##VIDEO ID:xkcGR0LU_E8## e e e e e e e for [Music] [Music] good afternoon everyone this is the August 22nd 202 2024 meeting of the chadam zoning board of appeals I just want to start the meeting saying if anybody has a cell phone or any kind of Gadget that makes a noise please shut it off um pursuant to Governor Healey's March 29th 2023 signing of the acts of 2023 extending certain Co measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending provisions of the open meeting law till March 31 2025 this meeting of The chadam Zing board of appeals is conducted in person and via remote means every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings provided for in the order a reminder that persons who'd like to listen to this meeting while in progress may do so by calling 508 945 4410 conference ID 8551 61878 pound or join the meeting via the link on the posted agenda while this is a live broadcast and simoc cast of chatam TV despite our vest 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 Town policy the public can speak to any issue hearing or business item on the agenda during the meeting when recognized by the chair we start the meeting with a roll call of all board members to authorize this form of meeting starting with Mr vich uh David h v and I authorize this form of meeting uh Ed Acton I authorize this meeting David S Nixon I authorize Paul C SLE I authorize this meeting Lee hubby I approve I approve Virginia Fenwick I approve and Randy pares I approve as well um we ask if any citizens or non board members participating in the call via the phone only um at give their last four digits of their number for identification purposes um we conduct the meeting as follows the hearing notice is read by staff um to my right is Sarah clar then you are your representative will present your application um anyone in favor will have an opportunity to speak with a five minute limitation and there will be a a timer up on the um on the board over there so please be mindful of that and if you're not I'll remind you um anyone in favor of the appeal may speak as I said for five minutes then I will summarize all letters received by the board anyone against the appeal or application or if you have a specific question you'll be have you'll have the opportunity to do that also with that 5 minute limitation the applicant can then rebut any testimony and anything that's um in those letters the applicant will have a chance to address the board members may direct questions to anyone present we hear further information close the public hearing and deliberate and usually we vote on the application or appeal um all votes are taken by roll call at the end of the meeting we close via a verbal confirmation and note the time time of adjournment um our members are all here today there's eight of us uh voting today will be uh regular member Dave V Dave Nixon um Paul simple Virginia Fenwick penwick and myself but we all deliberate on on every application and everybody's information is is just important as the next um with that do we have minutes from July 25th 2024 Paul yes I'll move to approve the uh minutes as published for July 25 2024 uh Dave V second and votes yes yes yes yes and I vote Yes as well okay so our first application today is 24- [Music] 86433 Main Street LLC application number 24- 086 433 Main Street LLC care of William F Riley Esquire PO Box 707 chadam Mass 02633 owner of property located at 433 Main Street also shown on the town of chadam assessor map 15 d block TI LW r o n the applicant seeks to enlarge extend or change two non-conforming dwellings in a non-conforming lot via the demolition of the existing dwellings located at 427 and 435 Main Street and the construction of a new dwelling the existing structure located at 427 Main Street is non-conforming and that it is set back 2 feet from the southernly a butter and 4 feet from the Easter leab butter where 5et is required the existing dwelling located at 435 Main Street is non-conforming and that it a set back 3 ft from the southern butter and 3 ft from the West eara butter where 5 ft is required the proposed dwelling will comply with the bulk and dimensional requirements of the bylaw the existing lot coverage is 8,926 ft 76.7% and the proposed lot coverage is 8,624 Ft 74.1% where 90% is the maximum allowed the lot contains 11,638 ft in the gb1 zoning District a special permit is required under Mass gender Law chapter 48 section six and section 5B of the protective bylaw Mr Riley attorney Riley welcome good afternoon Bill Riley on behalf of 433 Main Street LLC um this is a commercial Zone gb1 um so we have currently in the rear of the main building uh two Cottages that have been used for residential purposes uh the goal here is to remove both of those existing cottages and replace them with a single Cottage uh that has the beneficial effect uh for the odells in particular who are here today our neighbors to the east uh that a building that is only a couple of feet away from their property line will be gone uh it's going to create a sense of openness not only for the odells but also for the residents and the residential condos in the second floor of the main building um if you've been to the property you know that our medat butter within a couple of feet really of our uh where our building is here on the West side is the driveway into uh I don't even know what they call it anymore used to be Christians was a wonderful place to visit uh and so it's it's a heavily commercialized area uh the uh you know they're creating uh a road drain in the middle of the property so that drainage is going to be taken care of on this uh when the increase in the asphalt so it's uh the building set back it's an attractive design so I think that uh I should do is just do a quick run through of the criteria and then uh answer any questions you might have so adequacy of the size of the site in terms of the size of the proposed use so the proposal uh is to remove two existing cottages and replace them with a single Cottage that will result in small reduction in building coverage of 145 Square ft the new Cottage is no closer to the property lines in an existing Cottage and the removal of the cottage uh which was previously adjacent to the Eastern property line will add a sense of openness and demonstrates that the size of the lot is adequate for the project compatibility of the size of the proposed structure with neighboring properties I did not do the usual analysis we have comparing gross floor areas um because the bill buildings around us are also different you like the building in front of us 4:25 and 433 consists of two commercials spaces on the first floor and three units on the second floor so the gross floor area of that building is like five times the gross floor area of this building do Odell building uh principal building uh which by the way used to be Bill Toby's Law Office the gentleman I went into practice with many years ago um is moderate in size but on the other side we have the old Christians restaurant which is now a furniture store I think uh buildings across the street again they're all commercial in nature and significantly larger than our Cottage so uh but I believe that given the uh multiplicity of small cottages and buildings behind the front row of the buildings on Main Street uh we really are very much compatible in this neighborhood extended the proposed increase in non-conforming nature of the structure our use uh there is a small increase in the living area uh even though we we're removing one of the Cottages the new Cottage uh has two full floors and a seller so uh our gross floor area is 248 Square F feet but the footprint of the building is only 821 Square fet uh because there's a slight increase in the in the living area that constitutes a a slight increase in the nonconforming nature of the property suitability of the site including but not limited to impact on neighboring Properties or on the natural environment including slopes vegetation Wetlands groundwater water bodies and storm water runoff uh as you know it's already developed uh including an asphalt parking lot which is going to be increased in size uh so I don't think they're going to be any negative impact on the neighboring properties due to storm water runoff principally because uh the parking lot once it's repaved is going to have a storm drain uh to a leech pit uh that'll take care of all the storm water runoff on the U on the property impact of scale sighting and Mass on aable visual character including views Vistas and Street Scapes um because because the building is uh at the very rear of the property uh uh it doesn't have much of a presence on Main Street the uh the design is still a traditional design larger but very similar to The Cottages being removed the uh we don't block anybody's views and Vistas as I say this we don't think there's any impact on the streetcape the the so I think that you could determine that this change is not substantially more detrimental the existing structure compatibility of the neighboring uses so um in chadam under our bylaw residential uses are allowed in the gb1 zone and there are quite a few uh here in addition to the commercial uses so we think that the uh having a single family Cottage in this location is compatible with neighboring uses uh the properties on Municipal sewer and Municipal Water the uh and drainage is designed so that the drainage from the building goes into the catch Bas under the driveway the parking lot we don't believe there's any impact on traffic flow and safety or no increase in noise and lter adequacies of U utilities and other public service are adequate that'll be our presentation thank you very much is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application if so please raise your hand seeing none I have three correspondences to read from internal agencies first one is from the um about the planning board they have not received an application for this property as of yet and that was from Annie ke on August 22 2024 that's the status of that um the uh Health agent writes to us on 820 2024 that she received the plan to demolish and rebuild one three-bedroom dwelling at this property and the dwellings are currently connected to mun Municipal sewer so no additional sewer flow is proposed I have no concerns about the proposal then we have a note from hbdc from Chantel Kil Kenny she tells us on August 1 that the um members of the hbd met on June 5th 2024 and they rendered a 5 unan unanimously approving the demolition of the dwelling at 4:35 any changes we'll have to go through them um and that's that with standard conditions is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak against this application or has a specific question seeing none questions from the board Steve um I have no questions but was there anything from the hbdc concerning the structure of 427 which is also being Dem so they did come before uh hbdc for the demo rebuild of 435 as well as the demolition of 427 all of those were approved okay thank you that it Steve okay Jenny Mr Riley three bedrooms in the proposed single unit right build uh what What's the current bedroom count in the two the two current I think they're four total of four okay thank you and Lee no questions well did the prior versions uh which were approved provide for two separate residential dwellings yeah prior applications left the two buildings in place or rebuilt them so this is a this is a change from prior applications right I'm just trying to get a feel are we eliminating a residential building yes yeah there are two there are two Cottages currently used as residences so the cottage on the east side uh is going to be removed and the cottage on the West Side uh is going to be removed and rebuilt as a three-bedroom Cottage in pretty you know in the same location although it is larger than the existing Cottage when you say a three-bedroom Cottage you mean a house a residence yes it's small so I I call it a cottage because it's small but yeah it's going to be a single family residence okay I have no other questions Dave Nixon is um is this correct to assume it's Workforce housing I asked that because per bedroom and what I've seen uh Workforce housing tends to be at least two beds per bedroom so I'm looking at six people living in this if it's going to be Workforce housing the uh I haven't discussed that aspect with my client the I'm sure you're aware of the fact that our uh sewage regulations and our septic system regulations all all assume that there are two people per bedroom but I honestly don't know I haven't I haven't spoken with Mr Rik I think the off hand based on my experience working with Mr rednik on Workforce housing um the uh there's not there are not enough beds in this house to make the construction of the house and use for Workforce housing economical so I think it's unlikely okay um my big concern about this is what happens to the current folks that uh occupy all the space in the front building when construction starts uh there's going to be all kinds of noise and ex you know you got to rip down two houses you got dig a big hole for a New Foundation cement trucks and all that kind of stuff what plans does your client have for the displacement of all those automobiles that currently use all that have you made a deal for instance with the odells that they will accept uh for a small fee uh vehicles on their property or or what have you done I again I have not discussed that with my client I assume that the uh we have a new Municipal parking lot down the street the work's going to take place in the wintertime so tourists aren going to be that big a a problem the former Christians has two large parking areas on their property perhaps my client will deal with them as a place to uh for his other well they're not even his tenants they own a condominium there so uh but there are I think there are plenty of opportunities for places to park for them in the winter time so uh so construction which start say in January is that what you're saying I have no idea when it's going to start been approved here twice before and never started anything understand this could be different right well it could be yeah okay all right yeah I just um I wish you knew some of these answers but you don't no thank you okay Ed questions yeah U I guess why are you proposing to tear down two structures and only build one I guess I see the town's struggling for housing especially affordable housing and there's there's there's two structures here and it this seems to be a part of town where it could certainly handle the density uh quite honestly i' I'd prefer to to see two structures back there and perhaps um you know continue to have the housing that the town you know needs well the uh both structures are in I say difficult condition particularly the one closest to the odels the one that's being [Music] removed um ramshackle comes to mind as a way to describe it so I think that was the primary motivating factor okay thank you and David be I have no questions no questions um I I noticed the people living in both of those structures so I'm just wondering can you confirm that there's it that looks like young people that maybe I I don't know for a fact but the the ones I saw were young and they were all hanging out there and living there apparently yeah well they currently rented yeah so it's sort of rentals now well there's always been rentals and do you think it will be a rental if it's a brand new house I have no idea you have no idea okay I mean I mean you know costs a lot of money to build even a small house so the uh you know right now the buildings are in difficult condition young people uh who are there for summertime don't seem to mind those kind of things they put up with them better yeah but the uh you know this going to be a very attractive you know three bedroom house I honestly don't know if it's going to be a standard residential rental yeah uh I'm almost certain it's not going to be work Workforce because there's simply aren enough beds given the cost of the construction y to justify it yeah well all right thank you Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations uh Dave V seconds and votes yes yes Paul vote Yes yes and I vote Yes as well okay deliberations um Ed um well I'd prefer that the applicant re rebuild both structures and have two structures back there and provide more housing in an area where you know the it's zoned for for something like that I don't um I would be supportive if uh if if there was an increase in bedrooms even uh back there and there was two structures but um I know I certainly do know the cost of construction is expensive but if you had um if you were allowed in increase in bedrooms and could build two structures with three bedrooms each I think the town would benefit from something like that so uh it would have my vote if um you were to come back with a plan like that okay Dave Nixon liberations well I I think it's a great Improvement for for the neighborhood uh certainly the odells um and um to your answer your question about the occupants of that first building I I think there were four occupants in there now I could be wrong but as Mr Riley said there there folks working to um I do have those concerns about what's happening during the construction phase but uh I have to take Mr Riley's word that the folks who are there now will be taking care of one way or the other and U so uh I'll be voting for it and David Beach liberations yeah I'm I'm um I I'm in agreement mostly with Dave Nixon uh um I I think it does represent an improvement um uh the law of um work of Workforce housing is a concern but I don't I I think overall losing one structure back there is is appropriate in many respects and putting the you know making this one a little bit larger um so I I think it works for the site and um and works for um the property owner who uh who who also is very much concerned and has provided a lot in the way of Workforce housing in different locations so I'm not so concerned about that it's certainly not substantially more detrimental in the neighborhood okay Jenny yeah I agree with with Dave and Dave um it's an improvement um you know it is disappointing to lose a bedroom when we are as as a town suffering from uh housing um bedrooms but uh I I do think it's an improvement to the site and um it meets our criteria i i would support it and Steve yeah i i would support this also you know we don't know if there were two structures back there if it would all be rentals or not and uh you know I I think this is an improvement to what's there now and should U make that whole area a little bit nicer so I would support it and Lee yeah I agree it's a very attractive house um it's certainly not substantially more detrimental um but in some respects I agree with bad too I mean we could use some we could use some more of these little houses but that's you know not my decision to make it's not my property so um I'm not voting today but I would have support it and Paul well I uh I preferred the prior plans that provided uh for two structures uh and I guess before I would support it I would like to hear more about why that doesn't make sense given that uh I'm not sure that we need another larger house in that area uh as much as we need perhaps two smaller ones assuming that that works um and it would have worked uh if it had gone forward um so um I think unless I hear more along those lines I'm more the of the uh a view of at act and we're dealing with a general business Zone uh you can have housing in the general business Zone but um it's not something that's particularly encouraged and in general we want to keep it a business zone so um I would be reluctant to support uh a larger single family home as opposed to a continuation of uh of two two buildings so I'm not saying I'm not going to vote for it so I don't get nervous um but I agree with Paul and I agree with Ed and I don't think that's really an ideal spot for a one family house it's awkward it doesn't really belong there in my mind but we're stuck with the ultimate question will doing that be substantially detrimental to the neighborhood I can't say that it would be um I don't think what's there now is very attractive but this this land owner this you know developer he has the right to do what he wants to do as long as it's not substantially detrimental and so I would have to to say I would support it but I'm not a fan of it um and and as we already know maybe it won't even happen who knows and maybe that'll be back out rented next year and The Saga will continue so Paul I'll move to approve the application as submitted uh we would need some conditions U given uh the nature of the property and all the activity that's there um do you have any objection to our standard conditions no all right I'll move to approve the application as submitted with the conditions that all construction activity and vehicles will either be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner now um I think Dave was expressing some concern about any of that activity being on site uh in terms of construction activity and vehicles it seems to me that needs to be in there and then secondly uh between June 30th and Labor Day no exterior construction will be allowed no work shall be permitted on the weekends in construction activity between 8: am and 5:00 P PM only Dave V seconds and votes yes I vote Yes JY uh JY votes yes well I I will vote no given that uh it seems to me this is a general business Zone and we should be encouraging not single family homes if we can keep several buildings going and I will reluctantly vote Yes um and that's that well just for whatever it's worth you know I'm meeting with Mr Rick tomorrow he's buying another property which he plans to use for Workforce housing in a in a in a GB Zone okay so thank you all right moving along to 159 cine Road application 24-87 whenever Sarah is ready she will read that application application number 24-87 Michael Baldwin Elizabeth Baldin car of William G litf Esquire 330 Orleans Road North chadam Mass 02650 owners of property located at 159 C Pine Road also shown on the town of chadam assessor map 11k block 35 lot hc13 the applicant seeks to enlarge extender change a non-conforming dwelling and a non-conforming lot VI the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a new dwelling the existing dwelling is non-conforming in that it is located 22 ft from the Wester Leo butter where a 25t setback is required and entirely within the coastal Conservancy District flood plane elevation 12 the proposed dwelling will be non-conforming and it'll be located entirely within the coastal Conservancy District where a 50-ft setback is required also proposed is the expansion of the existing driveway as allowed by special permit the existing building coverage is 2561 ft 68.5% and the proposed building coverage is 2,800 square ft 74.8% or 15% but not more than 2800 square ft is the maximum allowed the lot the lot is non-conforming and that it contains 3,741 ft of buildable Upland where 20,000 ft is required and contains 34,2 55 ft of land area where 40,000 ft is required in the R40 zoning District a special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 40a sections 6 and 9 and sections 5B and 8D 2B of the protective bylaw attorney litfield welcome welcome Miss kton thank you madam chairman members of the board bill litfield here on behalf of the applicants bettyanne and Michael Baldwin who are in the rear under the clock and with me is Karen Kempton with whom you are familiar who designed the plans for for the uh house that the Baldwins proposed to construct out at Harbor Coast with us also is David Clark our engineer and the reason of course that we had David here other than the fact that we like him is that as you know this is a challenging lot uh it is significantly impacted by the flood plane uh it is in its size typical of Harbor Coes it's actually relatively large it's uh 30 just under 35,000 square feet but it has a POS of buildable upload so the Baldwin who have a uh lengthy history with chadam and family members here uh purchased this property four years ago uh with the knowledge that they wanted to do something and what that they wanted to do would be constrained by our bylaw obviously the Conservation Commission would be involved as would this board and with the assistance of uh David CL Clark and also Teresa sprag of blue blue flax engineering uh and of course Karen uh we have done something which we think you can find ultimately is appropriate for the site and is not substantially more detrimental the neighborhood so before I go into the criteria Madam chairman if I mind I'd like to ask Karen to talk about the house plans and then I'll go forward with the other aspects of course thank you thank you uh good afternoon I'm Karen Kempton architect for Mike and Betty an Baldwin uh when the Baldwin are approached me earlier this year the decision had made been made to demolish the existing house and build new they had initially considered doing a renovation but based on the cost of the changes um that they wanted to do and that the house was in the flood plane uh the flood plane standards would affect uh the renovation uh so therefore it made more financial sense to build new and to construct it per flood plane standards so so to build new we had to elevate the first floor out of the flood zone and provide minimal crawl space with flood vents this meant giving up the full basement of storage we also knew that we had to be a maximum of 30 ft above the lowest adjacent grade not 30 ft above the grade plane but 30 ft above the lowest adjacent grade which was at elevation 8.9 this meant that the ridge could only be one foot higher than the existing Ridge while the first floor had to be one foot higher than the existing floor and be out of the FIP plane uh so set with these parameters we also knew we wanted the house to conform to the east and west side setbacks on the west side we pulled the house an additional 10 ft away from the existing footprint to open this side of the house up and provide views to Crow's Pond down through the driveway um right now the existing driveway uh ends at a garage where the garage doors are facing uh C View Street um do you have the existing photo of the house great so this this is what you see when you come down the driveway the two-car garage with a 16t garage door um so to uh to remove the garage uh we decided to do do an L-shaped garage so that the doors were not facing SE View Street and this allowed the west side of the property to open up uh which allowed views now down through the driveway to crows Pond Beyond which has a benefit for the neighborhood now that uh they can see crows Pond from SE view along this property we also knew that we had to pull the house back from the top of bank and currently the house is 27 ft from the top of bank and the proposed house will now be 40 ft from the top of Bank not only does this benefit the natural environment but it also opens up views east and west across the property for our abutters if you go back to the site plan you can see that our AB butter I believe it's on yeah you can see the footprint on the east side that now uh because the house has moved back it has a more open view across the property line uh the Baldwins also wanted a second floor B Balon uh so if we can pull up the front elevation um they actually have or the rear elevation they actually have a balcony now across the full length of the rear of the house so rather than build a covered porch which protruded from the first floor we plac the balcony above um the living space on the first floor uh rather than extend it further out towards the top of Bank uh finally Betty Anne and Mike like the style of the front facing A-frame Gables which are prevalent in this neighborhood um I sent two this morning one is the abutter to the east a photo that's the one to the West again with gables on the front and that's their abutter to the east um most especially the utters to the east and west having the A-frame Gables this added to the trend of or the vernacular of the Sea Pine Gables um as p saory into silver has coined this phrase for this area so we soften the look of the front Gable by utilizing a porch roof detail with wide columns acting as corner boards and recessing a front door entry there are simple four over one windows with two windows in each front Gable and three windows in each of the smaller front shed Dormers there is a proposed stone veneer base to hide the concrete foundation as the necessary height for flood plane construction um and flood vents so we hope you agree that this is an attractive addition to the neighborhood of SE Pine Gables as well as allowing neighborhood views to Crow Pond down the driveway and Beyond and it also respects the natural environment by increasing the distance from the top of Bank thank you all right thank you Karen as to the criteria and these are obviously those on which you make your decision Vision we start with adequacy of sight including building coverage and setbacks like the entire neighborhood which was developed originally 1950s we have an undersized lot under current zoning which today requires 40,000 square ft and again much of this lot is in the flood plane at present we have a small footprint but it was adequate when built in 1951 although there are under current zoning sideline and top of Coastal Bank set act non-conformities as Karen has indicated we're doing our best to eliminate or reduce that and I think you can find the site adequate for the new home uh the footprint remains modest it's consistent with but smaller than others and I'll get to that in another criteria momentarily uh as Karen has indicated we have necessarily but intentionally elevated uh the living space out of the flood plane uh installing flood PLS of flood Vents and having the garage built on a slab rather than the existing there is at present a basement under the house the building coverage increases but only by 239 Square ft but the pervious coverage is reduced significantly and I'll get to that again uh get to that later again um as Karen has indicated the sideline setback on the west is now met uh we are further from the sideline on the easterly side and were moved back almost 14 ft from the top of the Coastal Bank as to compatibility of size the third sheet of the handout ask you to take a moment to look at it our lot has 34,000 Square ft uh larger than several others in the neighborhood they range from 21,000 to 38,000 were in the larger half but our footprint is very small at 2561 Square ft at present we have the second smallest footprint in the neighborhood and in terms of coverage at 7.5% of the entire lot again the lowest percentage of coverage the gross floor area of the existing house is 4,695 and if you approve the special permit as I hope that you will it's being increased but only to 4,932 square ft so the gross floor area is increasing by 6 or 7% not by much at all again the living area at present is 3576 it's going to be increased to just over 4,000 but there are other houses in the neighborhood with living area of up to 5,053 5500 so if you approve the special permit you can do so based on the finding that we are compatible with the size of the neighborhood uh the footprint increases but it will be compatible with its surroundings its consistent as to gross floor area and living area and still among the relatively a relatively small house for the neighborhood one number that may have come to your mind is the the fact that our footprint will be 2800 square fet and there may be a thought well that's the maximum we're we're maximizing the limit actually the 2800 square foot limitation on coverage does not apply to this lot we are under the 15% of buildable Upland uh it's the rule is 15% but in no case more than 2,800 square ft so that's really almost a coincidence we are however uh in terms of our buildable Upland we're already well above 15% we're at 67% the buildable Upland is only about 3700 Square ft so we're already above that and the 2800 square ft isn't really maximizing it's just it happens to be the same number that would be applicable in other circumstances but that number does not apply to this lot as to the extent of increase in non-conformity uh we have several at present we're located in the flood plane we're non-conforming as to lot size we're non-conforming us to the proximity in the top of the Coastal Bank and the sideline setback there is no increase really in nonconformity except for the footprint and I'll touch on that again the sideline setback deficiency is eliminated and the houses moved 13 or 14 ft back from the top of the Coastal Bank yes the footprint increases but when we get to another criteria uh we'll talk about the decrease in pervious coverage as to suitability of site the site has been uh developed for residential use since uh 1951 uh it has been reviewed initially by the Conservation Commission which resulted and the chair will read a lot later uh resulted in a positive response to the overall plan to the mitigation planting and to the impervious surface reduction uh as to scale sighting Mass fuse and Vistas and effect on streetcape the existing house uh is set back 165 ft from the street it's without much impact on streetcape but it does partially block views and visted from across the street it is cited on relatively High ground the only other relatively High Ground is right up at the street and obviously you can't create a new Conformity by building next to uh C or right on the street on cind we have a 40 foot setback as the scale sighting Mass F and Vistas I start with three of my favorite words when dealing with Karen not a gambell uh and that is by itself something for which I think we might have some degree of credit we given it is still set far back on the lot uh as Karen has indicated it has two gable ends in the street street side it is I think you can find an attractive and thoughtful design uh it will improve streetcape as Karen is indicated by opening up corridors particularly on the west side but also on the east side and there is as the chair will read later significant neighborhood support for this proposal as to compatibility of use there's no change its residential use uh adequacy of water and sewer Town water five bedroomroom septic system the septic tank is to be relocated but otherwise no change no impact on traffic flow and safety noise litter all utilities are at at presently located in the neighborhood one obvious consideration under any proposal on a site like this is the extent of lateral expansion and result impact on pervious area that is something that was added to our BW I think about 10 years ago when we changed the BW and eliminate the old 20 foot limitation on height height of houses in the flood zone uh even though this one was already more than 20 ft uh because of the need to elevate houses as we are doing here but when that was done uh there was a a second part of it not just a consideration of lateral expansion as one of your criteria which it should be but there's there's a conjunctive there and the resulting impact on pervious area in this particular case we are starting right now with a footprint of 2561 Square ft there is a 239 Square ft uh increase in or a lateral expansion increase of the footprint which is 9% that is compensated by a net decrease of 2,863 square ft a reduction in the PVE driveway all of the pavement which is in the flood zone is being eliminated and it will be replaced with a perious structure the bylaw asks you to look at the resulting impact from the lateral expansion and in this case because the other things that we're doing it is a net positive all of the driveway as I've indicated in the flood zone will become pervious and with the additional mitigation further benefiting the site there is a reduction in pervious area which is larger than the house itself we're getting rid of 2863 2,863 Square ft of driveway and building a 2800 square ft where there's al already a house of 2561 Square ft if you have questions on that David Clark is here and respond to them and I don't want to go on too long so having gone through the criteria the question as you know is whether replacing the existing structure with a new house moved back from the top of the Coastal Bank and eliminating the sideline non-conformity with a modest and reasonable lateral expansion which is compatible with neighboring properties and with the support of those residents is substantially more detrimental than the existing structure nonconforming lot it is as I started by saying a challenging lot uh the petitioners and their design team worked for a lengthy period to develop plans which as Karen explained provided some additional living area but which were sensitive to the site which addressed flood zone issues and were consistent with neighboring houses being aware of the bylaws consideration of lateral expansion and impact in previous areas this was designed to minimize the former but to make a decidedly positive and significant impact on the latter so in light of the criteria and the plans I think you can find the proposed new home is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood but is instead an attractive and appropriate house which is both responsive and sensitive to the demands of the site and an improvement David as I indicated certainly here to answer any questions you might have from an engineering perspective thank you so much um I'm going to wave the rules and go to our Building Commissioner CU I know he has to leave at 4: in case he wanted to make any uh remarks on anything that was said would you like to do that um the only one I I may disagree with is I believe that 2,800 s feet of building coverage is the maximum allowed for this lot because it's based on buildable Upland not lot lot size in itself if I could our buildable up is only 3,000 correct 37 so it's Sarah's my guidance is it's 15% but not more than 2800 correct well so you're over the 15% but the 2800 is the next stopping point I I I won't argue that uh I I think there may be a difference of interpretation but we're we're certainly I think the well we'll get we back and discuss it but I just wanted him to have a chance to to um give his statement but we are at the 20 00 if that's the case okay all right very good is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application if so please make it no seeing none I will read the correspondences there are seven first we have a note from kathern halin the planning board chair she tells us on August 20 2024 that the planning board at their July 22 meeting reviewed the zoning board's request for comment on the above reference application to construct a driveway in the Conservancy District at 159 C Pine Road after review the board voted to send a positive approval that the driveway be constructed of permeable material and in a manner which permits the unobstructed flow of water um it's apparently they voted unanimously and I watch that meeting so I will say that they know that some of the driveway is not in the flood zone and doesn't have to be permeable right correct okay so next we have a note from Judith Georgio she tells us uh on 7:22 2022 it says 2020 but I'm sure that was a typo 2024 I have reviewed the proposed plan for this property the proposed five-bedroom house will not add septic flow to the property the house will encroach on the existing septic system the site plan proposed to move the septic tank away from the New Foundation um the septic permit must be obtained from the health division prior to approval of the building permit and Judith Georgio is a health agent next we have a note from um the Conservation Commission and that was uh received on August one they say that they're going to review this property on 159 C Pine on August 7th um and discuss any revisions needed I believe they did do that and um they are going to see fit to approve it based on what happens today okay so next we have a note from uh Douglas and Lynn Johnson from 208 sepine Road in North chadam they approve the Demolition and construction of the new non-conforming dwelling at 159 SE Pine they are sure the new dwelling will add positive a positive addition to the Seine Road and harbor Coes area that was received on uh let's see August 13 2024 next we have a note from Bill trachel and Nancy Trel from August 18th 2024 they uh live on um 159 no well they say they are Butters to the property at 159 C Pine Road and they live at 187 um they've they say that the owners have shared the plans uh it's tasteful and they understand it's in keeping with the tenor of the neighborhood and they want this letter to be read um for those in attendance at the August 22 meeting of the zoning board um and they want their neighbors to know that they are in support next we have a note from Kevin Marino he says him he and his wife Rita own a home at 149 Seine uh in North chattan write an Enthusiast enthusiastic support to the application from Michael and Elizabeth Baldwin who reside next door to them um and they say they understand that the application will come before the zoning board uh on uh August 22 2024 they say that the Baldwins graciously shared the details of the plan um and they explained all the architecture and the drawings and of the proposed dwelling they got a guided tour of the property itself based on all of that um they uh believe that it will enhance the aesthetic beauty of the neighborhood and they urge the zba to approve the Baldwin's application lastly we have a note from Elizabeth Holden at 196 Seine Road her and her husband Henry right in support of the Baldwins application for 159 Seine they've known the Baldwins for 16 years while they lived at 224 SE Pine and now at 159 they've always had the best interest of the neighborhood and mind they plan to replace the existing dwelling house at 159 makes sense this will allow them to increase their setback from the water it's in no way detrimental to the neighborhood in fact it would enhance the feel of our quintessential cape card neighborhood we urge your approval to the application that concludes the correspondences is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak against this application or has a specific question seeing none questions from the board Dave Nixon thank you madam chair thank you uh yeah the um Bill you brought up the subject of U what to us is criteria number 12 and I think Sarah has the notes from that particular town meeting which occurred in May of 2016 and I'm going to ask her to read what it says Okay um so this is from the annual town meeting May 9th 2016 um explanation of article 31 um which uh Peter cul is the former chair of the planning board says the purpose of this article is to amend language in the non-conforming Lots buildings and uses sections to provide additional criteria to the special permit review process for flood Hazard mitigation projects when elevating a home some degree of lateral expansion may be necessary to maintain livability and meet building code requirements this article proposes to provide the zba with criteria to balance the need for lateral expansion with the proposed increase in impervious area on a site for those dwellings located in the flood plane that seeks a special permit to elevate thank you uh before our uh building commissar leaves is there anything about this that bother you with this particular application relation to what Sarah just read no again anytime something is maximized I have concern that they may go over during the course of construction and would hate to get to the end end point and find out that they need a vary and so need to modify the construction in any way so um my only concern is with the building coverage yes it's larger than what was there before I don't look at it as a lateral expansion it is an expansion of the footprint uh therefore building coverage but um those are my concerns thank you so Mr lfi I think what uh comrade rggs just said is important to me meaning the maxing out of the 2800 and I heard J AR argument but I I tend to agree with him that this is a Max that we need to think about so I hate to see you ask for 2800 and then somehow come back because of a mistake or a misunderstanding or all the other excuses that we get around here uh is this something you can scale back and and and if I could Mr chairman Mr Nixon thank you we are very much aware of of the cornerboard issue which I will call it um and I will talk with Karen and I believe Rick Roy is our Builder I don't know if Rick yeah Rick is here uh he is also aware of it um as you know I think highly of this board but I don't want to come back on this house uh and we may talk about reducing you know this room by 6 in and that room by 6 in that may be feasible I don't mean to redesign the Baldwin's house on the fly but so that we are decidedly below 2,800 square ft if you did that that would satisfy my concern thank you okay continued on with questions uh Ed um yeah so I'm interested in you you have a different interpretation of the bya you're since you're over 15% um you feel the 2800 isn't a limitation anymore that that can be exceeded as as well the way it has always been interpreted by my understanding and not just by me it is the lesser of 15% or 2800 square feet and we're already above the 1500 square feet but it's not a point worth worth discussing uh because we are at 28 ideally we will be at 2799 Square ft uh even though we're already well above the 15% yeah it was more for future discussion I guess I was trying to clarify but um understood questions well I'm just curious to follow up uh because I curious about this so were the as built to come back uh it based on I don't know I guess we have slightly different interpretations here and of course JS would Prevail I would think but um under your thinking um just as a hypothetical and you and it came back at 2803 would that be leading us towards a variance or a modification of special permit variance I didn't mean to jump in but that would be a variance okay I'm just curious about that okay okay and then the so another question I have is because the other number that jumped out at me was uh a height of 30t uh and that's I know it's above lowest jacent grade but you know height also that's the maximum so I'm I'm as you know we we generally caution people if they're uh at the maximum the the possibilities of uh needing to come back by overshot oh shooting if I could answer that um when I do the actual construction drawings which would be on CAD yeah I've asked for the ridge elevation at the highest that we can get so that I know that I can drop it six or seven Ines and still have a comfortable allotment of of height yeah um okay if I had asked for 37.9 I would be held to 37.9 so I'd rather go maximum knowing that I'm going to pull it back same as is the building coverage again when I do the cad plans and I do the corner boards all the way around um I'll shave 6 in off possibly here 4 Ines off there so that again I'll have maybe 10 square feet of playroom but I want to ask for the maximum up front so that I can pull it back if I need to okay and so that there there is a large circular RR to my left uh and that is our Builder yeah and I'm not I'm not asking him to chime in but he is very cognizant of this in fact he's gone through this on Cove Hill six or eight years ago yes and there's no desire to return right on this well yeah I guess we just keep bringing it up and just to know I mean we know that these professionals have encountered it and and have worked out ways to deal with it but it continues to happen sometimes I'm not saying it it sounds like Karen has it very much under under control so that's good the only other thing and this doesn't really affect I don't have any problem with any of this but I I'm I'm looking at the situation whereby you lost a basement floor but still ended up with an increase of gross floor area is that I'm I'm my I guess the way I'm think is that is that because of an increase in second floor gross floor area over the existing I'm just curious I would have thought gross H area of a full basement and now no basement I'm I'm surprised to see going we technically have a three car garage now Okay the third Bay being for storage or some storage that we've given up for the basement but there was a garage formerly as well right but this was I mean I'm just saying I mean given that there 240 square feet plus or minus of increased footprint y I was just curious how we got to yeah if I'd be happy to give you the numbers would be of interest the the the existing full basement is 717 Square ft yeah uh the finished first floor at present is 1664 and the finished second floor at present is 1572 there is also 340 Square ft of finished attic at present oh okay so that that's probably a big chunk of the difference number because there's obviously no attic here yeah okay it you know I don't see that the numbers are out of out of line for the neighborhood I just thought how do we how does we quite you know we lose an entire floor um that's all I had thanks okay Jenny questions yeah I have a couple um so I had similar question uh that Dave had edad and Dave be head so I I too let me start with the gross floor area since we were just talking about that so the basement of 717 square feet um you take that out and then you compare the proposed house to the existing minus the basement you're almost 1,954 to be exact additional square feet of the house above grade that was sort of is that is that fair so that's the ask I defer to Karen on the grow Flor areas cuz numbers and living area numbers because they are on her plan so so the finish the existing finish square footage which doesn't include the basement because it's not finished is 3576 um the proposed finished is 4,056 and that's all again above the basement which we don't have okay so you were talking finished area I was looking at gross floor area well I mean it's it's in line it's a little bit High the gross floor area so where I was was thinking also is you know it's um similar to what Dave each was just saying that that's a pretty big increase in Gross floor area for a house that's in a you know that really only has 9% um I mean 89% in the flood plane so really only 11% buildable upin so I too am concerned as Mr Nixon said about the 2800 square feet um but as far as questions go Mr Lichfield I also had the question you mentioned about criteria 12 which I think uh uh Mr Briggs answered but you also mentioned something about the impervious the change of the driveway um and and you mentioned the word and that that was really uh in criteria 12 There's A and B and then there's the and so can you just say that again the impervious pulling up the driveway is offsetting some of the 2800 well in my understanding I don't have the bile in front of me but the its extent of lateral expansion and resulting impact on perious area is that the language Sarah if I could the language is the extent of lateral well a the extent of lateral expansion prop proposed and B the extent to which lateral expansion impacts the impervious area of the site so you're propos you're you're asserting that by pulling up a big portion of the driveway making that shell not not the whole driveway not the whole driveway that which is in the flood plane which is the issue yeah okay that yes we are increasing the lateral expansion or there is a lateral expansion of 200 some square fet but there is a two a a at the same time not a resulting but a factor of a 2,863 square fet foot reduction of impervious surface within the flood zone okay I think the issue that the the B was trying to address all right is you know we now we know you have to go up a little bit and you can go out somewhat but not so much that we have floodwater problems in the area and in this case we're eliminating almost 3,000 square ft of pervious area which is going to address the flood water issue to the degree there is one I did have a conversation with David uh Clark on this very issue earlier and he can speak for himself but it's my understanding that the record floods have not actually come into this flood zone is that correct David if I could Madam chairman or Miss Fenwick uh good afternoon David Clark Clark engineering so I talked to bill this morning because he had concerns about that section of the bylaw and uh and all the anecdotal information I have for the neighborhood uh none of it um deals with that low spot in the lot flooding during any of the record storm events we've had in the last 30 years um if you look at the site plan the lowest adjacent grades next to the existing house is 11.2 flood plane there is 11 I mean is elevation 12 um that changed substantially in 2014 as you all know when the flood maps were revised prior to 2014 the using the same data um the flood elevation was 10 so this house wasn't even in the flood plane prior to 2014 um the only real information that either FEMA has um it's not published in their uh uh flood insurance study that goes along with the map change in 2014 they do talk about the Halloween storm known as the no-name storm of 91 uh eldrid surveying did go around town and it's documented in their office um pulling elevations um all around town right after that storm chadam fish pair was the highest um and uh and FEMA recognizes that's the that was a 100-year storm event after a few years of analysis well but the elevation there was 9.3 under the old atam which would convert to 8.4 under the new the new datm so the highest the water gut standing water elevation um from the noname storm was 8.4 so this yard has never flooded during a storm event it may see water I mean it might have water come up through uh from groundwater when a you have a three-day northeaster like we did in 78 and then the backtack north Easter in 2007 or 17 um seems like some days the tight never goes out you'll see you'll probably see water come up through from groundwater in that low spot in the yard and that's why I think that catch facing is there um but water doesn't overtop the high spot in the yard from Crow pond so I I think flooding in that direction is really not a concern uh although it is technically in the flood plane as of 2014 is that what you said that's when the maps changed as well that's when the maps changed yeah this was not in the flood plane prior to 2014 it is now and it has been since 2014 and the bald ones purchased it in 2020 so they knew when they purchased it that it was in this FL so so uh just a quick summary here so 80 89% of the property is in a flood plane um and your your building coverage number of 239 represents about 9% an increase in building coverage is that correct correct okay um okay and then one quick question sorry Dave uh well maybe Karen you can I just had a question about lowest adjacent grade you you have three numbers here on the site plan I just want to confirm the accuracy you know because once the site plan stamped in then this is what we have you have 8.9 11.2 and 10 which one is it um 11.2 is the existing lowest adjacent grade to the the existing structure the 8.9 is the existing ing lowest adjacent grade to the proposed structure the 10.0 which I show on elevation certificate that was file is the proposed lowest finish grade so you see on the plan right south of the drive the garage it says landscape fill M so at the end of the day for FEMA purposes the elevation that I'll put on the final elevation certificate after construction will be elevation 10 okay because of the fill owed to put around the foundation right under that section of the bylaw for landscape purposes now which the 8.9 or the 10 that you use for zoning purposes that's up to J um but Karen's height complies with the 8.9 if we use the 10 we we gain that one 1.1 ft in height um so we're not constrained it won't be exactly 30 ft if we use the 10 it could either way it'll comp could be a foot lower than than the max right okay but we won't know that until the asille is that what you're saying well yeah in that I have to use what the grade so you're asking for the maximum this is another question Dave had you're asking for the maximum for this reason okay it it is a challenging lot the hope is to be below the maximum as Karen explained because of the way she does things but we we wanted to ask for it to give ourselves I don't want to say flexibility but a little wiggle room I frankly don't think the height is as big of it an issue as the um the building coverage because of the neighborhood and yeah and and that's why we provided the third sheet that shows the footprint in comparison to the other houses of the neighborhood and it remains modest there's no question that we're above the 15% uh there's no you know that that's doubtless if if we had been here before the flood maps changed we'd be below the 15% um but we're not so we're at higher number thank you and Steve questions I have no additional questions great um no you cleared a lot up for me too thank you and Paul questions um one question I have is uh is the extent of the lateral expansion related to elevating the structure uh indirectly in that for instance we're losing the basement we want to have a larger garage for storage it's not you know because we this is not a this is not a house on little beach where we're lifting it up out of the flood plane but we are taking it out taking a living area out of the flood plane and storage would be one aspect of it are there other car Mechanicals on the first floor mechanical are no longer in the basement uh those are the sorts of things that are related to getting the living area out of the flood zone as I as I recall the discussions uh with respect to that change to the uh ordinance um a lot of it was around the question of uh well if you elevate the structure you're going to have to build stairs that uh are then going to come out three or four feet and and as a result you're going to be have you're going to have lateral expansion um that's not really what we're talking about no that that's not what we're talking about here not not stairs but we are talking about changes which are necessitated because of the need to elevate it I.E the loss of basement storage as Karen indicated the garage is larger than it needs to be for two cars in order to have a storage area the Mechanicals can't be in the basement and David may have um if you if you look at the building code and the requirements um for elevating if if this if we were doing nothing but renovating this building um and we exceeded the 50% value of the building the building code says You must Elevate the building so the lowest floor is 1 foot above the flood plane in this particular case the lowest floor for elevation certificate purposes of the existing building is the basement floor so when you talk about elevating a building and and the offset and lateral expansion I would interpret the building code to mean the basement is included in that because that's a space that has to be elevated to meet the build-in code if you if you were dealing with that 50% rule so the loss of basement translates into additional storage area above the flood plane or um that complies with the building code in this instance what what is the plan to uh change the driveway to pervious what pervious are we talking about shell gravel combination com combination shell gravel which is sometimes seen lasts a little bit better okay I have no other questions Dave Nixon has another question I had another one when you we're talking about elevating things and all that as I recall like particularly a little beach the all the Mechanicals have to be elevated yes so is that true in this case or no because for some reason the level the ground level of the garage is sufficiently high the mechanical systems have to meet the same 1ot free board as the first floor so if there are mechanical systems in the garage they have to be at no lower than elevation 13 okay that's even the outside air conditioning units and the generator which you can see on the plan it's on an elevated platform okay behind the garage how many feet up is that camon uh probably 3 feet yeah it's like 30 Ines okay thank you I mean essentially because because it's a new house everything has to comply sure yeah so my question is a little different um I had the opportunity to talk to staff about this issue of 2,800 feet and we were looking at your plan um and have at least a not a suggestion but just something to bring to your attention as a possibility um you have an attached shed that's 8 by 22 and that's 176 Square ft and you also have an existing shed that you could use and leave and if so if you took away that attached shed you'd only be increasing your square footage here by 63 Square ft we did all the math forume so it's an opportunity for you to think about that and you'd still have your shed and you'd be below your 28 and you wouldn't have to make your bedroom smaller but I I and and we certainly could consider that but I guess the the the responsive question would be would it be significantly different in terms of its detrimental effect on the neighborhood you might find in with this board that it it may when you ask to max out people get their backup well I I understand that but I we've done our best to explain why so that was just like I said not even a suggestion just something to bring to your attention in case things no we we appreciate that and that that may well be the result obviously the bald ones are here uh they're listening and I've explained to many clients over the past that you can build less than what's approved you just can't build more than what's approved and then they can put us on the payroll they like the idea so um all right with that Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations uh dve seconds and votes yes yes yes yes and I vote Yes as well okay now we'll go to deliberations after all of that um Lee okay um well this um beautiful site beautiful home I think it's um been a very thoughtful um application on many fronts um regarding the setbacks regarding um the distance from the Coastal Bank um regarding changing the driveway material um I think it meets our criteria I I was concerned about the 30 foot height and the 2800 square ft um building coverage but um if Karen has a system I'm going to trust her so um I'm not voting today but I think this is a beautiful project and I would be voting in favor all right thank you and Paul deliberations what are you thinking um uh I agree that uh the uh construction numbers are obviously very tight uh but I think that uh they're forewarned with respect to that and they'll stick to what needs to be done um we're dealing with a property with very little buildable Upland and uh when we've dealt with that in the past we've looked at the extent of lateral expansion and really we're looking at the environmental impact that goes on here over overall I think the environment environmental impact here uh is positive because we're moving the house back from the water um and we're decreasing the perious uh the impervious uh driveway area uh so I think I see it in a different category from others that we've dealt with um where uh I had more concern with respect to that issue so uh I think that I will uh support uh the application and Dave Beach it um very nice project I mean it's going to fit the neighborhood very well it's in no way substantially more detrimental in neighborhood as as previously said in many many ways it's improve the situation uh on the lot and um I think I I think I I to say with respect to the 2800 square feet and the 30 square feet um I I can appreciate that these folks have figured you know figured that in and decided that it's in their interest to ask for the Max and shoot for under it um and that's a a legitimate strategy I think but we're going to continue to question when those numbers are right up against the limits so um but no it's it meets all our criteria and I will support it right um actually Steve you're next um well I think this is a very nice project it has a couple of uh pluses that it's moved away from the from the Coastal Bank which is a big plus you've um added a very large amount of perious material or perious area um for the um change of the driveway um you've eliminated the front facing uh garage and given um a view uh Corridor down the driveway to the pond for others you've um you know increased the sight line for some neighbors so I think it's a nice project and I I think it's going to fit well in the neighborhood all right thank you Ed um yeah I I agree with my other fellow board members I think you put a lot of thought into this um it's a difficult lot I think the the Baldwins probably understood that when they they purchased it and um I feel like it's a thoughtful design it is right at the 2800 Max depending on your interpretation of the bylaw I guess um but uh it seems like a relatively small um increase in square footage so if I was Voting today you'd have my support and David nion well I think I voiced my concern and you answered what that was to be and how you going to correct it as you know it would be very difficult if you had to come back for a variance it' be very difficult so I feel very confident that won't happen and as far as this being a project is this substantially detrimental to the neighborhood absolutely not so I will be voting for it and Virginia Fenwick so um I agree with my colleagues comments um in general I think there's no question that the proposed house is very attractive um both uh the Street SE Pine as well as crows Pond the water um said have been improved as was mentioned uh pulling it back and and uh correcting the Western butter um I'm sure that the uh neighbor across the street from Seine that now is going to have a better view down the driveway that was uh very thoughtful by moving that East um and I again it's part of the great plan um and then as far as the size of the proposed as I mentioned I I don't think that the size is um the issue height and and the size but what is the issue in my view is the lot and coming in here tonight I was thinking criteria 1 four and 12 now you've helped with 12 because um of the impervious that the the switch there but I am still struggling with one and four in particular I I don't know that I agree with that the adequacy of the site including building coverage um asking for 2800 when you have 37 41 is I think um too big of an ask and also criteria for suitability of the site for the proposed um I don't know that it's it's absolutely beautiful but you know this proposal in in a on a lot that's 89% in a flood plane um gives me a little pause and you've exp helped explain criteria 12 so I am not saying no but I those were my those were my concerns so I would prefer that you didn't ask for the Max on things but I you know your trusted professionals so I understand the board's Reliance upon your word but I still think it sets some kind of a precedent where people come in and ask to max out a lot in a flood zone so I would prefer that you weren't asking for those and maybe you could you know amend your ask even now or not um but again you know it would be hard to say no so what do you want me to to say if that's a question to respond if if the board would like to give us uh three minutes you've had a long afternoon if you want to take a f minute break we were going to do that anyway uh then we can come back after I can consult Mrs Baldwin and our team yeah you understand our position is thank you we we understand that it's not substantially more detrimental but we're trying to be cooperative thank you very good all right so we will take a 5 minute break um see you on the other side e e e e e e e e e e e e e and we're back this is the uh August 22nd zoning board of appeals meeting has continued so thank you madam attorney litfield what do you say thank you very much we appreciate the board's Indulgence and allowing us to take a moment to meet uh and discuss options and we can reduce the width of the shed by 6 in it is 22 ft long so that would be an 11 Square ft reduction the request would be for 2,789 square ft of coverage which does two things it keeps us below the non precedent setting maximum because nothing you do sets a precedent uh but it also provides even more room for corner boards if need be okay um so take a vote on that Paul I'll move to approve the application uh as submitted with that Amendment uh and uh I assume we'll do our normal conditions with respect to this property given the location understand that so uh all construction activity and vehicle shall be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner between June 30th and Labor Day no exterior construction will be allowed no work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. only Dave V seconds and votes yes Dave Mixon I vote Yes and Virginia fenor I vote Yes All sample votes yes as do I it's unanimous thank you very much thank you very much we appreciate your time of course all right and next we're going to go to 52 Homestead Lane application 24- 088 application number 24- 088 David cheu and Laura toy care of William filey Esquire peel box 707 chadam Mass 02633 owners of property located at 52 Homestead Lane also shown on the town of chadam assessors map 15c block 3 lot 16 the applicant seeks to enlarge extender change non-conforming dwelling and a non-conforming lot via the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a new dwelling the existing dwelling is non-conforming and that is located 7.4 ft from the north nor Leia butter and 4.3 ft from the southern Leia butter the proposed dwelling will be non-conforming and that will be located 5.3 ft from the Norther Leo butter and 4.3 ft from the southern Leo butter where a 15t setback is required the existing building coverage is 74 squ ft 18.8% the proposed building coverage is 918 ft 24.6% where 15% is the maximum allowed the lot is non-conforming and that it contains 3,735 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 five be of the protective bylaw attorney Riley welcome back uh thank you very much Madame chair um and welcome back to thank you my clients Miss toi and Mr Chu uh this is our project I think the board is seeing at least four times uh so what i' like to do uh is run down uh sort of the changes we made since our last application um so one thing that hasn't changed is the size of a lot but what we what we did do was uh like on the rear setback on our previous iteration our setback was 15.6 feet from the rear lot line we've increased that to 24.1 foot the street setback was increased from 35.2 feet to 37.4 ft so in other words the building is shorter now uh than it was previously sideline setep backs remain the same proposed building coverage has been reduced from 1,187 Square ft to 918 Square ft a reduction of 296 Square fet which effectively effectively removes almost 200 square ft from the living area of each floor uh in addition the uh we reduce the height of the building so the the badier ridge which is the U right the piece on top uh is 28 fet which is 2 feet below the maximum the main Ridge is actually 5 and a/4 ft below the maximum height the uh and so you know this is a home that David and Laura uh would like to live in not year round but the split between this house and their home in Washington DC in their retirement years and that's the purpose of this to give them you know a suitable retirement home and a place where their grandchildren can come visit so I'd like to ask lesie to run through the architectural things and and what she did to uh accomplish them and then we'll talk about the criteria good afternoon lesle schneberger architect for the project um it's been a while since we've seen you um and in between that time um we have gone through probably four more more iterations which is why it's been some time um last time we were before you um I think Virginia you asked actually uh commented that maybe it was just not the right location for what Laura and David wanted to do given the size of the lot and why are they continuing to stay there um Laura and David have owned the property for 25 years and um Laura's mother owned the house next door so she grew up going to this exact area for 40 years they have Moorings on the pond and they are dedicated they love this place and and there was no question that this is where they want to be now that they have time to be here more so we went through a lot a lot of changes to make sure that we respected what the board was asking and could make something feasible at this location um what does that mean that means we re removed a number of things um the last plan that was before you had a large laundry mudroom space on that ground level um it had a a third bedroom on what at the time we were calling the main level because you you came in at a ground level went up to the primary floor of the house that could be one floor living of a bedroom kitchen and living area um we took away the bay window that was facing um back to the backyard um we reduced the size of the front deck um the size of the badier um is reduced um there was a question last time can we have a Koopa um I there was no there was certainly no false implication that it was simply something to let light in um a definition of a Copa is an enclosed space um a Bel Bader is an enclosed space for a view um so that represents 19% of the the footprint of the House of the height of the house and that is a little space up at the top um to sit and enjoy the view that we've talked about in the past um we did add a seller to the house um because we did remove mechanical and reduce the footprint so storage and mechanical has now gone down to the basement um I actually will jump right now and clarify uh that you did receive some revised numbers the gross floor area was not including that that seller previously uh it has no windows it has nothing to that allows it to be habitable but it does have um a clear height um that is above 7t um I clarified that with Jay today and so that the gross square footage this was not meant to be false advertising but the um gross square footage should in fact be 2335 ft um we also removed the transm windows on the second floor uh which were to let a lot more light in and we still have lots of Windows um but we've reduced some and the reduction of those transoms allowed us to bring the roof pitch um of the Dormer from a four down to a 5.25 um and Bill is correcting me that uh I just told you the wrong number I'm sorry uh on the gross square footage uh it is 2 860 feet 2,960 feet right stay with that um and I will have a a a plan of that basement to everyone tomorrow uh uh so the lower uh the lower pitch on the Dormer um is bringing down the whole massing um we don't I did not you don't have an overlay of the front but the the height as you can see has come down considerably that Southwest Elation that's up right now is showing the the elevation that was before you previously to what is there now you can see that the everything has come down considerably and come in considerably um the seller I already had commented on and then there is a small balcony at the back um while it's not required for um building code egress it was a request that we looked at given the living space on the the second floor just to have an extra should you not be able to get out at the front of the house there's something that you can get to at the back um I'll leave it at that and answer questions as they come right so so what happened is after your last meeting or our last meeting on this property um the principal issues that were raised I I watched the meeting despite the pain uh just yesterday and the principal concerns were the length of the building and the height of the building and I think uh David and Laura have really paid attention to your concerns uh so the building has been reduced from 90 feet to about 60 feet in length uh well 60 feet to 44 feet in length uh the width Remains the Same because it's still a very narrow property but because of the reduction in height we think that the concerns that I recall being expressed by uh Miss Hy uh were that the building was too tall and too narrow it was unattractive because of that and so we we tried to address all those concerns so the we think the adequacy of the size of the the site that because our building coverage has been reduced to 918 Square ft uh we think that uh the site is adequate for a building with 918 square feet building coverage compatibility of the size of the proposed Tru with neighboring properties and we have a sheet attached on the back that shows you uh that we are very much compatible with the neighboring properties some of the neighboring homes are older and smaller and some of the ones that are newer are larger but we think we are compatible in that regard the extent of proposed increase in non-conforming nature of the structure here we're increasing the living space which as you know under Bransford constitutes an intensification of the nonconformity the sorab ility 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 we have a situation where uh as you look at the building from the street uh on the left side the property adjacent to us the night property is level and so uh if there were to be storm water R off it's going to stay on our property the property on the right hand side is actually a little bit elevated from our property so if there's any storm water it's going to run onto our property from their property so we think that um the site is suitable uh for the proposed project the impact of scale sighting and Mass on the neighborhood visual character again it's you know it's always going to be a Nar narrow building because it's a narrow lot um but the we have reduced the height and so if you think about scale sighting in Mass what we've done is we've done what we can to reduce the mass while still providing suitable living accommodations uh for David and Laura who who want to live there a significant portion of the time so I think that uh attorney Riley that those five are the ones that I think are important for this one um if you're willing to um foro the rest I think we'd be comfortable with that we've seen this property numerous times so um that's fine yeah oh great great anything else I can talk longer if you want no it's okay all right is there anybody here in Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application please please indicate seeing none I have five letters to read starting with Judith Georgio our health agent writes to us on 820 2024 she reviewed the proposed plan for the property she was not provided with floor plans um of the existing dwelling however the proposed dwelling appears to maintain a two-bedroom layout the badier with open stairway is not considered a bedroom the property is connected to the the municipal sewer and any additional flow will require Water and Sewer approval um then we have a note from Christina Basset the the um CHC heard this application on May 23rd um actually may of 2023 and found the home not to be historically significant and did not oo impose a demolition delay and that came to us on Thursday August 1st now I have a lengthy letter from Michelle foron scoffield received on August 22 2024 she's writing as the Northerly neighbor of tosy and Chu and the owner of 94 year-old for John family home at 50 Homestead she's pre she has previously stated that we should all be neighborly and they believe that they have a right to make change changes or improvements to property if we adhere to the stat statutes in in place um that are designed to preserve more than just Harmony within our town my concerns remain steadfast regarding the Hedge planted to my family in the late 1930s and 40s as previously submitted opinions and two chatam professionally professionals business owners Thad Eldridge professional land surveyor and Tim Kent arborus support the view that my neighbor's plans will detrimentally affect these Hedges I also remain concerned about the extremely small lot size of 52 um The Ridge and elevation height square footage the number of floors and neighbor of the neighboring home should not be used to justify my neighbor's request because their lot size is so much smaller than other immediate in in the immediate area other neighbors have bigger homes and have made reasonable quests without opposition because they have bigger lots to balance out that change my position is that allowing that tall of a dwelling on an extremely small and already non-conforming lot will change the Aesthetics of the neighborhood and not fit with the desired look and feel of Homestead Lane quite frankly I fear it could also potentially lead to the southern neighbors planting of new or growing existing Hedges or even higher Hedges to address their valid concerns of privacy and noise and that would create further unfriendly dividers in our little neighborhood nook if these things happen my family will be left with a souly view of a tall Shadow producing home home squeezed in a tiny lot only several feet away from our shared property line and walls of towering Hedges by the abuts again I appreciate the desire to regain a view of Little Mill Pond we sadly lost our French porch years ago but I think the president anyone wants to set for a very small lot in this charming area of chadam with the non-conforming property setbacks is to keep the building keep building higher again it's the tiny lot size and nonconforming property setbacks for 52 that make the elevation increase and proposed square footage unreasonable again there is a unique charm and character that I cherish on our lane and I hope it is fiercely protected by not setting the wrong precedent and allowing requests for excessive non-conformity I will continue to trust this board's decision as the fair and adjudicating body for what it has allowed in chatam and specifically on our beloved Homestead Lane thank you Michelle forer on scoffield next I have a letter on from Christina stamulis she's the property owner located at 77 mil pond in a buted to property at 52 Homestead and um she says I will be unable to attend the hearing on August 22 but I'm writing to express my continued concerns and opposition to the revised plans in the application for a new dwelling submitted by David and Laura tosy owners of the non-conforming lot and dwelling at 5 to uh Homestead Lane I have carefully reviewed the revised proposal including elevations and plans submitted and I will continue to be very concerned about the adverse impact of the new dwelling that it would have on my property already limited privacy and the character of the street in the neighborhood the revised proposal continues to not address the concerns raised August 10th 2023 and January 11th 2024 meetings specifically the proposed the pro proposal to build 19 1972 ft dwelling with a building coverage of 9918 square ft in place of the current 704 single story house continues to be excessive under the revised proposal the building coverage will be more than 60% over the max allowed and other non-conformities will be further increased as a result I continue to be concerned that the dispo the disproportional large dwelling built on this very small narrow lot will be squeezed in between the adjacent properties and make the street look tightly packed with dwellings and adversely impact the neighborhood look and character the revised proposal yet again includes a second floor deck and large windows that would adversely affect uh my and surrounding properties already minimal privacy it will provide a direct view into my property including my bedrooms bathrooms and shower the effect that the proposed dwelling will be located 4.3 ft from the southernly border where a 15t setback is required further increase is my concern in addition the property property's badier floor with large windows and a deck facing the Southern Southern side would further provide a direct and even more intrusive view into my property given the height we would not even be able to maintain tall enough Hedges to preserve our privacy the proposed second floor deck would create another source of noise at a higher level in an area where Acoustics are so poor that one can hear every sound coming from the interior of neighbors neighboring houses let alone outdoor spaces I revised propos the revised proposal continues not to address those concerns that I have and a Butters have and I continue to be uh strongly opposed next we have a note from Christian and Aon triber from they live in Dallas Texas and also 76 milpond Road in chatam they write on August 12th 2024 um they're writing on behalf of their neighbors at 52 Homestead hoping to improve their property and um they've been fortunate to know the homeowners and they've been spending summers in that area for 20 years um and they purchased in 2014 they were welcomed by the um homeowners uh Laura and David and have been enjoying the mil Pond since the 1980s the property was perfect for them as the wars and Little Pond are close proximity to the the town landing when in chadam uh Lauren and David spend every minute possible on their boat enjoying the water we have several conversations with them over the years about their plans they wanted to build a home to allow their children and families to visit but they recognize the neighborhood concerns um and have reduced their plan to four rooms plus a small beler to allow a view of the mil pond in the past their homes had a view of mil Pond um so the view was unobstructed I believe they have cut their PL severely so that the lot coverage will only be a little bit more than it is than the current they have even taken steps about the height of the home and we hope the zba will approve and allow them to improve their property and use for their use to further beautify the neighborhood we build our home and we agreed to keep the Hedge at a low height so neighbors behind us could also enjoy the view it would be wonderful if the neighbors would also offer the same view to Lara and David by cutting their Hedges currently well over 10 ft to an acceptable height we all brought bought in this area knowing that the properties are close together it's part of the appeal of the neighborhood therefore David and LA's PL should only help to improve the area that we are excited for and we excited for their completion that concludes the correspondence is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak against this application that hasn't written already um or has a question seeing none questions from the board Madam chair oh yes sir rebuttal very briefly sorry yes no my my bad y oh sorry sorry so the only comment I would make about Mr tulus is that her house as measured by Mr Clark is 47 feet from our house I mean me the sideline setbacks is pointed out by Mr vich in the last meeting you know in this zone is 15 ft so knows the town under its zoning bylaw assumes that houses that are only 30 feet apart have sufficient space here we have almost 50 feet between the two houses so uh we think that the changes that have been made uh and the distance between these two houses and the height of the hedges there behind Mr mullis's house uh mean that what we're proposing is reasonable and will not intrude any more on her property than the previous structure with regard to miss forgeron if you look on our site plan you can see that because we've moved the house back uh that if Miss Forge was standing on her front por porch she would have a clear view uh down Homestead Lane to the mil Pond and the the uh as we said in the past you know we've assured her or tried to uh that we're going to protect the hedges during the construction assuming this is approved and so uh we think again this is a reasonable use in this neighborhood thank you thank you um okay questions Jenny Fen I have no questions Steve we're just G to go right around all right I have um couple of questions I guess um if you if we go to page your microphone your microphone thank you sorry I have a couple of questions if you go to page a1.1 on the bottom of that page it's shows the belad badier floor plan with a deck and that deck seems to be flush with the sidew wall of the house yes then if you go to the next page uh a2.0 it has the South elevation Southeast elevation which is the front of the house but it doesn't show that deck or even the railing and I would think I would think that you would see at least the railing um I'm I'm I'm guessing that that deck is sort of um um in in that roof line somehow it's recessed into the roof line so that the ra you would see at least the railing in that left picture for where the deck is you would see approximately um a foot of that railing I apologize corre okay and then also on that same page on the on the picture on the on the drawing on the right it seems that the deck is protruding past the sideline of the house no that's trim it is not okay okay then that's it I just wanted to uh just to verify thank you okay Lee questions um one quick question on a 1.0 I see the um the outline of the house but then up to the left it looks like walls and maybe it's just maybe it is walls is is that like a little Terrace it is um it's hatched because it is um landscape walls um and it's actually it's lower down um because when you come into the house you go down a little bit so to come out of that bedroom onto a Terrace it's sunken so it has landscape retaining walls around it and that's what that okay okay yeah one of the things we you know that you should be aware of is that after the last meeting they actually U sunk the foundation another foot deeper so that when you when you step into the house you step down to the first floor yeah I see that okay I see that thank you all right Paul questions I have no questions David Nixon no questions questions uh no questions and David V I have a few um so um did you um I've been looking at this quite a bit today in a few days previous and in previous meetings and things um and uh did you I'm just wonder did you consider a um a rendering or a model or something uh because this is an instance where I think it could be helpful to us and I don't know if you considered it or not I'm just throwing that up out there um well no but I think the the Shaded version that Les just I and I that's that's a help that's helpful I um well let me let's see if we can confirm a few things because I I went back out there to um do as I sometimes do in trying to in visualizing basically in trying to take this thing off of the page and visualize it in relationship to the building that's there and um and what I came away with was that it actually uh in trying to do that to me visually it it actually when I try to do that it looks lower than it does on the paper so just to say that so what I did was I I I Su basically super imposed on your drawings the line of the existing Ridge of the house and the line of the eaves of the existing house and what that looks like to me just confirm whether this is true so the existing Ridge is at elevation 33.1 and to me that when I put put that onto your drawing it shows that that Ridge line basically crosses it it runs just about under the eaves of the Dormer on the second floor um I I agree with what you found okay so then the the the eaves the of the the current Eve um Eaves of the building um more or less correspond fairly close to the um second floor level um so that would go across um you know a little bit above those lower the lower Bank of Windows between there and the um the second floor Bank of Windows that's that's the existing um um Eve line of the existing building um I was going to ask Jay but he's not here um it it occurs to me uh that um looking at some of the different iterations here and and the last time was when you went into this into the idea of the badier yes um and you sunk the um basement further down so that based on the bylaw saying that you can have um you know two finish floor two and a half finished floors and not both finished basement and finish two and a half story Jay last time said his his interpretation we we hadn't encountered the term beler but he said he considered it to be a half story correct you know the two half story so would you agree it sounds to me like you're essentially saying that some of the past plans showed a finished basement or future finish basement and two floors above correct but by going to this plan you instead of being able to finish uh the almost the entire floor area of a basement you are saying we're we're we're proposing to have a finished 160 some square feet half story on the top you're exactly right which is part of where I wasn't putting it into the gross Square gross footage okay so some of the other plants actually come to us with more more floor area well I know because the building was longer so you reduced the length of it as well um and then uh so that was a that and so I just want to clarify that because the first time I'd seen it in that manner and then so the other thing that I'm just wondering and and thank you for giving us the information on ceiling Heights and things um I I guess I'm curious you still you have nine foot ceiling on the first floor and I I was surprised to go to the floor plans and see that that's the bedrooms and things like that and and you've you've kept kept it at 76 or 74 and and a half and on the on the the main floor if you will um I mean I'm sure that's a choice that was decided by you and the the owners I'm just curious as to how uh that that strikes me as being a little unusual so we we sunk the first floor because the priority certainly was to make sure there was a lot of light coming in with a lot of height um on the second floor um it's part of the kitchen we did sacrifice going lower to make sure we could have that badier and then the on either side of that we have some Cathedral have Cathedral so that's what it was the last time as well exactly um okay and so Bill you you quoted that you know there was 47 ft to the the house at 70 is it 70 whatever on on milpond Lane 60 ft to 44 yeah did you happen to um shoot The Ridges of any of the surrounding buildings to be able to compare to what we've what you're proposing we we actually we did at the very first hearing and I'm afraid I didn't bring it back David did bring Ridges of um adjacent if I'm sure the paperwork on the original has it but I'm sorry that I don't right now okay um well I would just be I mean I I am coming at from this saying you know it actually is um surprising to me that that it really doesn't seem to project up as much as it might appear on this page uh all right um I think that's all I have for now thanks okay Dave Nixon Do we have any questions you no no questions okay questions you did everybody do questions all right I lost uh track tell yourself um I have a question so have you thought about uh eliminating that beler top and then you'd have a very nice house on a small lot and you know maybe your neighbors would be happier because it wouldn't be so tall if you thought about it um candidly not really no cuz when you see wait the whole purpose of this this is Laura and has lived here with her family for over 40 years uh over the years because their neighbors have allowed the hedges to grow up they've lost you know their view of the mil Pond which used to be yeah very clear so they put the pelv Europe so that they can go up to that level and look out over the tops of their neighbors and see the Mill Pond so they could also walk down there but yeah there's that um I don't mean to be I'm not trying to be a jokar but um I'm just asking if you considered that I'm not saying that I would vote against it with it but when you put your finger on it and take it away it looks like a nice house on a tiny little lot you have to admit that sorry I don't like the the look of the veter um the original plan the plans that have come before you before was bringing the entire second floor up to that height that you would see the view in an Ideal World when we started you know we the idea was to be able to sit in the living room and have a view out AC between the neighbor's house up to actually big Mill Pond that had been in the past um that's where I say we've made a lot of concessions and we've looked at a lot of design changes to still achieve what we're looking for um instead in a in a out of the way room that can spend the day so it's very important for you to very important yeah I got that okay I'm just asking there questions now all right so Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations dve seconds and whates yes yes yes yes and I vote Yes too okay uh deliberations Paul well you've uh you've certainly made an awful lot of effort in this on this uh lot and uh a lot of different designs um and I realize that there's a lot of history for uh your clients with respect to this property um I am having difficulty with uh what is really uh criteria five which is the impact of scale sighting and Mass on the neighborhood visual character including views Vistas and streetscapes it seems to me that with the addition of the belvadere area uh um it just becomes too big um a building for the location uh and it the impact of that on the overall visual character of the neighborhood will be significant um so uh I sympathize with what you're trying to do but I'm just not sure that you're able to accomplish the overall uh goals that you have um with this lot uh without having a house that just does not necessarily accomplish the goals that you want so um I think consistent with our ordinance um I would have to say that the design um is substantially detrimental to the neighborhood okay Dave Nixon yeah I feel quite different than Paul um to me after four five six times whatever this has been it's finally come to a point where everything that you folks could possibly do to make this more palatable to the neighborhood you've done and I actually like the B deer and that's the only time you'll ever hear that out out of these lips I guarantee you in fact uh I didn't I had even heard the word before well in the sense of construction okay uh but what you've done is you made the house SM you've reduced everything possible and I can understand why they want something to give them a view of the pond and this is minor to me and I don't think it impacts the neighborhood the way others do because frankly when you drive down Homestead you're looking here you're looking there you're not looking at the side of this house you're not you're looking straight on and then oh look at that house look at that house oh there's the mil pond so I don't see that it would affect the neighborhood from a sight standpoint I I think you and Mr rally and your clients you've you've knocked your head against the wall long enough really long enough and I will be happy to support this all right dve gee it's a good thing they changed the name from kopa to I couldn't have said that if it said kopa well I I um I very much agree with Dave on this one um I don't know if this is appropriate or not but I I just just this afternoon and and I I didn't make enough copies but I did this little halfway kind of thing of trying to illustrate I I had a photograph that I take in the house and it just happened to be that the photograph was was just about the E inch scale as the drawings we had so you know if you just I'll share one with that I've got one here and just pass that pass that around to just because because I think again I I the what I said earlier about the impact of the of the of the appearance of this relative to the building that's there is not as it's not as it doesn't appear as tall and out of place as it seems ju when I'm just looking at the elevations you know just sort of the tyranny of an elevation and particularly just in this Photograph show shows a corner of the the um foron house which I don't think as much the the eve of that house is probably right up near where this one is going to be so I I had very much been concerned about the scale sighting Mass uh with respect to Neighborhood visual character but I'm I'm not concerned with that now I I mean I this is not the greatest uh um um I don't know if I did my other one but um representation but it gives me an idea and and I do think that had um we had we been provided with a model uh that I think it could well have shown that in the context that that what they've done they've done enough and I agree with Dave um they've been through a lot um and I think that the um as I pointed out earlier that making the choice to essentially sacrifice the an entire level or almost an entire level of to that the they could in other former plans showed as as finished space in order to create and have the badier up there I don't feel I I I I think they've given up quite a bit and I think that the having it up there is something that they'll use from time to time um to get some of their view back you know it's interesting also I said you know down on milpond road and stopped and I've taken any number of photos of this and especially this time of year and the the you know the downstream Hedges are are very significant on the neighbors properties there and um and you can't if you stand on on on milpond Lane well and look up to their house and you can't see any of the existing house that's up there you can see the chimney of the foron house uphill from it but that to me and then when I put that relationship to the new building to that existing thing this is not going to stand out from almost any perspective Maybe to some degree from the forge runs and it's going to have another floor on it but we've we've said all along we're we we're we don't want to be saying them you can't have another floor on your house so I I think they' they've done more than enough and um if they're going to be happy with this uh I I I fully supported I think that they've done what they need to do and it's certainly not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood at all not at all uh than okay Ed I agree uh with with the both Daves that um uh the applicants have have done a number of changes have tried to uh make this as palatable as possible to to the neighborhood I think they've done a good job um I don't think it's going to be substantially detrimental to the neighborhood I think it'll be a nice addition and um if I were voting I would support it very good uh lee okay first of all I love this this is great really over meeting I mean I I mean I I was looking at it and I'm going geez no no was this was helpful to me um so originally I was concerned with um criteria number one regarding the size of the um site when it came to the building height I was like it's just too small of a lot to have a building that high I think what you've done um with reducing the majority of the house the height um has been helpful um I also think that if you look at it in context and this is another way that this picture really helps me is that there's some very mature trees I and I think that helps um so I'm as I said not voting today but I would support this and I appreciate um everything you guys have done and how much you've listened and try to um you know listen to our concerns thank you okay Steve somebody's ringing you know I don't like that let me um well certainly there's there's been I know this is third or fourth time this has been around you certainly worked very diligently to make some concessions to to try to appease the neighbor so um we were trying to appease the board members well and okay um so you know it looks like you put a lot of effort into trying to um to make something harmonious over there uh and and the the thing that Dave provide Dave V provided is very helpful it it it sort of looks like this house is set back further than than the neighbor so it may not impede their view of the pond um maybe if these other Hedges were trimmed down a little bit might make it a little bit easier but um I I think it's a good project this is a very difficult um lot and I think you've worked um diligently to to try to to uh to make a nice house fit uh where it's difficult to fit so um I would probably support this as it was and Jenny I agree with you Mr Riley and Leslie did a nice job summarizing um listing it here and enumerating it um articulating it so I I think you have addressed the the concerns that we brought up last time um and a couple times but it's particularly last time you know one of the comments I made about the lot I did make that um it was not suggesting that they move I think I said it was a great neighborhood I wouldn't want to move either and I said you know really the only thing you can do is go up and no one was saying we you know that you can't go up so that's what you've done you've gone up you've actually gone down you've dug down you've made significant meaningful improvements setbacks you you've um met of the all the existing neighbor setbacks that was a concern with such a tight constrained lot coverage um reduced significantly your ask from previous times your height has come way down um and I wanted to just say we appreciate all the perseverance that you've had and your applicants and i would support it all right I'm inclined to support it I hope that they go ahead and build a house cuz I really do cuz it's I do as well yeah yeah you think they will I believe they will all right you're on record now yeah so I'll support it all right Paul um I'll move to approve the application as submitted um with our standard conditions that all construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner that between June 30th uh and Labor Day no exterior construction will be allowed no work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8 AM and 5:00 P PM only Dave V seconds and votes yes nion I vote Yes Jenny I vote Yes I I'll vote no and I'll vote Yes and uh you very much thank you very much don't come back now you here y Jamie that's a junk pile yes and I bring you the next episode of the bill and Bill show all right all right take now sign yes will oh you have to sign it yeah you go okay sure good that's an easy one do have k i Am all right okay so the next application is um let's see 24- 089 49 Shirley Drive and we uh we'll go to that When Sarah's ready you I will yes so one of our voters has to leave so now it's going to be Ed act and voting on this one application number 24- 089 Christopher Goram and Elizabeth H Goram car William G Lichfield Esquire 330 Orleans Road North chadam Mass 02650 owners of property located at 49 Shirley Drive also shown on the town of chadam assessor map 1B block 11 lot N15 the applicant seeks to enlarge extend or change a non-conforming dwelling and a non-conforming lot via the construction of additions the existing dwelling is non-conforming and that it is located 14.9 ft from the East eia butter where a 15t setback is required the proposed additions will comply with all bul and dimensional requirements of the bylaw but is considered substantial alteration and under the second accept Clause of section six of Mass General Law chapter 48 such substantial alteration requires the grant of special permit the existing building coverage is 13 ft 7.9% and the proposed building coverage is 1,540 Ft 12% where 15% is the maximum allowed the lot is non-conforming and that it contains 13,492 th000 ft is required in the R20 zoning District a special permit is required under master General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw welcome back attorney Lichfield thank you madam chair members of the board Bill Lichfield here in behalf of Christ Christopher and Elizabeth Hayes Goram who were behind Karen Kempton uh they owned this house since 2001 they would like to make some changes in anticip ipation of uh retirement they didn't know when this hearing began how much closer they would be to retirement at its conclusion uh but that is why we are here you've seen the plans you've been out there and unless you'd like me to do otherwise I go directly into the criteria that' be great and you can limit to the ones that are really applicable as the adequacy of site we currently have a typical lot 7.9% coverage which is the lowest in the neighborhood you can approve the special permit based on the site being adequate for the additions at the rear and at the side allowing for more useful kitchen and a larger first floor bedroom all of which meet all setback requirements and were well below the maximum coverage as to compatibility of size on the third page you have what's going on in the neighborhood we have a small footprint at 1,000 square ft uh and even with the basement and the screen porch a low gross floor area completely compar comptible you can improve the special permit based on the finding that will remain so the expansion of the kitchen is at the rear and the mudroom ENT entryway while increasing the size are reasonable the house remains modest and compatible meets all dimensional requirements as the extent of increase in non-conformity there's none the site is suitable there are no Wetlands or environmental issues as the scale sighting Mass views and Vistas the scale of what is there now is appropriate excuse me as it has been since it was built in 1955 is typical of the neighborhood it's without impact in views and vistors and the special permit can be granted on the finding that pardon me it's an appropriate and simple design I'm sorry which mirrors the existing house and is without impact on streetcape the closest neighbor including the one on whose side the mud room uh will be built as well as others have been consulted and endorsed the plan uh the only comment I would make beyond that is the health agent wrote a suggestion uh that we have either a deed restriction or a casement opening in the uh mudro the goums have no desire to sleep in the basement uh so we will probably nor do they have any desire for a fourth bedroom so if the health agent requires it we will certainly execute a deed restriction so the issue as you know is whether constructing a new first floor master bedroom and an expanded kitchen completely compliant as to all bylaw requirements is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood as expanded it will well be well below allowable coverage minimal impact on streetcape and the house will remain compatible so I think you can find the pros additions meeting all zoning requirements are not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood I could go on for 10 minutes but I know you don't want me to thank you thank you is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application seeing none I will read the correspondences and there are five first we have a note from our Health agent dated 8 20 2024 she reviewed the plan to renovate and add an addition to the property it has three bedrooms in the proposed Edition um must maintain a three-bedroom layout the mudroom entry um will not be approved as a bedroom a deed restricted restricting the property three bedrooms may be required other the space can be revised to include a case opening to into the full basement a new addition will not encro on the septic then we have note from maren Donahue or Gemma um and she lives uh at 48 shirle Drive she WR writes to support the App application for a special permit um and the petition hearing will be held today and we have owned Residence at 48 uh since 1972 we have no objections that was received today and then we have um James Horn and Barbara Carrol residing at 37 um surely and they are in complete support of the construction and we received that on August 19th and then we have um a note from Bob kellerer received August 14 2024 good afternoon Elizabeth gorm has shared the the plans for the building plan next to our property and shiler and I have no objection at all to what they propose thank you and there is from Bob kellerer at 30 59 chirley drive and lastly we have a note from David and Kathleen steel 38 Shirley Drive we are fully in support of the application made by Christopher and Elizabeth G Goram and that was received on August 3rd 2024 that's that anybody here or Microsoft teams wish to speak against this application or has a question seeing none questions from the board are there any anybody go ahead Steve I just have sort of an that's not a question but it's more of an observ it's more of an observation than a question um if you look at page one of the [Music] existing um the screen porch appears to be on the left side of the house or the west elevation if you go to the first page of the proposed it suddenly moved to the east side um so I think the notations are incorrect that's all the screen porch is indeed on the east side the site plan is sort of say it's upside down but uh let me which page was that uh I think it's the first page of the existing and the first page of the proposed uh existing floor plan is correct and that it shows the screen porch on the left at least on what I have yeah and proposed uh I think the notations are just backwards between the east and west side oh I see what you mean that is the case I noticed it as well yeah so I don't know if you want to make that no I see what you're saying we we know where the screen porch is it's not it hasn't moved right okay um Paul questions I'll I have no questions does anybody else have any questions just want to make sure Jenny go right ahead so this is not this is really just my own learning uh and maybe this is Ed or Dave V would know this so the height calculations on the site plan um typically we I thought we looked at proposed Ridge minus average grade and this is uh I mean height is not an issue that's I'm just bringing this up for clarification this one is height calculations are saying using the terms maximum Ridge elevation less top of foundation is there a difference Foundation yeah okay so is it is it typical to not have like our standard uh just I I think what what happens is sometimes you have different Engineers do do things different I'm sorry no good now this was done by Moran engineering rather than Mr Clark uh and I think it may be just a stylistic issue the height the height of the ridge is not increasing obviously and the the uh mudroom is down a level y okay thank you any other questions no Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into the deliberations Dave be seconds and votes yes Ed uh seconds and votes yes or vote vote Yes J yes yes yes well yes and I vote Yes as well okay deliberations Jenny um yeah I think that the um there are nice improvements to all four sides of the home um I'm happy to see that uh well I I'm understand that they want to increase their space for retirement I think that's great um appears to me that the proposed changes are thoughtful very practical and um I would support the project and Steve we'll just go right around okay no I think it's a nice project you know uh most of the work seems to be uh towards the rear of the house on the side has no impact um I agree with um my colleagues I think it's a great project it's modest um expansion but I think it's going to make a big difference okay Paul yes clearly not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood Ed I agree and I agree with all previous as do I okay Paul I'll move to approve the application as submitted uh Bill do you anticipate acceptable I spoke with the GMS uh on the condition that all construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neighboring property with a permission of the property owner between June 30th and Labor Day no exterior construction will be allowed no work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8:00 a and 5:00 p.m only dve seconds and votes yes head acon votes yes and Jenny I vote Yes all V all votes yes and it's unanimous thank thank you very much all right have a nice night last but not least 24-9 we have 26 cranberry Lane that's attorney Riley once again application number 24-9 and poo mccredy Trust car William F Riley Esquire PO Box 707 chadam Mass 02633 owner of property located at 26 cranberry Lane also shown in the town of chadam assessor map 15j block 26 lot 17 the applicant proposes to change alter or expand a non-conforming dwelling and a non-conforming lot via the construction of an addition and the installation of an exterior mechanical system Appliance the existing dwelling is non-conforming and that is located 7.9 ft from the Easter leab butter 22.1 ft from the Wester leab butter and 5 ft from the southern Le butter where a 25t setback is required the existing exterior mechanical system appliances are non-conforming and that they are located 1.7 ft from the Souther leab butter the proposed addition will comply with all dimensional requirements of the bylaw the proposed exterior mechanical system Appliance generator will be non-conforming and that it'll be located 9.1 ft from the southern of butter where a 25 ft setback is required the existing building coverage is 1,193 ft 11.1% and the proposed building coverage is 1,68 sare Ft 15% or 15% is the maximum allowed the lot is non-conforming in that it has zero feet of feet of Frontage where 150 ft is required and contains 10,700 ft where 40,000 ft as required Reed in the R40 zoning District a special permit is required under Mass General Law chapter 48 section 6 and section 5B of the protective bylaw welcome uh thank you and uh as the final version of the bill and Bill show um one thing I would like to correct we're not asking for 15% loot coverage or way down to 14.97% just so you know and the because of that um I had a conversation with and mccre who's sitting here and Scott her husband uh to explain to them that if you go over you can't come back here to get it fixed explain the whole you know the reason why that that's the case um and so so you know the plan at this point is that working with clock engineering and the contractor they'll make sure that nothing is built that exceeds that number so uh want to get that clear right away uh this is an addition basically 20 by 26 uh that gives the mrees a nice family room uh want to show the floor plan Yeah so basically it's um they have the family room here with plenty of room to mix and mingle so the design is by Karen so I'm going to ask Karen to uh explain the process she went through with with the mcrees and how they came up with this design uh Karen Kempton architect for Ann and Scott mccre uh when I first met with Ann and Scott they had four goals for this property um if we can bring up A6 which is the existing first floor plan they wanted a larger family room as Bill said uh they wanted to open up the kitchen and provide a mudroom laundry room area on the first floor um as you can see on the right hand side that's the existing first floor uh the kitchen is constrained uh in a u shape and the what is called the den area is 13 ft uh wide which is basically their living room uh right now uh the addition uh in addition the windows in this uh Den or living room space are 6 feet away from their neighbor's house so although they do like their neighbors very much they want a larger family room located on the north side of the house to enjoy views to their backyard uh originally we had looked at having the second floor Studio space above this room but we decided um that uh we decided that uh this space would be better as a one-story addition to the already twostory existing house so if we can bring up the photograph of the front of the existing house we took the reference of the existing Side Porch where you can see that hip roof wrapping around and utilize that on our new front elevation if you go down to a three there you go um this uh side porch roof line um utilized in the new design as a wraparound porch look uh houses the new laundry room and the mud room area as much as they love the existing covered porch they're willing to give this up to obtain a larger more open family room however we have saved an element of the existing side porch as a covered porch um 6x6 area to come into the to the side we have also placed a Pergola and a deck on this side to reference the original outside living space if we go to the first floor plan the kitchen remains in the same location but is now open to the family room and has an island for seating the laundry has been moved from the basement and is located uh in the mudroom on the first floor the mcraes this summer adopted a huge dog which is a leon burger I don't know if you saw him out there he's a puppy right now and he's already at 150 lbs um so that made the need for a side mudroom entry uh that much more important for them finally we wanted to create a more welcoming front door um than what exists there so we have removed the bulkhead which is on the front and relocated the outdoor shower and created a small overhang with brackets over the existing front door to make it more welcoming as to the building coverage although we show the maximum loud at 15% in reality by how the addition will be built um when I I spoke with Clark back and forth uh it appeared that the new addition was going to be built next to the existing wall rather than incorporated into the existing wall so that again saved us some square footage from what was proposed but again I'm asking for the 15% or what bill has said 14.97 even though in reality I am still 17 Square fet less than that again I wanted a buffer for ourselves for con during construction um we think this is an attractive addition to the house uh minimal in mass and scale given the mccr uh some much needed additional living room living space thank you uh good afternoon so I'll just to run through the criteria quickly so adequacy of the size of the site in terms of the size of the proposed project so uh we're only increasing uh we're only adding 520 square feet of living space with this addition and the as uh what was your name again as Karen explained you know this is just gives them enough room uh so they can uh have space to mix and mingle with friends and family the uh so uh we meet the setback on the easterly side and the the house is only seven F feet from the property line on on the westly side the addition is 13 ft from the from the sideline so we're doing our best to to meet the sideline requirements compatibility of the size of proposed struct with neighboring properties again we have a third page that shows the houses in the immediate vicinity the uh which I think shows that we are compatible um the increase in non-conformity again is increase in living space uh and the new addition does not meet the easly setback uh suitability of the site again this is a fairly level area there is a wetland at the North End of the property but it's it's U almost 100 feet away we don't believe that any uh runoff here is going to create a problem the uh do we have drywalls do we have drywalls with this so some water that lands on the roof is going to go into drywalls so we we think that you know uh so we think the site is suitable no concern about runoff the impact of scale sighting of Mass on NE with visual characters basically you really can't see the building from a street um the closest neighbor which is the property to the South where the house is only six feet away from this house I mean if if you went to the backside of mcrees you can see that the stake marking the property line is about 5 Ines from the back wall of of their neighbor's house thankfully they get along well with that neighbor so the uh uh but we're not having any impact on the neb visual character uh certainly there are no views of visors in this location and and you can't see the house from the street so we believe that uh there's nothing about this proposal that is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing structure and if you want I'll stop there that that would be fine thank you is there anybody here r on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak in favor of this application seeing none I will read the correspondences there are three first as usual Judith Georgio our health agent writes on 820 2024 she reviewed the plan to renovate and add an addition to the property the proposal will not add septic flow no it will encroach on the existing septic system she has no concerns about the project next we have a note from Terry perar and Christine Burns um they are abs and they they're the property they're the property to the South they actually front on scattery that's right and they say that they wholeheartedly support the a forementioned application submitted to zoning Anis guard have been the neighbor for almost 9 years we appear in the application as Abdus to the South there has never been an issue relative to the location of the existing dwelling in our property on the contrary they go out of their way to ensure that proximity doesn't ever become an issue we support any recommendation the architect contractor should make in the placement of any Mechanicals relative to its proximity to our property if we were to describe and Define the perfect neighbors the an sc would bit that definition uh we again support the application and hope that their submission is viewed positively and Grant your by your approval next we have a note from Richard Wier and pamer looks like Wier it's handwritten so um they say that the neighbors within the closest they are the neighbors within the closest proximity to the proposed addition uh they feel that it would have a minimal to zero impact on them and they fully support the application they've been kind neighbors gracious neighbors um and even and waven even stated that they'll restrict construction to from 8 to 5:00 pm. Monday through Friday the proposal is appropriate for the neighborhood that concludes the up the uh correspondences is there anybody here on Microsoft teams that wishes to speak against or has a question about this application seeing none are there any questions from the board anybody at all don't be shy okay yeah but don't talk too long Jenny go right ahead yeah I I um just have a would there be openness to moving the generator or could it be moved to the back instead of well the proposed the um it could be I I discussed this with an this afternoon the puras who are The Neighbors you know have no objection to the location you we already have the AC units back there uh and it's one of those things that other than you know sort of the automatic trial that those things have um if they actually need it the pur BOS are going to love to hear the sound so they can come over and have lights and be warm so we we prefer to leave it as it is just asking because you know the uh extent of the addition would create an opportunity to make a change like that so well see the problem is you know the the uh I mean it's an R40 Zone you have to be set back 25 ft so there really you know unless they put it on the the middle of their yard there's no way around the house that would satisfy it let's see what David Clark ask David Clark for the record um I understand the concern but the neighbors's garage is is almost entirely um the mcgr southernly property line so you have the buffer of the the neighbor's garage that separates any noise from the neighbor's house so I I I can't see it being an issue did did he say that there on their property line they're are you saying that the their neighbor is actually on their property did I hear you right poter there no yes um we get this so that's the corner of the neighbor's garage yep and the garage extends all the way to here and then goes so the gar the neighbor's garage is right there so it acts as a solid fence better than a fence for noise uh and they already have some some um pieces over there as well so otherwise it'd be all over the place the Mechanicals yeah the mechanical that's what I meant to say getting tired all right oh hold on one second so Dave you're also saying though the garage is right on the line so really they the that neighbor hasn't has no setback that they allowed right so it's right on the line that garage has been there for yeah a long but essentially there's no set back part really because the neighbor has their garage there not because and and the noise is going to be is probably going to be directed back to the mcgrey that's a good point thank you all right if there's any other questions please no okay Paul I'll move to close the hearing and move into deliberations Dave V seconds and votes yes Ed Acton votes yes and Jenny yes all votes yes as do I okay deliberations uh Dave V uh nice project certainly not substantially more detrimental in the neighborhood uh and uh meets all of our criteria I'll support it very gooded um I have to I have to say I'm with jinny on the generator um whether the neighbors have a problem with it or not is really not the issue the issue is it's a violation of our zoning bylaws it's not a violation we already have an existing non-conformity with Mechanicals in that area but you're adding a non-con you're adding a mechanical IAL to it you're adding something so um but it's not a that's that's my issue it there's certainly room to put it other places on the lot to your lot extends beyond the addition 76 feet so we can put it out in the middle of the yard that sounds like a great idea Ed all right let's try to go easy on that kind of this they're drinking My Kool-Aid about what the neighbors say isn't you know the end of the day here um but um let's see what else Jenny liberations yes um yeah no I did have a concern about that and but I I I feel like Dave and and Mr Riley helped to explain why it's I mean could they move it yeah but then wouldn't they be required to move it uh I mean they have room in the back but they'd have to meet the set the new setback so that would be the the goal so uh I don't know I I'm I'm getting more comfortable with it okay uh Steve deliberations only 61 feet wide um I think it's a nice project I think the the addition uh Blends into the house nicely it kind of looks like it's been a part of it for a long time um as far as the generator is concerned I I'm not really concerned about it there's there's air conditioning units there already that that run uh longer uh periods of time than the generator probably would so um I I I don't see a problem with it and the and the garage is right there to block any kind of noise that might go to the neighbor so I I don't have a problem with that I think it's a nice project yep and Lee uh I agree I think it's a great project it's um once again a really nice design um fits in perfectly with um the ex ing house and um I think it's great meet secretary and Paul um I agree with my colleague's uh explanation it seems to me it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and I like the idea of keeping the Mechanicals together so um despite whatever the neighbors say I still like that idea so um I'm going to support it and uh what are we going to do about the summer conditions I would assume you want your standard conditions on this uh well it's almost September anyway so sure all right I'll move I'll move to approve the application as submitted with the conditions that all construction activity and vehicles shall be contained on site or at a neighboring property with the permission of the property owner that between June 30th and Labor Day no exterior construction will be allowed no work shall be permitted on the weekends and construction activity between 8:00 a and 5:00 P p.m. only uh Dave V seconds and votes yes and acting votes yes and Jenny yes all votes yes as do I it's unanimous again thank you very much thank you have a good night thank you thank you and a motion to adjourn I'll move to adjourn uh DAV seconds and vote Yes uh at Acton votes yes Jenny yes Steve Steve votes yes Lee yes all votes yes and as to why and what time is it 5:57 p.m. not bad good night Chad I said 6 o' for