents the house out and rarely comes down and they provideed him with copies but he made no comment so um I think we're in general the house fits in the neighborhood based on the changes that were made on the adjac properties uh and so the design itself uh they have using they're using gamarel Dormers rather than Gable ends and the uh in the the height of the house is more than a foot or is a foot below the maximum height so on lot coverage where 1.2% below the max Maxum on the on the height of the house for a foot below the maximum and the uh uh and it's a so it's a big house but it's on a big lot and so uh i' like to run through the criteria but I believe that there's nothing about this property that is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood so adequacy of the size of the site in terms of the size of the proposed use so the lot has 42,1 78 square feet according to Dave Clark's site plan proposed billing coverage is 8 point was 8.8% 88.7% where 10% is allowed uh and the building meets all current setback requirements which is 25 ft from sidelines compatibility of the size of the pro proposed structure with neighboring properties now we've compiled a list of the properties between Route 28 and uh Shore Road and so there are four that have more than 5,000 square fet a bunch that have 4,000 the older houses uh are in some is considerably smaller our next door neighbor at 84 uh is 758 Square F feet sort of the inspiration for this property so I think that although we are a little bit larger you you could easily find that it's compatible with the more recent changes in the neighborhood the extent of the proposed increase in a non-conforming nature uh because we meet all the dimensional requirements of the bylaw the only increase in non-conformity is the increase in living area uh under the branch for decision it's intensification and nonconformity suitability of the site including but not limited to impact on neighboring properties on the natural environment including slopes vegetation Wetlands groundwater water bodies and storm water runoff here uh the lot is very level as you have seen uh so and there's no wetlands in the area no Wetland vegetation no water bodies um the you we will be removing uh the trees that are located where the proposed house is uh but we will be planting a substantial uh screen of either arbites or leand Cyprus along the Eastern property line uh it's a matter which we've discussed with Mr litfield who represents that neighbor um the if you've been out to the site you know that there's a very heavy vegetated buffer uh that screens the existing house from the neighboring properties so we we have no comments from the neighbors uh regarding U that concern the impact of scale sighting in Mass on neighborhood visual character again this is uh I think the important word there is sighting uh because we're so far away from the street uh that the property the building is not visible from the street so the the um and because of the proposed the existing and proposed vegetative buffering uh the property is not going to have any visual impact on the neighboring properties the uh so there no impact on views Vistas or the streetcape uh and even though it's a large structure we believe uh that it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing structure and compatibility propos use for neighboring uses it's a single family house and a single family neighborhood uh there will be a a brand new septic system source of water is not going to change uh the applicant believes there'll be no impact on traffic flow and safety or noise and litter and utilities and other public services are adequate so that would be our presentation Madam chair thank you is anybody here our Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application please raise your hand seeing none I will read the three letters that we have for 106 barcliff first one's from Judith Georgio dated 123 2024 she's our health agent she reviewed the pro the project she says the dwelling will have four bedrooms which is accept acceptable for the existing 42,000 plus square foot lot a new septic system has been approved for the 440 GPD flow the plan is acceptable next we have a note from Thomas Campbell who has an education doctorate 64 barcliff a chadam mass he tells us on 124 2024 that he is in support of the application seeking a special permit to demolish the dwelling um and con uh construct a new one after reviewing the documents it's certainly reasonable has my full support but he just wonders whether or not they considered leaving the existing dwelling to be an Adu otherwise sincerely Thomas F Campbell 64 barff next we have a lengthy note from Pima s and John J King II 261 George Ryder Road chadam and uh is that what they live no no no sorry they live somewhere else they live on barcliff two two doors down sorry about that okay 92 bliff okay they say that there is inadequate access to safely to safely support the Demolition and construction the special permits application May imply that the construction progress project is forthcoming that is forthcoming would have an adverse impact on my property and other neighbors the chief concern is that the proposed Project's impact on the deeded road access to 106 as it is a narrow dirt road which baile provides adequate access in egress to the three homes it serves on bliff now bliff is bus busy and thickly settled especially during the summer and fall Seasons no parking is permitted on either side the dirt road right of way to 106 backlift is narrow and does not provide options to turn around for larger Vehicles Nickerson disposal and yard maintenance Crews at this time can access only by backing down the right way to get to 106 or 108 these vehicles often damage plantings including a hedge that borders our property line along the way UPS refuses to drive down the lane to deliver packages 106 backlift has zero Frontage where 10 150 is required our lot 92 backlift AB buts the right of way which provides access to both 106 and 108 108 backlift has two homes on it and both are active seasonal rentals with no Frontage the right of way divides the two homes what is the ultimate plan 106 backlift a is at the right of this right of way the special permit states that demolition of the existing building of 860 Square ft this does not match the town of chadam proper property summary report which states that 106 has 1,368 Square ft also the lot total lot size is 41260 not 42178 as the application States what is being demolished the town report says that there is a small detached building are they building a second home on the property if so is there a subdivision on the property being contemplated what is the height and size difference of the proposed structure and are there non conforming setbacks that will affect the six abundance these should be disclosed and circulated repair the right away may be required post construction how will construction equipment access the property without destroying the communal right of way owners at 106 should be required to cover cost repair and repair damages to the neighboring properties um they also should have agreements to ensure proper drainage can be provided for storm water runoff after Construction very likely regrading will be necessary um from sub substantially damaged heavy use by construction equipment we look forward to the zoning board of appeals we look to them to ensure proper safeguards are placed for the protection of a butter properties prior to a special permit and that was on 122 2024 Again by Pamela and John King thei that concludes our correspondences is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wish to speak against this application ma'am please approach the mic and you have 5 minutes just state your name when you get there and this one here Pamela king um we read your letter can you are you going to say anything different than what was in the letter because that was lengthy and it may have already been over the limit but I gave you and I read it well I just wanted to say that um future sewer hookups if they have to run the sewer line back down the rideway they'd have to dig it up a second time maybe they should think about putting it in at this time anything else nope that's all okay thank you thank you for coming and uh sir did you have want to speak against oh did you have a specific question uh I think I I my name is Bill Lichfield I'm here on behalf of Shan Stephanie GL you own 84 uh I'm not specifically I wasn't in support and I'm not specifically opposed on behalf of my clients I do want to have make a couple of points I I not sure that uh my client's house should be accused of having been an inspiration for this um which was said a couple of times the design I recognize you're not a design review board but the design is somewhat problematic in terms of the view from my client's house it will be very visible for my client's house and we're we're sorry to see the loss of a dozen or so cedar trees which have been there for a long time and which are shown to be removed however as Mr Riley said uh we have discussed uh the proposal and if the board sees fit uh to approve it so long as there is a condition requiring the installation of a vegetative screen of Leland Cyprus or Arbor VY along the easterly property line uh we would not object to the petition Mr Riley and I have a slight difference of opinion as to how far south U that planting should be done Sarah if you'd be gracious enough to put up the site plan please thank you it's not Terri thank you there is uh in light uh print just to the south of the 195 ft measurement there's an arrow on the right hand side right there that says proposed vent uh we're not entirely sure what that vent is for whether it's for an IA septic system or whatever else in any event we would like to see the vegetative screen of Arbor VY or Leland Cyprus go that far uh I think Mr Riley is is I can't speak for him but my sense is that his clients are not willing to have it quite go quite that far but so long as the board imposes a condition uh for a vegetative screen and that it be established and maintained uh we would not object to the petition thank you thank you um rebuttal time unless there's anybody online or anybody else that wishes to speak again star has a specific question I just want to make sure NOP don't see anybody else okay robotto okay Sarah excuse me can we have the safe plan again please the um so I met on the site with Bill and it's hard to see but there were you can see there fense post marked along the property line if you look on your so what what and the portion of so there's a pool here in the backyard of the neighbor's house then the portion of the neighbor's house that faces this property is a garage if you recall if you've been out there so we're a little mystified why he wants to protect the view from the garage but we're happy to do it uh so they have some arivi and some other another significant Tree in here and we said well we'll take uh either arav Le and Cyprus as the parties may agree and come along uh through F five sections of fence which is 50 or 55 feet or so um but it doesn't get down here I said well if we're worried about the vent pipe we'll put something around it know some shrubs or something um and we've also discussed that we would give Bill's client permission to plant it would have to be on our side of the line and this is what we've discussed but if he wants to add to the 50 feet or so that we're going to put up of L and Cypress oury he would have our permission to do that and that's one of the things things we discussed today so we think uh covering so let's say it starts here it goes to uh see here's a shed right past the shed so we would put up a line there that is between the house their house and our house the portion of the driveway that uh build is talking about is really just a driveway so uh we felt that our offer was generous enough and we're willing to let them do any more planting that they want to do and so we we believe that uh we're happy to accept a condition that we do a minimum of 50 feet of vegetative barrier beginning here and going down 50 feet but other than that we think that's plenty of protection because it it screens his house from our house our proposed house anything else no I think the the uh I think that you know given the fact that Mr lichfield's client his house is 7500 gross area we're 7700 gross area our lot is actually bigger than his lot so I think this is an appropriate use because you can't see it from the street or from the neighbors properties know that it's it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood yep and I know you know Bill's client is one person not the neighborhood but we were're willing to Shield his house from our house so we think that uh our proposed use with that requirement for doing the vegetative buffer is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing structure and an answer to the question from Mrs King the um or maybe there's a question the from Mr Campbell Dr Campbell the existing house is going to be removed uh the driveway which the budros have used for over 20 years and they maintain it now uh they anticipate that there will be you know substantial Vehicles going over it and they'll be repairing it when it's when it's done to the existing condition and width as you recall when you drive onto the onto the my client's property the driveway is paved and the new driveway will be paved as well okay thank you um questions from the board or very big concerns that you want to address now uh Paul well that uh access is extremely narrow and um I'm trying to figure out how construction trucks and so forth they going to go down through through there and not damage it well the the uh I think that it's not in the first place it's not that narrow what's happened is some vegetation is encroached so to the extent necessary they'll trim up the vegetation so they don't damage it uh and the my car is not a big car but you know I wasn't brushing up against things on the way down and even large trucks are uh aren't any wider than seven or eight feet so I'm not concerned I think uh the concern about uh the narrowness of the width uh uh doesn't reflect the actual width of the way on the ground just this is the concern about growth encroaching which can be corrected who's whose Hedges are those are those your clients what along the driveway yeah well that's a good question I I assume that they would belong presumably to the owner of the property who would be um the owner between us and the road but we have a right to maintain our access and on on the uh on the subdivision plan you know the access was deemed to be adequate by the planning board because it's either 10 or 12 feet wide so we have a right to maintain that width they haven't done it up till now because you know it's just single family vehicles in general but they do have a right to improve the width uh you know to the design widthh so I I think that's just trimming the bushes that's all and do you anticipate that during construction all the construction of vehicles and so forth to be on act on site yes I do if you put up the site plan again I mean as you can see if I can point this in the right direction so we have a scroll up a touch you can see we have this whole area here where the motor vehicles uh or construction vehicles could park without going on anybody else's property so we have more than enough room that area is all trees right now well there there are some trees here uh but they're going to be creating this driveway as well so several of those trees are going to be removed but even down here I mean there's still plenty of room on the on the on the lot for the work plus they're going to demolish the building in the back as well so there is uh really a lot of room for the construction vehicles um as you as you point out the the one neighbor who has a problem with respect to uh a visual uh look and the need for screening uh is only one person doesn't represent the neighborhood um is that also true with respect to square footage that the square footage that's involved here is substantially larger than the anything else in the neighborhood other than other than number 84 right that's correct and if in the uh but this is not a situation that we usually face where the new where the new building is visible from the street has a dramatic impact on their immediate neighbors and on on the streetcape here because the sighting of this building we believe that uh the size because we're still under the building coverage the allowed building coverage by 1.3% uh that uh it's not oversized for the property it has no there's no visual impact that's really the concern I think scal sighting in Mass what's the visual impact of the property on the neighborhood and because at this point really the only person who' be able to see it is Mr lichfield's client and we're prepared to screen his view as well uh you know there's no there's no none of the visual impact is usually a concern when somebody's building a large house like this one uh so even though it is larger than the other homes you know our neighbors only 200 square feet smaller uh and there are several homes that are over 5,000 square feet that are visible from the street so it's about scale sighting and mass because we're sighting this so far away uh the scale of the building and the mass of the building really have no impact on the neighborhood visual character including views vises or Street Scapes so that's why we believe it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood do you think your question was answered Paul yeah I have no other questions yeah no I just meant yes yes I think so Le questions comments yes just a question um back to the street in the driveway the budros that is their driveway right and they maintain it including the trimming fixing pot holes anything else right does the um owners of 108 do they have any input on that or well in my conversations with Jill Buro um the owner of 108 does not par participate in any of the maintenance activities it's just just the buroo family does okay so they don't they don't you know they don't ask him to and he doesn't offer to so so they do all the work and they you know and they're going to have I understand the concerns about the condition of the roadway after construction but the family that's most concerned about the condition of that driveway is the applicant's family yeah absolutely because if it's not in good shape then they pay for I mean they have to deal with it okay that's that's really my only question DAV questions and uh concerns um yeah well bill um so in in talking about that planning of the um screening um I noticed that that lot line along there is the entire line is about almost 200 ft so so I scaled off the 50 ft that you were proposing and if that 50 ft is from the corner there The Benchmark no it's not from the corner it's not it comes out probably about I don't know 15 or 20 feet there's already there's already uh existing uh vegetation uh I don't know if it's an ARB or Eastern red seed or whatever it is there's already an evergreen or several Evergreens and then a deciduous tree as well as you come forward from that corner so we were going to start our planting where that vegetation ended you're not starting at the corner but you you're proposing into 50 ft so the so the basically what we're proposing and Bill and I were on the ground there acting like we knew what we were doing and the uh uh so our proposed vegetation would completely screen the neighbor's building he wants to extend it further we're happy to Shield the vent pipe and if he wants to do some plantings which is something we discussed we're happy to give him permission to do it we covered that so let's just go to question that we haven't covered all right so the then I I mean I'm you know I have concerns but I'm not sure that they they are going to weigh in my decision but how many extra trees are coming out to have a circular driveway on this on this uh I don't know they were all marked I know they're all marked I out there it's it's it's it's I don't know it's yeah just in general it's a shame but you might know the number of trees and and actually I think Mr L field even said I want to say eight 29 2 oh wow 29 trees have a yellow tank yeah that includes that includes the building site as well that's the building site as well and I mean I'm just looking at well yeah I understand I believe I understand the some of the reason given to surrounding buildings of why they would choose to site the building in where they have um but when I look at G you know you could do a driveway where you have a considerable turnaround you know enough turnaround space and eliminate that Loop and and at least save probably half a dozen trees but that that's where Bill toing is going to park during construction so who knows I you know I I'm I have mixed feelings about a lot of it but you know I don't own this property and I if I were doing it I'd be doing it a lot differently but I don't own it and so um you know I think those are really my only concerns and Ed uh just one question and I don't know if you can answer uh there was a comment about the sewer line do does anyone know when sewers proposed for this area I'm pretty sure it's a long way off because the you know anything anything actually borders on the ocean is the least concern for you know they're they're concerned with protecting ponds and and bment and things so so so not to be rude but you don't know yeah no okay thank you Dave Nixon well Mr rally um when I first saw the rendering of the new home I said wow and then from your analysis the gross floor it's almost six times larger than what's there now I'm talking about the dwelling not the shed just the dwelling right and it just seems to me to be such a huge jump for a neighborhood to handle from what was there and that's what we were concerned about so could you give us some insight as to why your clients feel that they need something that's six times larger than what they have now well I wasn't aware there was a criteria that dealt with a change in size from what's there to what's proposed I thought we're really supposed to consider what's proposed as it affects the neighborhood I can tell you the reason why they want to build a larger house is that there are children and there are grandchildren and they want to be able to uh house them you know in a house obviously this is a structure they can afford they want to have a nice accommodation for all the members of their family all three generations and so uh that is why uh they had this house designed and I asked that because when I see where on the site plan where it's placed it's it's almost shoehorned into that space getting very close to neighbors and now I know there there's some screening and you talked about some it just it seems to me to be an overreach and you talk about the neighborhood and you say yeah uh and your analysis applicant believes that proposed no home is compatible because the most immediate neighbor is almost identical end of statement but there are smaller older homes it's a very old neighborhood so when I try and determine compatibility I really am looking at everything and I know about the screening that they plan to go in and all that but a lot of screening you know 10 ft let's say that's really maxing things out and starts to look old and lousy and so on so forth and this house I didn't check the height but did you Gent wouldn't check the high is this 29 ft or 30 ft alow okay thank you so uh we still have a lot of home that could be visible over that so I you know I don't buy the argument that putting all this stuff up all of a sudden it disappears it's still there it's still there well all I can do was all I going to do is point out that this board approved the house next door at 7700 gross Fleet or 7500 gross floor area and so you know and I believe they have you know larger coverage our lot is a larger lot where 1.3% below the maximum 10% we're below the maximum height of the building we meet all the setback requirements and to the extent of the alluding to the fact well vegetation might look lousy in a couple of years I suggest you remember what the rest of the vegetation around this property looks like they're all arbiv or leand Cyprus they're all very healthy and very green and very wellmaintained and I would submit to you that my clients when they plant this barrier along the property line with Mr lichfield's clients will do the same thing and the fact that if somebody went up on the roof of the property next door they could look across the ariv and see our roof I honestly don't think that that is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and i' would also point out that other than the concerns from Pam we have one letter in favor and no other letters objecting to the proposal and Miss pdro has discuss this with most of her neighbors and let them know what they're proposing and so I believe that you know the fact that a large house is going to exist in a place that where it can't be seen from the neighborhood or from the neighbors uh I think it's a far reach to say that is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood well Jo with your argument here Mr Riley is and you pointed it out you're talking about the one house that Mr Lichfield represents that 75 the one house it's all the everybody it isn't just the one house and that's what the neighborhood is and it's wonderful to say that nobody can see anything thing and that nobody sent in letters but as you point out or someone did that the owner of I think two of those homes it's never around you know they rent send out and all that so um well that's end of my questions thank you yeah sure um Steve questions and concerns um I guess my biggest concern and it was well there's two there's and they've been sort of touched on address but I was going to ask about the you know who was going to who actually owns that driveway and I guess it's the driveway to that property that comes off a barcliff technically it's the driveway well well the portion of the driveway or the access way that is between right here yeah right so leave it up like that 108 is the owner of the driveway right sorry what 108 bar is the driveway falls on their property yeah so um so one all right so 108 owns from barcliff to up to that house yeah I'm having trouble seeing it where's the where's our Locus right there I don't think so oh I see okay right okay so this is 108 yes this lot here is 108 yeah so they own uh what we call the fee in the way so they own the ground subject to the rights of uh this property to use that so I don't okay so if there's Damage Done To That to you're there's potential damage to someone else's property by driving large trucks over it on to get back to where the construction s is I would disagree with that characterization because you know in Real Property law you know uh property ownership rights are referred to as a bundle of sticks so in this case uh one of the sticks in that bundle is our right yeah to use that way for access to our property so uh so we're going to we're going to we're going to protect the adequacy of that way because it's our access to the property so we actually reviewed that so what we're going to do now is read a comment from the property own 108 so there is a comment from Amanda um we'll just say Amanda V because I do not know how to pronounce your last name she says if it's helpful my family owns 108 barcliffe and we did not submit any concerns because we have none okay I'm on the line and willing to comment on that too as well well can we can we just take you as the word you just said since that um or do you really have more to add is it no that's it all that's great thank you okay so any more questions yeah so I was just I was just kind of concerned about who who uh ultimately is going to maintain that property because it's almost undoubted that there's going to be some amount of Damage Done to that way getting back to the construction site so I just wanted to um you know sort of get it on record that that if there's any damage done it's going to be uh mitigated well it's going to be it's going to be completely repaired I mean they again my client's interest in maintaining the driveway is superior to everyone's except the owner of 108 can we condition him to do that absolutely all right okay all right you know a bigger house means more traffic also so it's not only construction vehicles but it's it's going to be Vehicles so we'll after subsequent yes okay so I would like that and then the other thing or the concern that I had was the amount of trees and we sort of touched on it briefly the amount of trees um that were going to be cut down and I'm not sure circular driveway is absolutely necessary there probably can be other things done but there's also no um official planting plan of how all those trees are going to be mitigated and and I would like also another condition that could be part of the I think it's already going to be part of the condition okay that there's been no you know there's been plus or minus 50 feet of le le and Spruce uh so if this if this is approved then we'll we'll we're going to have to condition that as well if it's approved with a specific number or distance okay we try that okay yeah thank you Jenny questions and uh concerns and then we'll going go back Mr Nixon he has another question okay I don't have a question but I have comments concerns okay okay uh the trees is is one of them there as I mentioned there were 29 that I counted uh you know some they're mostly two Ceder trees not you know pitch Pines that are kind of weak and and don't look so great they're very very attractive and some of them are quite substantial they're really old so I think that's a lot of trees so that concerns me um and then the other concern is uh the size um Mr Riley said you know it's a big house but it's on a big lot and that's true but just because it fits on the lot and it meets the setbacks doesn't mean it fits in the neighborhood um I don't know that I agree that it's not substantially more detrimental just because you can't see it from the street I think that um the chart supports that it's the largest house on the list of 18 other homes so um those are my comments y so um Mr Nixon you had a question for Mr litfield I did uh Mr litfield please we're still in questions so we haven't closed the hearing yet since you had the ability as I understand it to view uh where another hedge might go and all that sort of thing uh would you agree with Mr Riley that putting more whatever there is going to somehow block out the view from your neighbor's house entirely not entirely no uh if Sarah would bring up that aerial again that would be helpful that gives a sense of I do agree with Mr Riley that the the vegetation does not need to start at the where the three property lines come together right there as you can see there is some vegetation on our side so if it ran from the end of that vet vegetation south from there it would be an improvement would it block the view of the house absolutely not leel and cypresses do grow our bravi grows more slowly uh and the only other so I I agree with you that no it would not completely block The View one other point because you give me the opportunity the footprint of my client's house which my client did not build is only 2900 Square ft significantly smaller in terms of footprint than what what's proposed here thank you very much okay so everybody had their questions and comments yes all right Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations Dave be seconds and votes yes head Acton votes yes yes all votes yes jie votes yes all right now deliberations um David Nixon well um it's it's it's the situation that we get quite a bit of where things are maxed out and as Mr Riley's pointed out it doesn't go over the limit doesn't go over the 10% I think in this lot yeah 1.8 1.3% or less Mr Riley we're definitely not going to violate this one um but that doesn't convince me that it's not just to too darn big for that neighborhood and I think Miss Fenwick brought this point up that when you look at everything around uh just because and I thank you Mr lfi for qualifying that his the footprint of his house it's to me it's going to be out of place you can't hide this completely it simply the massing of this is too much I'm concerned that it's not compatible with the neighborhood there's one large house maybe but it's not as large as we thought and there's a lot of smaller ones and so forth so the impact is not on the street but it is to the neighbors and I don't care about screening it still there that impact is still there and the traffic flow if you have a house of this size uh you know there's another so many vehicles and all the rest of it um I just think it's too big a project for this particular lot and when you look at it as I said if you look at how it's shoehorned in here to take advantage of okay well we can fit it here we don't need to use this land over here to the left of it but it fills up it fills up the whole lot in that area no matter which way you want to go it it it's it's simply too big a project for this site okay Mr v um well uh I as I stated as I said earlier I I certainly would not try to develop this site in this manner if I if it were up to me um but it's not I don't own it it's not up to me uh it is a large house it's kind of large and sprawling and you know they're taking down another building Etc but I I guess given and it is true that there are many smaller um buildings in the surrounding neighborhood uh and I but and um it's the question is I mean I think it I think it it it it is detrimental to the neighborhood the question is is it substant ually more detrimental to the neighborhood um and I I honestly think I could argue either way in some to some degree but I am influenced I guess by the um fact that it it's I mean it has no access other than but it has it has no Frontage but it does the as far as the lot coverage and dimensional requirements things it meets the requirements of the bylaw um so as much as I kind of don't like it um I I think that I would um vote for it as not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood Paul well uh I guess the thing that s of struck me was when I after I went in the driveway and I was then looking at the uh plant I thought to myself wow that that's going to be a huge change over what is existing um and what's on the whole approach into uh the property um when I when I look at the question of compatibility of the size of the proposed structure with neighboring properties um I really can't see it as being compatible with the size of the prop the proposed structure wood neighboring properties um there is one property that has the gross floor area but not necessarily the footprint um so uh I'm in the same position as Mr Nixon is I think um I think something more compatible with uh the neighborhood would be something smaller than what's proposed here uh even though it's not necessarily visible from the street itself okay uh Virginia Fenwick that's criteria too and that's where I am as well um which is uh compatibility of size of the proposed structure with the neighboring properties the abutters it's in the middle you don't see it from the street but the um the chart shows that it's a lot of smaller homes and the site visit shows that it's surrounded by smaller homes uh and abouts okay Steve if you voting deliberations um if if I were voting um well I I think this is a very large house and I think it's it's not in scale with with the things that are around it except for one house out of this entire neighborhood um I think it's detrimental to the natural environment with the amount of trees that are going to have to be taken down for this design and even though some some are going to be planted in their place it's these These are pretty old growth trees that are going to be removed and you know the only thing that's that's going to be added is is some screening um so I don't really think that's a fair trade and I think it's going to be detrimental to the the the folks that want to wait whether it's a a Summer Rental or not not there's still people that are going to be living there so I think it's going to be detrimental to them so um I probably wouldn't support it as it is right and Ed Acton you are voting what say you um uh it's a large lot I think the lot can support this house um I like the design of the house um if I was the applicant I would plant as many trees as the neighbor wanted because quite honestly with a house like this that's that's just really a rounding area as far as planting trees um I believe as far as the the road you could certainly take pictures and it's uh at the end of the project the road can be brought back to you know where it was so um I like the design I believe it's a large lot I find myself agreeing with um Mr Riley that you know it really isn't going to be seen by uh by really anyone except for a couple of the neighbors and the neighbors seem to support it so I guess I would I would vote Yes for the project okay and Le last but not least if you were voting if I were voting um well I think everyone's initial or many of ours uh initial reaction was wow and as you say it's a large lot it's a large house um I agree with um Dave be if it were my property I probably wouldn't be doing it this way either but I don't own it um I'm not voting today um I personally would like to see them scale it back a little bit um I just think it would fit in a lot better the fact that you have to screen it kind of says it all but that's I'm not voting so well you can count Mr Riley yeah apparently the numbers really don't make any sense so what you want us to do is clear cut the lot first so we're not cutting down trees for the for the house and without being flipped how do you want to proceed I would request a withdrawal without prejudice very good Paul I'll move to Grant the requested withdrawal without prejudice dve seconds votes yes head acting votes yes I vote yes all votes yes Jenny votes yes all right well that's unanimous does anyone want to take a break five minute break or you want to plow through the next two yeah plow and plow plow plow plow it is all right let's see this next one is Mr R's as well so um that's in 52 depole Road Paul and Mildred Ford 24- 134 application number 24134 Paula Mildred Ford car voliam F fry Esquire PE box 707 chatam Mass 02633 owners of property located at 52 depole Road also shown in the town of chatt chadam assessors map 2B block 36 lot 20 the applicant proposes to change alter or expand a non-conforming dwelling in a non-conforming lot via the construction of additions and a deck the existing dwelling is non-conforming and that is located 14.6 ft from deole Road where a 25t setback is required and 12.8 ft from the Easter Le a butter the proposed additions will be located 11.2 ft from the Easter Le butter and the proposed deck will be located 4.7 ft from the EAS Leia butter where a 15t setback is required also proposed is the removal of two non-conforming sheds the existing building coverage is 1,330 ft 133% and the proposed building coverage is 1,484 square ft 14.5% where 15% is the maximum allowed the LW is non-conforming in that it in that it contains 10,871 ft where 20,000 ft is required in the R20 zoning District a special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw Mr Riley welcome back uh good afternoon Bill Riley on behalf of Paul and Billy Ford the uh owners of this property they they've owned it for quite a while and and uh as we all seem to get ready for retirement some of us earlier than others they uh they wanted to have additional living space in the building so what they're proposing is uh shed Dormer on the front of the building increasing an existing shed dor on the rear of the building and then a small addition uh one one story addition on the back side of the building uh with a proposed deck the uh so the the increase in coverage you know right now uh you know the existing building is can you find where the existing building Is 1330 square feet at 133% okay yeah the print's very small yeah and the proposed is 1484 14.5 yes yep the 1484 I know about the uh so in terms of expansion of the building you know the the proposed addition is is very modest uh and the additions to the structure are in keeping with the style of the structure I.E uh shed Dormers there's already shed Dormer on the rear of the building U they want to add shed ders on the front of the building and expand the shed D on the of the building the uh so it's we think is very much compatible architecturally uh with the neighborhood we're not cutting down any trees I'm happy to report and the uh so I think you know I know we we have a concern from our neighbor uh to the East and the so my my client has authorized me to to report to the board that we would do a a six foot fence uh she and her corespondence with you read she's expressed the concern about the proximity of the deck to the property line but the if you remember the visit to the property the uh her garage the neighbor's garage is here so uh even though this is very close you know there's really just a just a garage in this location it's not living area and so we believe that with a privacy fence which she requests in her correspondence uh that that is suitable uh protection for her she also talks about the moving the shower the outdoor shower already exists if you if you were on the site uh right now of course uh the uh the shower is you right there at the back corner of the building um in the now it'll be adjacent to the addition but again the addition is just if you if you look at the floor plant just gives them a little more uh first floor uh family room space there you go the U enables them to enlarge the kitchen and you know have the property available for use greater use on a year- round basis than the existing structure so runs through the criteria you want to just hit the applicable criteria would that work for you sure because you did you know you did give us some written criteria okay all right so uh we think the size of the ter is adequate we think compatibility of this structure with the neighboring structures uh we think they are very much compatible we have the list on the back and you know there structures of our size and larger and a couple of structures that are somewhat smaller than ours but but again we think you know this is a neighborhood where people are converting what were formerly summer cottages into year round homes and in retirement homes this home was built in 1948 so you know post war things are a little more modest I guess so U increase in the nonconforming nature uh we are moving closer to the lot line but in accordance with the request of our neighbor we're happy to put U six foot privacy fence along that boundary uh we think the site is suitable because it's a level impact of scale sighting of mass really um we think the impact of scale sighting and mass is very modest because we're just proposing uh dormers on the front enlarging the Dom on the back then the small addition which is on the back side of the house and is further away from the street than in the main house so we think that the proposed change with a privacy fence along our eastern border is uh not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing structure okay um is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application or has a specific no just in favor anybody okay seeing none I will read before I read the correspondence I want to say that I I noticed that there is a Teresa Redmond I believe online and we also have she she wrote the letter okay right I was just going to say that thank you um I'm here okay you have a choice ma'am we read the letter or you you can speak when we when we turn to uh the option of if anyone wants to speak against or has a specific question what would you rather do I'd rather you the letter and I'll comment later no we're not going to comment later you have a choice you can pick you can read the okay read the letter so you're going to forfeit your opportunity to speak okay okay okay no actually no I'm going to CH I'm going to change that because I don't agree with the six foot fence okay so okay so I'll read the letter I I can read the letter oh sounds good and then you can add lib sure all right okay very good so I'll get back to you stand by next we're gonna we're going to right now just read the letter from the health department 123 2024 Judith Georgio tells us she reviewed the plan to renovate and add to this property it appears that the dwelling will maintain the existing two-bedroom layout and will not encroach on the existing septic system I have no concerns so that concludes the letters that will be read now is there anybody here or Microsoft teams that wish to speak against this application or has a specific question nobody in the audience but we do have um you online ma'am if you just state your name and do your thing okay my name is Teresa Redmond I live at 42 depole Road uh directly next door to the the Fords um I do have some concerns about the proposed dwell uh the proposed changes okay so the additional dwelling is planed to be located 11.2 feet from my property line it does not meet the current setbacks requirements of 15 fet while I understand that setbacks may vary I'm willing to allow the addition at is depicted in the plans so that's number number one number two the outdoor shower when I looked at the plans I assumed the outdoor shower was being moved from the current location the gentleman that just spoke before me said the outdoor shower is proposed to be in the same spot if is it is in the same spot and it's the same size I don't have any objection okay for the proposed deck um I have a couple concerns about the deck can you please conf confirm the height of the proposed deck um Can someone that I well I'm going to you know the way we're going to do that is I'll ask the Building Commissioner we'll we'll cheat a little bit and uh but I think you should be we no Mr level y just wait um I don't know if we know the height of a of a deck um do we it looks like a low low elevation deck right off the uh addition looks like a step down from the addition a step down from the addition and just have to remind you ma'am you you're only supposed to have five minutes to do this so I'll I'll let you move along okay okay um and then the setback of the deck at the the furthest part to the back of the property is proposed to be only 4.7 feet from my property line which is in my opinion way too close so I would um ask that they stick to the 11.2 ft which is is at the current what the their current properties at and regard so regarding the fence um they I know they said they would do a five I'm sorry a six- foot fence but given that the deck is somewhat elevated and uh the people the I know the gentleman that lives in that property is very tall I would request that a minimum of a s foot fence be installed we just so you know I I'll let I'll let staff tell you about the fence height so fences are only allowed to they need to be under 6 foot from existing grade if they are to be within the required setback area a 7ot SE fence um in this zoning District would be required to meet a 15t setback so they can't do that anything anything else um look my notes that's it okay very good you you're comfortable because you did have a little bit more time just want to make sure you got you you were heard nope I'm concerned about the I'm mostly concerned about the the this deck and how close it the back end of it is to my property right regardless of regardless of fence okay thank you very much and uh is there anybody else here on Microsoft teams that wish to speak against this application or has a specific question seeing none now we're going to go to questions and concerns from the board Dave e anything um well I just I'm um heard the neighbors seem to be okay with the uh proposed 11 point something feet for the addition which is somewhat closer than the existing uh and she it sounds like she's okay with the shower being in the same location as it was but she's not okay with the location in the deck and I I'm kind of looking at a reason why they would want to go that close uh to the uh um so I have to ask why was a proposal to go closer uh even closer with the deck is there an existing deck there now I can't tell from the site plan and just so you know Mr Ry unfortunately we not trying to beat you up or anything but it wasn't Stak I hate to tell you oh usually Sarah calls and tells me and I can I know I know you didn't know I know you didn't know yeah I did tell the surveyor it has to be staked but no I we're not saying it jaal we would have already said jaal the U I assume the reason it goes that way is the continuing if you look at the line of the the angle of the house to the property line they're just continuing it uh parallel to the line of the house I assume that's how it got there you know the the you com I mean I see I see the reasoning uh and I and I didn't I still don't know if there's a deck or patio there I definitely have concerns because the the you know moving the deck even closer um without having gotten a prior discussion or approval NE I have some concerns about that part sure so yeah yeah Ed what do you think uh no questions no David Nixon no questions um Paul yeah I'm I confused uh on the outdoor shower did you say that the shower is going to be in the same location or just that there is a shower there on that side as exists now there's a sh Show there's a shower there and it's going to remain there there's a shower on that side of the building now is this new shower going to be in the same location it's going to be the same shower it's the same shower yeah no no but says proposed outdoor shower well I I know we don't we don't control these the comments they make if you if you drove by the house today or sometime in the previous days on the right hand side of the house there's a a fence enclosure around the existing shower we see it up there very good okay any more questions Paul sure uh yeah just a minute yeah sure um and the configuration of the proposed deck um is there a reason Reon why it has to be at the far corner at 4.7 no no I can answer uh the v's question there's currently looks like a stone or shell patio off the back of the building and they just want to replace it with a deck so they so there's a patio there now the proposal is they have a if you one step up deck if you look uh at the picture on second page course says back uh and right and back you can see you can see the stone uh uh okay yeah I I my imagination to a certain extent but yeah so what so what determines the uh the size of the deck there I mean there isn't there is there's nothing that compels it to be 4.7 feet that's correct and uh the curved line there that's the left hand side of the proposed deck as you look at it from above is that curved for a particular reason I mean where does this configuration come from well it came from an art person the architect and if you look if you look there's a there a uh sort of a ghosted in it says the curved line is around the stone a stone patio it's around an existing stone patio that's what it okay the patio just isn't shown on the site plan that's the only difference right you can't see it very well but it's right yeah oh okay I mean so I mean if the if the if the board you know wants the deck to be further away uh you know and that's a condition of approval if you you know we can we can shift we can shift it over so that the Eastern side side closest to Mrs Redmond uh would be a line that is an extension of the eastern wall of the addition so it would still be still closer yeah it's still closer than than it is now right that's correct okay any chance you can make it same the U if that's if that's going to be a condition of approval the um uh you know I mean they can always put a patio there instead of a deck so it would to be their option I guess okay that's good that's helpful probably information for everybody um to to think about and then let me let me just clarify the the issue with respect to the fence is that a six- foot privacy fence does not have to meet the setback but a 7 foot privacy fence would have to meet the setback it would require a variance and would require a variance yes if it met the setback it would well the setback would be is 15 fet I understand okay I just wanted to be clear as to what I was understanding there all right I don't have any other questions okay Lee um just to clarify the fence would have to be below six feet just below I'm sorry what the fence would have to be just below six feet right okay yep that was just clarifying anything else Lee Steve questions on concerns um well I the fence can only be six feet but could there be a vegetated buffer there that could be allowed to grow to 10t tall because we're talking about a fence and not not something that's going to turn out to fence have I know but vegetated buffers turn out to be 10t wide and these are very small lots and I don't think Miss Redmond wants it on her lot which would mean it would encroach on our lot and would be a huge uge impediment toward the use of our property which is already very small so we prefer to stick with the fence yep then then you know possibly a patio would be a better idea than than a deck because at least you're gaining a a foot uh be a foot lower so uh it might not impact the neighbors as much right okay well then then we wouldn't need the privacy fence true perhaps isn't there already a fence there we're not talking about add there's a portion of offense there yeah portion of offense so we're talking about adding offence along that line okay um yeah I have a quick followup question about the deck so I think Miss what I heard Miss Redmond say is that the her name Redmond Redmond yeah is that she was okay with uh the deck as long as it met the 112 which is the corner of the house right so the deck we're not talking about no deck we're just talking about Shi in it over to the West so right okay so if they do that is is it going to be do you need to step up into the shower or see how there's a little portion of the deck that's on the side of the house presumably you know to get access right into the shower right so can that stay or I mean do you have to have that I don't remember if you have to step up into the um because it' be nice to have that little platform in some way yeah I mean I the uh the um they would like to be able to you know walk on the deck to the to the shower to the shower that that's what I just wanted to make sure that if we if we were talking about the deck has to shift we weren't overlooking that important portion um so I uh but I do agree that the rest of the deck or you know the the length of that deck 26 feet or 28 ft is um you know too far back when it's encroaching to the 4.7 so if that could if the deck could shift over but still accommodate that piece to the shower I um I would just want to make sure that we were um accommodating that in the discussion of the deck change the um well I believe we could do that but uh you know we'd have to revise the plan right yeah I think you'd have that and then there's also a comment from Miss Redmond that Sarah could read just to shed a little bit of light um Miss resmond says regarding the outdoor shower I believe the new plan puts the shower in a new location based on the pictures the current outdoor shower sits behind the current house SL structure not next to it do you agree with that Mr R because that's my memory of it no because what's happening is they're building an addition so right now the shower is behind the house right when they build the addition it is going to be next to the addition if you look on uh so it is going to move no what's moving we're building a new addition so yeah if you look on now mov if you look on what is and there's no such thing as showers and chadam anyway right that's right it's a rent only in conservation jurisdiction um so this would be the third page SAR uh next page okay scroll up oh right there you go so you can see so here's the shower so if the addition weren't there the shower would be outstanding by itself with the addition is going to be next to it good point and so what we're talking about is at least Jenny vote one number one would would think a walkway is a appropriate to the shower but that the deck itself would have to meet the 112 is that correct microphone if we think that if we we should talk about that I just want to make sure we didn't con include that little strip when we said can't have the deck that far over because that does feed into the shower um so in my opinion keep that that and shift you know the the farther the farther north portion of the deck over that's why we need a revised plan so you think you need a revised plan well let's find out if that revision is going to be acceptable to the board okay because we don't want to go revise a plan and then come back and find that it's not acceptable all right so we'll close the hearing and we'll deliberate about that and then we'll we'll know so enough uh I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations Dave V seconds and votes yes Ed acting votes yes yes all votes yes yes okay deliberations David Nixon are we deliberating yeah we're deliberating about all the things that we collected all the knowledge that we've collected over the past few minutes well um I don't see any problem with the way it's been designed and I think Lee pointed out to me something very interesting which is the neighbor that had the concerns the only thing you can see there is the garage and there's no windows right I mean it's not even part of of the living space so uh I'm convinced that the way it was submitted is fine with me and that we don't have to change a thing cool okay very good David be um well it's uh um I actually think that uh the uh a patio is a good solution here to keep remaining a p patio and and a six foot or plus or minus privacy fence uh I do understand the concerns of the neighor with respect to a somewhat elevated deck combined with a six foot fence is really not privacy uh you losing privacy so I think her concerns are legitimate with respect to I mean I yes it is maybe to the her garage but um I think that that this the proposal here is getting quite a bit it's putting structure what we're now existing she's got 12.8 ft and so and she said well I'm okay with the addition because she wants to follow the that line being 11 .2 ft but now you're going to put more structure because the deck the deck is considered a structure am I correct Jay okay deck is considered a structure so now we're gr down to 4. what feet and I I don't think that's in any in anyone's best interest here necessarily so now given that a deck has a structure whether it's 8 ft in the air or 8 in off the ground um they may be better off just keeping a patio there because a patio is not a patio doesn't have to maintain setbacks yeah so I I mean I think if they want the deck and I if they then then I think they I think for me they they they need to find a way to um agree and it's only going that deck's going to be maybe two steps up at at best um and so maybe with in trying to get steps to go down then the shower I don't I don't want to get and all that but they may they may find overall that the um the deck is going to be putting a fair amount of structure in there y that they could accomplish the same thing with a patio with no issues about the sidelines just so the applicant can understand what will it take for you to vote Yes for me to vote Yes I think it has to be that they that they get no closer than 11.2 ft with to the property line with any structure so 11.2 F feet limit to the probation okay very good that that' probably help Mr Riley in the long run Ed uh same for me 112 feet yep okay U Paul yes I agree with Dave V okay and uh lee yeah I I do too I think um I think a patio would be awesome there um I I mean i' like I do like what Jenny brought up regarding access to the shower but I don't think it's absolutely necessary I mean you could put a couple of nice um blue stone flagstone steps or so um I agree with yeah sure Steve if you were voting what would it take um I think I would rather see a patio there and a walkway to the shower and maintain the um 11 foot setback okay and well I I like to honor what the applicant is asking for which is uh a modest proposed addition and a deck I think the deck's too large especially with it um you know encroaching so I think it goes back too far but you know I I think that there's a I don't know you walk out of the house and being stepping onto a deck is a little different than stepping down onto a patio and I think that um they could have a deck if they would just modify the size of it and just keep a portion of it so they can go if they choose to go right into the shower instead of um dealing with patio and grade issues perhaps and a big step up to the shower so I would not be opposed to a deck with a little carve out for the entry to the shower and then cutting off the length of the deck uh shifting it over to the the western side and and cutting off the back part so that it honors the the as close as possible to the 112 um so you'd be okay with a deck as long as it was 11.2 feet away from the with the exception of the shower because the shower the little piece of deck that goes into the shower is not at 112 because the house is at 11 so that's like seven feet I think so it' be like 72 or something like that so would that one part just that one part and obviously enough to you know turn into it and then it they could have a smaller deck okay that's what I I would be okay with that so I came in here thinking what every the others said uh that you need to be 11.2 away and that's the end of the story no matter what it takes so that's what I was thinking just so you know but I'm not voting so um do you want I think we could probably take a vote what do you think Mr Riley well well if we don't have four votes in favor of what's here we have to come back with a revised plan do we have I think we have four votes in favor of having um a patio versus a deck so I think we do well I know but they don't they don't want a patio so they your client doesn't want a patio well I mean I guess I mean here's the other thing it's a tradeoff yeah you know if we have a deck we're willing to put up a privacy fence yeah if we don't have a deck we're not willing to put up a privacy fence so I don't think you have four votes then yeah you probably don't have the four votes then wait a minute I can't count why I should just take a little straw vote straw vote yeah we'll do a straw vote all right okay so as presented not what should be the motion Paul well it sounds to me as if uh if if we if we're going to have a deck then there's going to be a need for a new plan right and that and that's situation you're going to need to continuance to then come back in with a new deck right and you can make a decision whether you want to go ahead with a new deck or whether you want to do a patio in lie of that right uh it sounds to me as if you would have support for a patio with a majority of the people so you guys don't control patios we can put a patio anywhere we want right so so as a result U I would suggest a motion to continue to allow you to revise the plans if you want to do a deck okay would you like to do that yeah I don't think we need much time so first it's going to be February I can guarantee that oh come on we're talking about a minor change to a plan you've already reviewed and and there's no objection to the house we're talking about a let's see what Sarah says we just have a lot I know but this is but let's just see what Sarah says whatever Sarah says we do have a lot of applications I am booking out to February right now um however if it's just coming back for and I'm just looking at the agendas for January um if it's just coming back to review a revised plan how quickly would you be able to turn the site plan around so I can provide it to the board we'll have the revised plan in two weeks okay um that's cutting a little close for them getting their packets they're January 9th packets they'll get um during the Christmas week if you will um so Merry Christmas would it would you be opposed to January 23rd okay well I'll move to Grant the requested continuous to January 23rd okay 2025 and and just just one comment because I I just want to make sure the applicant doesn't waste any time or so it and I don't want to speak for my other board members but I think there was a few of us that said 11.2 feet was as close as the deck could get so I just want to make sure yeah no I understand okay and if I were voting well will I be voting that day maybe not you never know yeah I might well it should be the same vote same people are voting today yeah yep should be all right I think there's a rule that I could say I listened to the hearing given that I was here but uh anyway uh so did you move to make a motion Paul I did make a motion I then I second that motion continue to January 23rd 2025 y yes second and vote Yes yes all vote Yes Jenny just say yes yes done all right last one and this is uh going to be D stuss is going to present no he's not okay ry's going to present I didn't see your name on it so well that's was retained after it was filed all right very very good so but I but I have to tell you Mr is here and he's very worried right now all right well this is 24-135 slon dka Strauss care of David Strauss with Mr Riley presenting application number 24-13 35 slobodanka Strauss care of David Strauss 56 riview Riverview Drive chadam Mass 02633 owner of property located at 88 Fox Hill Road also shown on the town of chadam assessor map 10l Block 19 lot 13A the applicant proposes to change alter or expand a non-conforming dwelling and a not on a non-conforming lot be the construction of an addition and deck the existing dwelling is non-conforming and then is located 33.2 ft from the road where a 40ft setback is required the proposed addition and deck will comply with all bulk and dimensional requirements of the bylaw but is considered a substantial alteration and under the second except Clause of section six of Mass General Law chapter 48 such substantial alteration requires the grant of a special permit the existing building coverage is 2,419 squ Ft 8% and the proposed building coverage is 2740 ft 88.8% where 10% is the maximum allowed the LW is non-conforming and that it contains 30,000 258 ft where 40,000 ft is required in the R40 zoning District a special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 40a section 6 and section 5B of the protected bylaw okay Mr Riley the first thing I'd like to say is that if you look through the plans uh there are proposed uh Dormers adding area on the second floor uh and this addition J or J staff determined that the Dormers were allowed without a special permit because they meet the uh Borland uh Safe Harbor so that work is ongoing if you were there um so David is here today so what we're seeking is approval for 240q foot addition I'll talk if you want me to talk actually Mr Nixon has already given us the okay to skip the criteria so um how and you presented them I mean you you you prepared them we have them for the record so so very good very good um so that's your application yeah yeah okay very good anybody here on Microsoft teams wish speak in favor of this application please make it known seeing no one at all I will read the one letter from Judith Georgio receive 123 2024 I reviewed the plan to renovate and add an addition to this property it appears that the dwelling will maintain the existing four-bedroom layout however the addition appears to encroach on the new IA septic tank a site plan showing the setbacks to the tank will be required prior to approval do you want to address that Mr Riley do you need to address that at all no no really okay okay very good it's what Judy wants Judy gets what Judy wants y okay is there the owner may be able to address if the owner wants to address it he's got to go up to the mic um if you would just I hope this isn't a case of snatching the feet from the jaws of Victory yep uh David stra so can you repeat what you said that Judith said that it was she wants a site plan showing about the septic tank okay yeah that's that site plan was provided okay that that happens all the time no worries then yeah no worries yeah okay that's fine okay you're in good hands with Mr Riley yeah if anybody's here or Microsoft teams that would like to ask a question or has a problem with this application please make it known no one left to do anything like that all right uh are there any questions from the board yes of course just a quick question the field card says it's a three bedroom but yet the plans And Judith's notes said it's four bedroom so is that the field guard is not always correct okay yeah yeah okay any other questions making sure that okay um Jenny an IIA septic system allows them to have an additional bedroom so I know Judy has reviewed the plans cuz the building permit um for the Dormers is in play already so it's the assessor field cards um may not necessarily always provide the detailed information as the building plans to or the site plan I watched The Bard of Health hearing there was a lot of discussion about the bedroom so that's why I was asking yeah it's okay sir don't you don't have to add anything I mean if you're desperate to add something no okay good so no more questions I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations da V seconds and votes yes it acting votes yes yes all votes yes JY votes yes okay very good let's just do deliberations this way starting with Dave V uh um not substantially more detrimental in the Neighborhood meets our criteria and uh we'll support it Ed I agree 100% I agree I agree Le I agree I'm all for it all right very good as am I so uh do we need any conditions I'll move to approve the application as submitted with the only condition being that all construction activity and vehicles be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner uh Dave V seconds and votes yes and votes yes yes all vote Yes yes oh it's unanimous congratulations and uhk you very much that concludes our zoning board of appeals meeting today and uh let's have a motion to adjourn I'll move to adjourn dve seconds and votes yes head acting votes yes yes all votes yes Jenny votes yes okay that's unanimous and what time is it Sarah 5:51 p.m. all right very good and good night chadam [Music] [Music] m